Лектор докладно проаналізувала разом з учасниками вивчення імміграційного законодавства, а саме:

• 1. Обговорення ключової термінології за темою заходу: migrant, refugee, asylum-seeker, immigration, emigration, and deportation. Фразові дієслова. Ввідмінність між поняттями naturalization and citizenship. Юридичні словосполучення: “seek asylum,” “grant citizenship,” “issue a visa.”
• 2. Латинські терміни в імміграційному праві (наприклад, jus soli, jus sanguinis).
• 3. Імміграційне право в системах загального права: принципи, засади та ключова термінологія.
• 4. Поширені правові питання: перевищення терміну перебування, нелегальний в’їзд, захист від депортації. Імміграційні угоди.
• 5. Аналіз судових справ за темою заходу.

У рамках характеристики імміграційного законодавства акцентовано на наступному:

1. Вступ. Обговорення ключової термінології за темою заходу: migrant, refugee, asylum-seeker, immigration, emigration, and deportation. Фразові дієслова. Ввідмінність між поняттями naturalization and citizenship. Юридичні словосполучення: “seek asylum,” “grant citizenship,” “issue a visa.”

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (February 2022) led to large-scale displacement, both within Ukraine and internationally.

Millions of Ukrainians have been forced to flee due to the ongoing conflict, facing immediate threats to their lives, homes, and communities.

The war has triggered one of the largest displacement crises in Europe since World War II.

As of early 2025, more than 8 million Ukrainians have fled abroad since the war began, with significant numbers arriving in countries like Poland, Germany, the Czech Republic, Italy, the United States, and other parts of the EU.

The UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) reports that around 4.7 million Ukrainians were registered as refugees in neighboring European countries.

Vocabulary:

Migrant – is a person who travels to different places or countries in order to work. Ex. Thirty children and four women were among hundreds of migrants who landed in Italy yesterday after other countries denied their pleas for help.

Refugee – is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. Refugees often have had to flee with little more than the clothes on their back, leaving behind homes, possessions, jobs and loved ones.

Asylum-seeker – is a person who has left their country and is seeking protection from persecution and serious human rights violations in another country, but who hasn’t yet been legally recognized as a refugee and is waiting to receive a decision on asylum claim.

Immigration law governs who can enter, stay in, and leave a country. It covers:

• visa rules and types (e.g. work, student, tourist),
• conditions for residency and naturalization,
• asylum and refugee status,
• deportation procedures,
• and immigrant rights and obligations.

Naturalization vs. Citizenship:

• Citizenship is the status (result).
• Naturalization is the way to get there (process).

Citizenship is a legal status that gives a person full rights and responsibilities in a country — such as the right to vote, work, and receive protection.

Naturalization is the legal process by which a non-citizen acquires citizenship. It usually involves meeting certain requirements like:

• living in the country for a specific period,
• knowing the national language,
• passing a citizenship test,
• and obeying the law.

Naturalization in immigration law is the legal process by which a non-citizen acquires citizenship of a country.

Key Aspects of Naturalization:

1.Residency Requirement – The applicant must have lived in the country for a certain period (e.g., 5 years in the U.S.).

2.Good Moral Character – The applicant must not have a serious criminal record.

3.Language & Civics Test – Many countries require proficiency in the official language and knowledge of government, history, and laws.

4.Oath of Allegiance – A formal pledge of loyalty to the country.

Case (The USA). Fedorenko v. United States (1981):

In this case, Feodor Fedorenko, a Ukrainian-born individual, was stripped of his U.S. citizenship after it was revealed that he had served as a guard at the Treblinka extermination camp during World War II.

Fedorenko had concealed this information when he immigrated to the United States under the Displaced Persons Act.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that his misrepresentation warranted denaturalization and subsequent deportation.

A notable case involving a Ukrainian citizen in the context of U.S. immigration law.

Emigration vs. Immigration:

• Emigration means leaving your own country to live in another. Ex. She emigrated from Ukraine to Canada.” Emigration is from the point of view of the country – you leave.

• Immigration means coming into another country to live permanently. Ex. “He immigrated to Canada from Ukraine.” Immigration is from the point of view of the country – you enter.

Land mark case (Canada):

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1985) (Canada).

Facts:

• The case involved Harbhajan Singh and six other refugee claimants from different countries who were denied refugee status by the Canadian government.
• They argued that the process used to determine their claims was unfair, as they were not given an oral hearing.

Legal Issues:

1.Whether the denial of an oral hearing violated Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.

2.Whether refugee claimants were entitled to the same procedural protections as Canadian citizens.

Supreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favor of the applicants, stating that:

• The refugee determination process violated Section 7 of the Charter, as it did not provide a fair hearing.
• All individuals in Canada, including refugee claimants, are entitled to fundamental justice and procedural fairness.

Impact:

• The decision led to the establishment of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), which ensures fair hearings for asylum seekers.
• It reinforced the principle that Charter rights apply to all individuals in Canada, regardless of immigration status.

2. Латинські терміни в імміграційному праві (наприклад, jus soli, jus sanguinis)

• Jus soli (right of the soil) – “Право ґрунту” – право на громадянство за місцем народження.

