5 May 2023

Amicus Brief regarding delays in the Colombian asylum procedure, violations of due process, and asylum-seekers’ right to work

Download amicus brief
share on

Area of Law: Public International Law; International Human Rights Law.

Legal Team

  • Raza Husain KC, Matrix Chambers.
  • Ishaani Shrivastava, Devereux Chambers.
  • Siân Mcgibbon, Landmark Chambers.
  • Antonia Eklund, Blackstone Chambers.
  • Ali Al-Karim, Sophie Bird, and Sarah O'Keeffe, Brick Court Chambers.

Case Background

Thirty-nine Venezuelan asylum seekers who applied for refugee status between 2018 and 2020 fled Venezuela due to the ongoing humanitarian crisis, seeking safety and stability in Colombia. Despite being granted temporary permits (salvoconducto SC-2), these individuals have been unable to access formal employment while their claims are processed, leaving them in a state of economic and social vulnerability. The delays in resolving their asylum claims, combined with the lack of access to work opportunities, have placed them at risk of de facto refoulement—effectively forcing them into destitution or compelling them to return to unsafe conditions in Venezuela. The amicus seeks to assist the Court by highlighting Colombia's international legal obligations to ensure the protection, dignity, and economic inclusion of asylum seekers.


Our Amicus

The amicus emphasizes Colombia's obligations under international refugee law and human rights law to safeguard the rights of asylum seekers, particularly their access to work and fair conditions of employment. It argues that Colombia's policies violate the 1951 Refugee Convention, which requires equal treatment of asylum seekers and other foreigners regarding employment. The failure to allow asylum seekers to work while their claims are pending, despite holding temporary permits, creates discriminatory barriers and breaches the principle of non-discrimination under international law.

The amicus further highlights systemic delays in due process, noting that asylum seekers in Colombia face prolonged waiting periods—up to four years—for their claims to be resolved. This delay exacerbates their exclusion from the labor market and exposes them to exploitation, informal employment, and extreme poverty. The amicus argues that such conditions constitute a violation of the right to due process under the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

Additionally, it raises concerns about de facto refoulement, where asylum seekers are effectively compelled to leave the country due to severe deprivation, lack of access to work, and the absence of social protections. This violates Colombia's obligations under Article 33 of the Refugee Convention, which prohibits returning individuals to a place where they face harm.

To address these issues, the amicus recommends adopting best practices from other Latin American countries, such as Argentina, Ecuador, and Brazil, where asylum seekers are granted temporary work permits and legal protections during the refugee status determination process.


Implications for Refugee and Migrant Rights

A favorable ruling in this case could:

Set a Precedent for Asylum Seekers’ Right to Work

  • If Colombia is required to grant asylum seekers the right to work, it would align the country with international standards and best practices in the region.
  • This would reduce economic vulnerability, prevent exploitation, and enable asylum seekers to support themselves while awaiting decisions on their claims.

Ensure Timely and Fair Asylum Procedures

  • Addressing systemic delays in the refugee status determination process would protect asylum seekers from indefinite limbo and improve access to legal protections.
  • A ruling in favor of the petitioners could push Colombia to implement reforms for expedited asylum claim processing.

Strengthen Non-Discrimination Protections

  • Recognizing employment restrictions as discriminatory would reinforce the principle of equality under the Refugee Convention, the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
  • It could serve as a model for other countries in the region facing similar challenges in ensuring asylum seekers’ rights.

Prevent De Facto Refoulement

  • By ensuring work authorization and access to basic protections, the ruling could prevent forced returns due to extreme poverty, effectively reinforcing non-refoulement obligations.
  • This would send a strong message that states cannot deny asylum seekers the means to survive as a way to push them out of the country.

Influence Regional and Global Refugee Policy

  • If the Court rules in favor of the claimants, it could set a regional standard for asylum seekers' socio-economic rights in Latin America.
  • The decision may encourage other states to adopt policies allowing asylum seekers to work while their claims are processed, creating a broader shift in refugee protection norms.