Justice Matrix · Issues
Country-of-origin evidence and real risk
How do courts decide whether returning someone is a real risk, and what evidence carries that finding?
The country-conditions evidence pattern behind real-risk findings, gathered from the records that already carry these tags.
88 cases0 campaigns1993–2026
19932026
The Law88
anchorFavorablehighSource checked
R (AAA (Syria) & ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 42
UK Supreme Court · 2023
anchorFavorablemediumSource checked
Innovation Law Lab v Wolf, 951 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2020)
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
FavorablehighSource checked
NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37
High Court of Australia · 2023
FavorablehighSource checked
Nandita Haksar v State of Manipur and Others, W.P.(Crl.) No. 6 of 2021
High Court of Manipur at Imphal · 2021
AdversehighSource checked
Mohammad Salimullah and Another v Union of India and Others, AIR 2021 SC 1789
Supreme Court of India · 2021
FavorablehighSource checked
Ruta v Minister of Home Affairs [2018] ZACC 52
Constitutional Court of South Africa · 2018
AdversehighSource checked
Plaintiff M68/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] HCA 1
High Court of Australia · 2016
FavorablehighSource checked
Namah v Pato [2016] PGSC 13; SC1497
Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea · 2016
AdversehighSource checked
CPCF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 1
High Court of Australia · 2015
AdversehighSource checked
Plaintiff S156/2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] HCA 22
High Court of Australia · 2014
FavorablehighSource checked
C v Director of Immigration [2013] HKCFA 21; (2013) 16 HKCFAR 280 (FACV 18-20/2011)
Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal · 2013
FavorablehighSource checked
Ubamaka Edward Wilson v Secretary for Security (2012) 15 HKCFAR 743; [2012] HKCFA 87
Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal · 2012
FavorablehighSource checked
N.S. v SSHD; M.E. and Others v Refugee Applications Commissioner (Joined Cases C-411/10 & C-493/10)
CJEU (Grand Chamber) · 2011
FavorablehighSource checked
Secretary for Security v Sakthevel Prabakar (2004) 7 HKCFAR 187
Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal · 2004
AdversehighSource checked
Al-Kateb v Godwin [2004] HCA 37
High Court of Australia · 2004
AdversehighSource checked
Ruddock v Vadarlis [2001] FCA 1329 (the Tampa case)
Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) · 2001
FavorablehighSource checked
Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi and Another v Union of India and Others, 1999 CRI.L.J. 919
Gujarat High Court · 1999
FavorablehighSource checked
A v Australia, Communication No. 560/1993, UN Doc CCPR/C/59/D/560/1993
UN Human Rights Committee · 1997
AdversehighSource checked
Sale v Haitian Centers Council, 509 U.S. 155 (1993)
US Supreme Court · 1993
FavorablemediumSource checked
Dongh Lian Kham and Another v Union of India and Another, WP(CRL) No.1884/2015
Delhi High Court · 2015
FavorablemediumSource checked
Seyed Ata Mohamamdi v Union of India and Others, A.D. 1458 of 1994
High Court of Judicature at Bombay · 1994
FavorablehighNeeds review
CASE OF A.R.E. v. GREECE (no. 15783/21)
2025
FavorablehighNeeds review
CASE OF VEREIN KLIMASENIORINNEN SCHWEIZ AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND (no. 53600/20)
2024
FavorablehighNeeds review
CASE OF H.F. AND OTHERS v. FRANCE (no. 24384/19)
European Court of Human Rights · 2022
FavorablehighNeeds review
CASE OF GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (II) (no. 38263/08)
European Court of Human Rights · 2021
FavorablehighNeeds review
CASE OF BIVOLARU AND MOLDOVAN v. FRANCE (no. 40324/16)
European Court of Human Rights · 2021
FavorablehighNeeds review
CASE OF SAVRAN v. DENMARK (no. 57467/15)
European Court of Human Rights · 2021
FavorablehighNeeds review
CASE OF K.I. v. FRANCE (no. 5560/19)
European Court of Human Rights · 2021
FavorablehighNeeds review
CASE OF M.K. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 40503/17)
European Court of Human Rights · 2020
AdversehighNeeds review
CASE OF N.D. AND N.T. v. SPAIN (no. 8675/15)
European Court of Human Rights · 2020
FavorablehighNeeds review
CASE OF SHIKSAITOV v. SLOVAKIA (no. 56751/16)
European Court of Human Rights · 2020
FavorablehighNeeds review
CASE OF Z.A. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (no. 61411/15)
European Court of Human Rights · 2017
FavorablemediumNeeds review
CASE OF HUSAYN (ABU ZUBAYDAH) v. POLAND (no. 7511/13)
European Court of Human Rights · 2014
FavorablemediumNeeds review
CASE OF AL NASHIRI v. POLAND (no. 28761/11)
European Court of Human Rights · 2014
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF J.B. v. GREECE (no. 54796/16)
2026
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF AL NASHIRI v. LITHUANIA (no. 31908/22)
European Court of Human Rights · 2026
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF D.M. v. SWEDEN (no. 32694/23)
2026
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF Y.K. v. CROATIA (no. 38776/21)
2025
AdverselowNeeds review
CASE OF Z AND OTHERS v. FINLAND (no. 42758/23)
2025
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF H.Q. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (no. 46084/21)
2025
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF KUNSHUGAROV v. TÜRKİYE (no. 60811/15)
2025
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF A.B. AND Y.W. v. MALTA (no. 2559/23)
2025
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF H.A. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (no. 39498/18)
2025
AdverselowNeeds review
CASE OF Y AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND (no. 9577/21)
2024
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF H.T. v. GERMANY AND GREECE (no. 13337/19)
2024
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF M.A. AND Z.R. v. CYPRUS (no. 39090/20)
2024
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF K.J. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (no. 27584/20)
2024
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF M.D. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (no. 60778/19)
2024
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF M.H. AND S.B. v. HUNGARY (no. 10940/17)
2024
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF SHEROV AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 54029/17)
2024
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF A.M.A. v. THE NETHERLANDS (no. 23048/19)
2023
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF S.S. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (no. 56417/19)
2023
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF ISRAILOV v. RUSSIA (no. 21882/09)
2023
AdverselowNeeds review
CASE OF W.A. AND OTHERS v. ITALY (no. 18787/17)
2023
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF ALHOWAIS v. HUNGARY (no. 59435/17)
2023
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF W.A. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (no. 64050/16)
2022
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF A.B. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 42907/17)
European Court of Human Rights · 2022
AdverselowNeeds review
CASE OF A.A. AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA (no. 55798/16)
European Court of Human Rights · 2022
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF A.I. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 39028/17)
European Court of Human Rights · 2022
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF S.H. v. MALTA (no. 37241/21)
2022
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF T.Z. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 41764/17)
European Court of Human Rights · 2022
AdverselowNeeds review
CASE OF KHASANOV AND RAKHMANOV v. RUSSIA (no. 28492/15)
European Court of Human Rights · 2022
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF O.M. AND D.S. v. UKRAINE (no. 18603/12)
European Court of Human Rights · 2022
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF D.A. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 51246/17)
European Court of Human Rights · 2021
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF M.L. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (no. 25079/19)
European Court of Human Rights · 2021
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF SHAHZAD v. HUNGARY (no. 12625/17)
European Court of Human Rights · 2021
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF M.D. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (no. 71321/17)
European Court of Human Rights · 2021
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF M.H. AND OTHERS v. CROATIA (no. 15670/18)
European Court of Human Rights · 2021
AdverselowNeeds review
CASE OF B AND C v. SWITZERLAND (no. 889/19)
European Court of Human Rights · 2020
AdverselowNeeds review
CASE OF ASADY AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA (no. 24917/15)
European Court of Human Rights · 2020
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF HAGHILO v. CYPRUS (no. 47920/12)
European Court of Human Rights · 2019
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF N.A. v. FINLAND (no. 25244/18)
European Court of Human Rights · 2019
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF M.A. AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA (no. 59793/17)
European Court of Human Rights · 2018
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF S.Z. v. GREECE (no. 66702/13)
European Court of Human Rights · 2018
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF R.M. v. TURKEY (no. 81681/12)
European Court of Human Rights · 2017
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF X v. SWITZERLAND (no. 16744/14)
European Court of Human Rights · 2017
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF BABAJANOV v. TURKEY (no. 49867/08)
European Court of Human Rights · 2016
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF F.G. v. SWEDEN (no. 43611/11)
European Court of Human Rights · 2016
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF U.N. v. RUSSIA (no. 14348/15)
European Court of Human Rights · 2016
AdverselowNeeds review
CASE OF J.K. AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN (no. 59166/12)
European Court of Human Rights · 2016
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF KHLAIFIA AND OTHERS v. ITALY (no. 16483/12)
European Court of Human Rights · 2016
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF V.M. AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM (no. 60125/11)
European Court of Human Rights · 2015
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF L.M. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (no. 40081/14)
European Court of Human Rights · 2015
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF S.J. v. BELGIUM (no. 70055/10)
European Court of Human Rights · 2015
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF NABIL AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (no. 62116/12)
European Court of Human Rights · 2015
AdverselowNeeds review
CASE OF TATAR v. SWITZERLAND (no. 65692/12)
European Court of Human Rights · 2015
FavorablelowNeeds review
CASE OF TARAKHEL v. SWITZERLAND (no. 29217/12)
European Court of Human Rights · 2014
FavorableNeeds review
CASE OF O.H. AND OTHERS v. SERBIA (no. 57185/17)
2026
The Movement0
No advocacy campaigns linked to this issue yet. The legal contrast is the story here.
Community context0
Lived-experience accounts for this issue are not in the matrix yet. Contribute one.
What the courts held
The doctrine, in the courts’ own holdings.
Held for protection (70)
“Unanimously held the Rwanda policy unlawful due to real risk of refoulement and deficiencies in asylum system; catalysed parliamentary push for 'Safety of Rwanda' legislation.”
R (AAA (Syria) & ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 42 (2023)Source checked
“Preliminary injunction against MPP affirmed (later subject to stays/changes); key vehicle for challenging border externalisation.”
Innovation Law Lab v Wolf, 951 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2020) (2020)Source checked
“Indefinite detention where there is no real prospect of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future is punitive and beyond the power conferred by the Migration Act and the Constitution. Overruled Al-Kateb v Godwin and o…”
NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37 (2023)Source checked
“The Manipur High Court held that Article 21 protects foreigners and that non-refoulement is encompassed within the right to life and personal liberty, subject to security concerns, then ordered safe passage to Delhi to a…”
Nandita Haksar v State of Manipur and Others, W.P.(Crl.) No. 6 of 2021 (2021)Source checked
Held against (17)
“The Supreme Court refused interim relief but stated that Rohingya persons covered by the application should not be deported unless the procedure prescribed for deportation is followed. The order is a restrictive counterp…”
Mohammad Salimullah and Another v Union of India and Others, AIR 2021 SC 1789 (2021)Source checked
“The Commonwealth's conduct in procuring and funding the Nauru detention was authorised by s198AHA of the Migration Act and was constitutionally valid. Offshore detention upheld under Australian law, the direct counterpoi…”
Plaintiff M68/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] HCA 1 (2016)Source checked
“By a 4:3 majority the Maritime Powers Act authorised the detention of the asylum seekers at sea; the detention was lawful and no damages were payable.”
CPCF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 1 (2015)Source checked
“The designation power and the removal provisions (ss198AB and 198AD) were within Commonwealth legislative power and valid; the challenge to offshore processing failed.”
Plaintiff S156/2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] HCA 22 (2014)Source checked
Playbook
What worked, what failed, what is reusable.
The pattern. Real-risk findings live in the country-conditions record. This issue gathers the real cases tagged to non-refoulement and Article 3 so the evidentiary pattern can be studied.
What to look for. What evidence the court accepted on conditions in the receiving state, who carried the burden, and how the risk was assessed at the time of removal.
This is a research resource, not legal advice. Read the linked source before acting on it.
On this issue recently
NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37 (2023)Nandita Haksar v State of Manipur and Others, W.P.(Crl.) No. 6 of 2021 (2021)Mohammad Salimullah and Another v Union of India and Others, AIR 2021 SC 1789 (2021)Plaintiff M68/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] HCA 1 (2016)Full digest
Research resource, not legal advice. Read the original source before acting. Cases and campaigns are gathered by shared issue tags; some may be machine-extracted and pending human review.