This principle grants citizenship to anyone born on the territory of a state, regardless of the parents’ nationality.

Example: The United States applies jus soli — a child born on U.S. soil becomes a U.S. citizen.

• Jus sanguinis (right of blood) – “Право крові” – право на громадянство за походженням.

This principle gives citizenship based on descent — a person becomes a citizen if one or both parents are citizens, regardless of the place of birth.

Example: Germany applies jus sanguinis — citizenship is passed through German parentage.

• Ex parte (from one party) – рішення чи заява, подана в односторонньому порядку (без участі іншої сторони).

Used in legal proceedings to describe actions taken for the benefit of one party only, without the other party being present or notified.

Ex. An ex parte application for an emergency stay of deportation may be filed if time is limited.

• Habeas corpus (you shall have the body) – право на оскарження незаконного позбавлення волі.

A fundamental legal principle that protects individuals from unlawful detention. It allows a person to challenge their imprisonment or detention before a court.

Ex. An asylum seeker can file a habeas corpus petition if they believe their detention is illegal.

3. Імміграційне право в системах загального права: принципи, засади та ключова термінологія

In countries like the UK, the US, Canada, and Australia, immigration law is shaped by a mix of:

• Statutory law (laws passed by Parliament/Congress),
• Case law (judicial decisions),
• Administrative regulations (guidelines by immigration authorities).

Unlike civil law systems, common law relies heavily on precedent — past judicial decisions influence future cases.

Key Legal Principles:

1.Rule of law – immigration decisions must follow the law and be subject to judicial review.

2.Natural justice – applicants must be given a fair hearing.

3.Proportionality – decisions (e.g. deportation) must be appropriate and not excessive.

4.Discretionary power – immigration officers and ministers often have discretion, but this must be exercised lawfully.

5.Protection of human rights – especially under instruments like the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

4. Поширені правові питання: перевищення терміну перебування, нелегальний в’їзд, захист від депортації. Імміграційні угоди

Overstaying:

Definition: Remaining in a country after the expiry of one’s visa or lawful status.

Legal consequences:

• Loss of legal status.
• Entry bans.
• Possible detention or removal.

Example: A student visa holder stays in the UK after graduation without applying for a new visa.

Illegal Entry:

Definition: Entering a country without proper documentation or authorization, such as crossing a border unlawfully or using false documents.

Legal consequences:

• Criminal charges.
• Ineligibility for certain immigration benefits.

Example: A person enters without a visa or uses a fake passport.

Protection from Deportation:

Individuals may be protected from removal based on:

• Asylum (fear of persecution under the Refugee Convention).
• Human rights grounds (e.g. right to family life under Article 8 ECHR).
• Medical grounds (if deportation would result in inhuman treatment).

Example: A refugee fleeing political persecution cannot be lawfully deported.

Immigration Agreements:

Bilateral or multilateral treaties and arrangements that regulate the movement of people between countries.

Examples:

• EU Freedom of Movement (prior to Brexit).
• UK-Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership.
• Dublin III Regulation (EU asylum responsibility-sharing).

Such agreements often cover readmission, resettlement, and cooperation on border control.

5. Аналіз судових справ за темою заходу

Case (the UK ):

Case: R (on the application of LR (Afghanistan)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Ukrainian Family Scheme – discrimination, nationality) (2024).

In the United Kingdom, a significant case is [2024] UKUT 00236, where an Afghan national, previously residing in Ukraine, applied for the Ukrainian Family Scheme to join a relative in the UK.

The application was refused on the grounds that he was not a Ukrainian national.

The Upper Tribunal acknowledged that this constituted direct discrimination based on nationality but ultimately found the discrimination to be objectively justified, upholding the refusal.

Land mark case (Canada):

Case: Brown v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (2020).

Facts of the Case: Kevin Brown, a Jamaican national, became a permanent resident of Canada as a child. However, as an adult, he was convicted of serious criminal offenses, which led to a removal order under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). Brown argued that his removal was unconstitutional because it violated his Charter rights, particularly Section 7 (right to life, liberty, and security of the person) and Section 12 (protection against cruel and unusual punishment).

This case is a key precedent in Canadian immigration law regarding the deportation of permanent residents with criminal records.

Court’s Decision:

• The Federal Court of Appeal ruled against Brown, stating that his removal was lawful under IRPA.
• The court held that deportation does not amount to “cruel and unusual punishment” under Section 12 because removal is an immigration consequence, not a penal sanction.
• The court also found that while Section 7 rights (liberty and security of the person) are engaged in deportation cases, the process established under IRPA is in line with the principles of fundamental justice.
• Brown was not entitled to a special exemption from removal despite his long-standing ties to Canada.

Significance of the Case:

• Reaffirmed the government’s authority to remove non-citizens who commit serious crimes.
• Confirmed that deportation is not considered “punishment” under Section 12 of the Charter.
• Clarified the limits of constitutional protections for permanent residents facing deportation due to criminality.
• Sparked discussions on whether Canada’s immigration laws should provide more flexibility for long-term residents who grew up in Canada.

Першоджерело - https://tinyurl.com/2apnprfa