Відбулась Фахова дискусія: Прихисток громадян України в країнах англо-американської правової системи
Матеріали заходів
30.01.2025

У фаховій дискусії на тему: «Прихисток громадян України в країнах англо-американської правової системи: лінгвістичні та правові аспекти» під час заходу з підвищення кваліфікації адвокатів, що відбувся у Вищій школі адвокатури НААУ брали участь:

  • Оксана Кіріяк – кандидат юридичних наук, доцент Чернівецький національний університет імені Юрія Федьковича;
  • Ірина Шапошнікова – адвокат, член Центру правничої лінгвістики та Центру трудового права та соціального забезпечення ВША НААУ;
  • Салатин Ходжалиєва – адвокат АО “Юридичне Бюро Сергєєвих”, член Центру правничої лінгвістики ВША НААУ;
  • Колодник Людмила – юрист, керівник Центру правничої лінгвістики Вищої школи адвокатури НААУ, викладач спеціалізованого курсу «Юридична англійська» — «Legal English» з особисто розробленими програмами навчання — Contract Law, Company Law, Legal Writing.

Лектори докладно проаналізували разом з учасниками лінгвістичні та правові аспекти прихистку громадян України в країнах англо-американської правої системи, а саме:

1. Burden of Proof in Asylum Cases: Linguistic Approach.

  • 1.1. Understanding the Burden of Proof in Asylum Cases– загальна характеристика.
  • 1.2. Exploring the Topic in Legalese – дослідження теми в контексті юридичної англійської мови.
  • 1.3. Сase study – аналіз судової практи у досліджуваній тематиці.
  • 1.4. Resources for Further Learning – корисні посилання.

2. Refugee vs Temporary Protected Status for Ukrainians: What You Need to Know.

  • 2.1.Вступ. Обговорення термінології за темою заходу: migrant, refugee, asylumseeker.
  • 2.2. Temporary Protected Status для громадян України у Великобританії та США: правові та лінгвістичні аспекти.
  • 2.3. Ukrainian refugees: термінологія та правові аспекти статусу.
  • 2.4. Приклади та практичні поради за темою заходу.

3. Unpacking the Supreme Court’s Rwanda decision.

  • 3.1. Коротка характеристика обставин справи.
  • 3.2. Чому Руанда не є безпечною третьою країною, в яку можуть бути направлені особи, які шукають притулку?
  • 3.3. Правові наслідки ухваленого рішення.

У рамках характеристики прихистку громадян України в країнах англо-американської правої системи акцентовано на наступному:

1. Burden of Proof in Asylum Cases: Linguistic Approach.

1.1.Understanding the Burden of Proof in Asylum Cases– загальна характеристика

“Asylum” derives from the Greek word asylon (ἄσυλον), stands for a “refuge” or “sanctuary“ and is formed from a- (meaning “without”) and sylon (meaning “right of seizure“ право на напад).

“Asylum” refers to the legal protection granted by a country to individuals who have fled their home country due to persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group, allowing them to remain in the host country and seek refuge.

Thus, asylon literally means “inviolable place” or a place where someone is safe from being seized.

1.2. Exploring the Topic in Legalese – дослідження теми в контексті юридичної англійської мови

The burden of proof is the obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to provide sufficient evidence to establish the truth of their claims or assertions .

It determines who must prove what, to what extent, and typically requires meeting specific standards of proof, such as «preponderance of evidence» in civil cases or «beyond a reasonable doubt» in criminal cases.

Claims vs. Assertions:

  • Claims – заява-вимога: are the overarching requests for asylum that must be substantiated by available evidence.
  • Assertions – твердження: are individual statements or allegations that may form part of the claim and are assessed for their credibility.

Both are integral to asylum proceedings and are subject to evaluation under the principles:

  1. of fairness and;

2. non-refoulement.

