In this case, the appellant lodged an age assessment appeal regarding Article 25A(7) of the Immigration Act, Chapter 217 of the Laws of Malta. The Immigration Appeals Board Division II however found that, given (a) the lack of authentic documentation from the appellant, (b) his physical appearance suggesting adulthood, (c) a bone age test, the appellant failed to prove beyond doubt that he is not an adult, and thus denied the appeal.
Source: here
In this case, the appellant lodged an appeal regarding his age assessment regarding Article 25A(7) of the Immigration Act, Chapter 217 of the Laws of Malta. The Immigration Appeals Board Division considered the bone age test conducted by the Agency for the Welfare of Asylum Seekers. However, given the high margin of error of these tests of 2-3 years and the lack of accuracy when looking at physical traits, the IAB Div I determined a holistic approach was most appropriate to determine the age of the appellant. As such, looking at the appellant’s date of birth as written on his vaccine card, birth certificate, and school certificate, IAB Div I concludes that the appellant was a minor and that AWAS had wrongly issued a decision using imprecise research.
Source: here
This case concerns the deprivation of liberty of a third-country national subject to a removal procedure and the possibility that there is a risk of absconding.
Source: here
This group of cases concerns various deficiencies in the procedures related to different aspects of the treatment of asylum-seekers in Ukraine at different times in 2011-2020, among others various problems in detention of persons present in Ukraine in an irregular manner, in violation of Article 5 § 1 (f). The Court has noted that the procedure as regards unaccompanied migrant children and the information that there were no recent cases of detention of such children at the centres for temporary accommodation of foreigners and stateless persons who are present in Ukraine illegally, encouraged the authorities to take the steps necessary to consolidate this trend and to ensure adequate treatment of such children.
Source: click here
In this case, the applicants on behalf of their grandchildren (all Finland nations) who were held in a camp and had no access to legal aid or to legal information that would enable them to submit a communication. The child victims were born in the Syrian Arab Republic and were being held in the Hawl camp in the north-east of the country, which was under the control of the Syrian Democratic Forces, where the applicants claimed that they were at risk of irreparable harm in the knowledge of the Finnish Government. The applicants claimed that the State party has not taken the measures necessary to repatriate the child victims to Finland and that this failure to act constitutes a violation of articles 2, 6, 19, 20, 24, 27, 28, 37, 39 and 40 of the Convention, as well as of article 7 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the involvement of children in armed conflict. The Committee found a violation of Articles 6 (1) and 37 (a) of the Convention and recommended that the State party a) takes urgent positive measures to repatriate the child victims, acting in good faith, b) supports the reintegration and resettlement of each child who has been repatriated or resettled, and c) takes additional measures, in the meantime, to mitigate the risks to the lives, survival and development of the child victims while they remain in the north-eastern Syrian Arab Republic.
Source: PDF
The CRC Committee found that the children’s detention in closed family detention centres violated the prohibition on ill-treatment (art. 37 CRC), read alone and in conjunction with the best-interests principle (art. 3 CRC).
Source:
