Represented by Lawyers for Human Rights, the eight immigrants together with the Somali Association of South Africa took the RAB and Home Affairs to the Pretoria High Court. They asked the court to review the RAB’s decision.
They argued that the cumulative effect of these errors was to violate the principle of non-refoulement which lies at the heart of international refugee law. This principle says that no one should be returned to a country where they face persecution, or where they are at risk of their rights to personal safety or property being violated.
The applicants argued that the RAB applied a narrow and rigid test for determining persecution. Alternatively, they argued that the RAB failed to consider the second ground for refugee status: being compelled to leave your country because of events seriously disrupting public order. The court rejected both of these arguments.
Because of this, the RAB was of the opinion that many of the applicants were merely “economic refugees”. The court rejected the applicants’ attempt to “straightjacket” the RAB’s decision-making process and require it to accept all Somali applicants on account of the civil war.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: IOL - 🏆 46. / 51 Read more »
Source: ewnupdates - 🏆 30. / 53 Read more »
Source: ewnupdates - 🏆 30. / 53 Read more »