1.3. Сase study – аналіз судової практи у досліджуваній тематиці

The “Burden of Proof in Asylum Cases” refers to the obligation placed on the asylum seeker to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claim for protection, demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution or harm if returned to their home country.

However, the authorities are responsible for assisting the applicant in gathering relevant information and assessing the claim fairly.

Burden of Proof Challenges: Syrian Asylum Cases:

The evolving political landscape in Syria has influenced European countries’ asylum policies.

Following the fall of Bashar alAssad’s regime, several EU nations, including Austria, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, and Norway, have suspended asylum applications from Syrian migrants, citing the need to reassess the situation.

While these suspensions are in place, decisions to repatriate Syrians have not been finalized, as conditions for safe returns are not yet deemed to be met.

Four core steps in the burden of proof in asylum case proceedings:

  1. Establishing Credibility: The asylum seeker must demonstrate their credibility to support their claims of persecution or fear of harm;
  2. Presenting Evidence: The applicant must provide relevant evidence to substantiate their claims, which may include personal testimony, documents, or country condition reports;
  3. Shifting the Burden: Once the applicant establishes a prima facie case, the burden may shift to the government or opposing party to refute or challenge the claims;
  4. Decision-Making: The adjudicator evaluates the evidence presented by both parties, considering the credibility and relevance of the information before making a determination on the asylum claim.

One notable recent case regarding the burden of proof in asylum cases is “A v. Secretary of State for the Home Department” (2021) in the UK.

The result of the “A v. Secretary of State for the Home Department” case was that the UK Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the applicant, A, acknowledging the importance of considering the unique challenges faced by LGBTQ+ asylum seekers in the credibility assessment process. The court found that the Home Office’s initial rejection of A’s asylum claim had not adequately taken into account the specific circumstances surrounding their experiences and the societal context in their home country.

1.4. Resources for Further Learning – корисніпосилання

Key International Treaties:

  • UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status (1979, revised 2019) – https://www.unhcr.org/media/handbook-procedures-and-criteria-determining-refugee-status-under-1951-convention-and-1967
  • UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection – https://www.unhcr.org/publications/unhcr-guidelines-international-protection-consultation-process
  • UK: Immigration Rules and Refugee Status Determination.

These international treaties and national legal frameworks create a balance between the asylum seeker’s responsibility to provide evidence and the state’s duty to assess claims fairly, recognizing the unique challenges that refugees face in providing proof of their fear of persecution.

2. Refugee vs Temporary Protected Status for Ukrainians: What You Need to Know.

2.1.Вступ. Обговорення термінології за темою заходу: migrant, refugee, asylumseeker

Migrant – is a person who travels to different places or countries in order to work. Ex. Thirty children and four women were among hundreds of migrants who landed in Italy yesterday after other countries denied their pleas for help;

Refugee – is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. Refugees often have had to flee with little more than the clothes on their back, leaving behind homes, possessions, jobs and loved ones;

Asylum-seeker – is a person who has left their country and is seeking protection from persecution and serious human rights violations in another country, but who hasn’t yet been legally recognized as a refugee and is waiting to receive a decision on asylum claim.

Who is a migrant?

There is no internationally accepted legal definition of a migrant, they are people staying outside their country of origin, who are not asylum seekers or refugees.

Some migrants leave their country because they want to work, study or join family, for example. Others feel they must leave because of poverty, political unrest, gang violence, natural disasters or other serious circumstances that exist there.

Who is an asylum -seeker?

An asylum seeker is a person who has left their country and is seeking protection from persecution and serious human rights violations in another country, but who hasn’t yet been legally recognized as a refugee and is waiting to receive a decision on their asylum claim.

Legal Framework: The process is governed by international laws, such as the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol.

As of March 2023, the UK received 244 asylum applications from Ukrainian nationals, with 202 applications pending initial decision.

Seeking asylum is a human right. This means everyone should be allowed to enter another country to seek asylum.

Who is a refugee?

