The language used to describe the people travelling to Europe from the Middle East, Africa and even further afield is contested. Some prefer to use the term "migrant", others prefer "refugee". This short presentation looks at the legal definition of a refugee, the requirements for refugee status and whether those people who reach Europe are ultimately recognised as refugees.

The legal definition of a refugee is set out in the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The definition is at Article 1A(2):

"Owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to return to it."

The first element is to show a "well founded fear". A refugee has to show a "real risk" of something bad happening to them if they are returned to their country of origin, and that risk must be judged objectively. Country information from human rights monitoring organisations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch is vital, as well as media reports and expert evidence.

The "something bad" has to be very bad; it has to amount to persecution. This is a high level of harm, described in UK case law as being "serious harm" and in the EU' Refugee Qualification Directive as a "severe violation of basic human rights". Discrimination and harassment will not normally amount to persecution.

The well founded fear of being persecuted must arise for one of five reasons for a person to qualify as a refugee. These are referred to as the "Convention reasons". The characteristic in question does not need to be genuinely held, it can be attributed; a person persecuted for an opinion their persecutor falsely believes the person holds is still a refugee.

Refugee status has been described as "surrogate protection" that is available only when protection is not available in the refugee's country of origin. Further, if a refugee could reasonably relocate to another part of his or her country of origin, he or she will not qualify for refugee status.

Many or most refugees might also be described as "economic migrants". Refugees, as well as fleeing persecution, also want the stability and safety to build a new life for themselves and their family. There is nothing mutually exclusive about being a refugee and an "economic migrant".

This is why many refugee are not remaining in underfunded dead-end refugee camps close to their countries of origin; there is no future there.

It is a popular misconception that a genuine refugee does or must claim asylum in the first safe country he or she reaches. There is no such requirement in the Refugee Convention. In the UK, the case of ex parts Adimi [1999] Imm AR 560 established that "some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum".

The first four countries on this list, derived from information from UNHCR in June 2015, do not immediately come to mind as safe, secure countries. Human rights abuses are rampant in all four and it is no surprise that citizens are leaving.

In the UK, the quarterly statistics for the year ended June 2015 show a very high success rate for the top nationalities claiming asylum in the UK. You can see the statistics for yourself:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-april-to-...

If you are interested in refugee law, try signing up for my free online refugee law course over on Free Movement, which covers these issues in detail. The course is about two hours long in total and includes many useful links, examples, case studies and talking head videos:

https://www.freemovement.org.uk/refugees