The interpretation of the Immigration Act's provisions on revocation of refugee status
Supreme Court judgment 3 February 2021, HR-2021-203-A, (case no. 20-121835SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against judgment.
A, B, C (Counsel Arild Karl Humlen), Norwegian Organisation for Asylum Seekers (NOAS) (Counsel Stephan Lange Jervell) (third-party intervener), the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (Counsel Terje Einarsen) (third-party intervener)
v.
The State represented by the Immigration Appeals Board (The Office of the Attorney General represented by Ingvill Matre Meinich)
Justices: Webster, Normann, Bergsjø, Arntzen, Østensen Berglund
The Immigration Appeals Board had decided to revoke the residence permit of a family from Afghanistan, see section 37 subsection 1 (e) of the Immigration Act, directing the family to seek internal flight in the home country. The Supreme Court found that the internal flight alternative could be considered in the revocation assessment under section 37 subsection 1 (e). The wording of the provision and in Article 1 C (5) of the Refugee Convention suggested such an interpretation. The same applied to the purpose of the Refugee Convention. It was also decided that the assessment had to be based on the conditions prevailing at the time of the decision and not at the time of expulsion to Afghanistan. There was no basis for departing from the main rule that administrative decisions must reflect the situation at the time of their making. The appeal against the Court of Appeal's judgment, which dismissed the District Court's judgment for the Immigration Appeals Board, was dismissed.