  • A refugee is a person who has fled their own country because they are at risk of serious human rights violations and persecution there.
  • The risks to their safety and life were so great that they felt they had no choice but to leave and seek safety outside their country because their own government cannot or will not protect them from those dangers.
  • Refugees have a right to international protection.

Legal Framework :

  1. Defined under international law, particularly the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol .
  2. Refugees are entitled to certain protections, such as non -refoulement (the principle that they cannot be sent back to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened).

2.2. Temporary Protected Status для громадян України у Великобританії та США: правові та лінгвістичні аспекти

TPS is a temporary immigration status provided to nationals of certain countries experiencing war, natural disaster, or other conditions that make it difficult or unsafe to return to those countries. TPS allows you to temporarily live and work legally, for example in the U.S.

This status:

  • Allows to stay in the country for a certain period.
  • Provides the right to work and access to basic social services.
  • It is not the way of permanent residence or citizenship.

Temporary Protected Status. The USA:

Legal basis: TPS is granted under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

For citizens of Ukraine: The US government announced TPS for Ukrainians due to the war in 2022.

Conditions for receiving TPS:

  • Be a citizen of Ukraine or a stateless person who recently lived in Ukraine.
  • Be in the USA on a specified date (for example, April 11, 2022).
  • Comply with applicant requirements, including security and criminal background checks.
  1. Ukrainian refugees: термінологія та правові аспекти статусу

The definition of a refugee is someone who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war and persecution. They are unable to return home until conditions are safe for them again.

This definition comes from The 1951 Refugee Convention, in which a refugee is defined as someone who has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.

  1. Приклади та практичні поради за темою заходу

Claim asylum in the UK:

  • To obtain refugee status in the UK, you need to apply for asylum. Below is a step-by-step guide:
  • You must be physically present in the UK to apply for asylum.
  • Notify a UK immigration officer at the port of entry (e.g., airport or seaport) or contact the Home Office after your arrival. You can start your asylum application by calling the Asylum Intake Unit (AIU).
  • You will attend an initial screening interview at a UK Visa and Immigration (UKVI) center. Evidence should support your claim of a well-founded fear of persecution due to: Race, Religion, Nationality, Political opinion, Membership in a particular social group (e.g., LGBTQ+ individuals or women fleeing gender-based violence).
  • You will attend a detailed interview with a caseworker.

The Home Office will decide whether to grant:

  • • Refugee status (valid for 5 years).
  • • Humanitarian Protection (a different type of leave).
  • • Other forms of discretionary leave.
  • • Or refuse your claim. The decision can take weeks to years depending on case complexity

3. Unpacking the Supreme Court’s Rwanda decision.

3.1. Коротка характеристика обставин справи

Some key facts of the case background:

1/ On 13 April2022, the UKand Rwandangovernmentsenteredinto a MigrationandEconomic Development Partnership(“MEDP”)”.

2/ On the basis of the arrangements made and assurances given in the MEDP, the Home Secretary decided that Rwanda was a safe third countryto whichasylum seekerscouldbe removed.

3/ Under the Home Secretary’s Rwanda policy, certain people claiming asylum in the UK will be sent to Rwanda where their claims willbe decidedby the Rwandanauthorities. If theirclaimsaresuccessful, they willbegrantedasylum in Rwanda.

The MEDP:

  • reason to enter into;
  • to addressincreasingnumbersofpeoplereachingthe UK without authorisationby crossingthe English Channel in smallboats.

Legal basis for the Rwanda policy (paragraphs 345A to 345D of the Immigration Rules, madein accordance withsection 3 of the Immigration Act 1971):

• The Home Secretary is permitted to treat an asylum claim as inadmissible if the claimant had the opportunity to apply forasylum in a safethird countrybutdidnotdoso.

• The claimantcanthenbe removedfrom the UKto anysafethird country whichagreesto accept them.

• A country willonlyqualifyasa safethird countryif theprincipleof “ non-refoulement”.

The principle of“non-refoulement”:

Asylum seekers are not returned, directlyor indirectly, to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, or they would be at real risk of torture or inhuman or degradingtreatment.

3.2. Чому Руанда не є безпечною третьою країною, в яку можуть бути направлені особи, які шукають притулку?

Grounds for dispute:

1) the lawfulness of the Rwanda policy;

2) the Home Secretary’s decisions to remove each particular claimant to Rwanda.

Case history:

  • The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”), the UN Refugee Agency, intervened in the proceedings.
  • The Divisional Courtheldthat the Rwandapolicy was, in principle, lawful.
  • The appeal to the Court of Appeal concerned only the challenge to the lawfulness of the Rwanda policy. By a majority, the 3 Court of Appeal held that the Rwanda policy was unlawful.

UNHCR’s evidence:

  • the lack of legal representation, the risk that judges and lawyers will not act independently of the government in politically sensitive cases;
  • thesurprisinglyhighrateof rejectionofasylum claims;
  • Rwanda’s practice of refoulement; the apparent inadequacy of the Rwandan government’s understanding of the requirements of the Refugee Convention.

Were there substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers would face a real risk of ill-treatment by reason of refoulement following their removal to Rwanda?

• Poorhumanright record;

• There are serious and systematic defects in Rwanda’s procedures and institutions for processing asylum claims;

• Rwanda has recently failed to comply with an explicit undertaking to comply with the non-refoulement principle given to Israel in an agreement for the removal of asylum seekers from Israel to Rwanda.

The evidence shows that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that asylum claims will not be determined properly, and that asylum seekers will therefore be at risk of being returned directly or indirectly to their country of origin.

3.3. Правові наслідки ухваленого рішення

Supreme Court judgment:

The Supreme Court unanimously dismisses the Home Secretary’s appeal, and upholds the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the Rwanda policy is unlawful.

There are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers would face a real risk of ill-treatment by reason of refoulement to their countryoforigin if they wereremovedto Rwanda.

Grounds for judgement:

Legal test to be applied by the court is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda would expose them to a real risk of ill treatmentasa resultof refoulement to anothercountry.

The court is required to consider how the asylum system in the receiving state, in this case Rwanda, operates in practice. In doing so, the court should have regard to deficiencies identified by expert bodiessuchas UNHCR.

Relevant factors include the general human rights situation in the receiving state, the receiving state’s laws and practices, its record in complying with similar assurances given in the past and the existence of monitoring mechanisms.

Consequences:

The judgment does not make the policy of removing asylum-seekers to thirdcountriesunlawful.

UK-Rwanda Treaty, signed by the Secretary of State for the Home Departmenton 05 December2023.

Safetyof Rwanda(Asylum andImmigration) Act2024.

UK-Rwanda Treaty:

  • – Individuals who are subject to a real risk of inhuman, degrading treatment or torture, or to their life, upon returnshallnotbe returned,evenif not recognisedas refugees;
  • – Relocatedindividualsfurthermorecannotbe sent to anyplaceother thanthe UK;
  • – Established independent monitoring committee to ensure compliance which is able to receive confidential complaintsfrom thoserelocatedandtheir legal representatives;
  • – Confirms the commitment of Rwanda to the Refugee Convention and international standards, including internationalhumanrights law, whendeterminingasylum claims.
  • Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024:
  • – Everydecision-maker mustconclusively treat the Republicof Rwandaas a safecountry;
  • – A court or tribunal must not consider any claim or complaint relating to whether removal breaches international obligations, that a person will not receive fair and proper consideration of asylum, or the Rwandangovernment willnot act in accordance withthe RwandaTreaty;
  • – The Secretary of State, an immigration officer or court/tribunal to decide whether Rwanda is safe based on compelling evidence relating specifically to the person’s particular individual circumstances rather than on the grounds that the Republic of Rwanda is not a safe country in general.

Першоджерело - https://tinyurl.com/4r73mnwn