README file ================================================== Dataset Title: ACCESS Mid-Term Dataset: The Role of Courts in Shaping Access to Asylum Dataset Authors: Alice Lacchei (Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Bologna), ORCID: 0000-0003-4386-7440, alice.lacchei2@unibo.it; Sara Mariella Lambertini (Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Bologna), ORCID: 0000-0002-3204-2200, sara.lambertini8@unibo.it; Paul McDonough (Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Bologna), ORCID: 0000-0002-9379-5900, paul.mcdonough@unibo.it; Madalina Moraru (Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Bologna), ORCID: 0000-0001-5976-7968, madalina.moraru@unibo.it; Adel-Naim Reyhani (Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Grund- und Menschenrechte), ORCID: 0000-0003-0347-0860, adel-naim.reyhani@univie.ac.at; Chiara Scissa (Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Bologna), ORCID: 0000-0003-1887-389X, chiara.scissa2@unibo.it Lorett Mary Jesudoss (Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Bologna), ORCID: 0009-0005-8310-436X, lorettmary.jesudoss2@unibo.it Contributors: Lila García, (National University of Mar del Plata, Visiting Fellow Chair of Human Rights Law AvH Prof. Eva Pils (FAU)), ORCID: 0000-0002-4666-9717, garcia.lila@gmail.com Paula García Andrade, (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid), ORCID: 0000-0002-3666-0460, paula.garciaandrade@uam.es Hubert Bekisz, ORCID: 0009-0007-2733-2813, hubert.bekisz@eui.eu Hamsa Vijayaraghavan Fatma Raach Thekli Anastasiou Özgenur Yiğit Aksu Fatima Yasmin Bukhari Data Set Contact Person/s: Sara Mariella Lambertini (Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Bologna), ORCID: 0000-0002-3204-2200, sara.lambertini8@unibo.it; Data Set License: This data set is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Publication Year: 2026 Project Info: ACCESS, Gatekeepers to International Refugee Law? - The Role of Courts in Shaping Access to Asylum, Project ID: 101078683, Funded by: EC Data set Contents -------------------------------------------------- Files in this dataset: ACCESS_Dataset_Caselaw_Midterm_April2026.xlsx ACCESS_Dataset_Caselaw_Midterm_April2026_README.txt Abstract -------------------------------------------------- The ACCESS project’s mid-term dataset is a repository of the 525 most relevant national court decisions on access to asylum, compiled through April 2026. It covers the 18 jurisdictions analysed in the project, encompassing judgments from trial, appellate, and supreme or constitutional courts. Each entry provides key case metadata, the specific barriers addressed, and an English-language summary of the decision. Content of the files: -------------------------------------------------- File: ACCESS_Dataset_Caselaw_Midterm_April2026 Data sources -------------------------------------------------- The majority of the analysed rulings were sourced from the official digital repositories of each country's courts and judicial authorities. In jurisdictions lacking public databases, or for decisions classified as confidential, the rulings were acquired through consultation with local experts: Argentina: https://sj.csjn.gov.ar/homeSJ/; https://datos.csjn.gov.ar/ (In Spanish) Austria: https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/; https://www.vwgh.gv.at (In German) Brazil: https://scon.stj.jus.br/; https://processual.trf1.jus.br/consultaProcessual/numeroProcesso.php?secao=RR&enviar=ok; https://portal.trf1.jus.br/pesquisadocumentos/index.jsf;jsessionid=A04BAA0A0A251FE386B41CD11DDE9A06; https://juris.trf2.jus.br/; https://pje2g.trf3.jus.br/pje/ConsultaPublica/; https://web.trf3.jus.br/consultas/Internet/ConsultaProcessual; https://consulta.trf4.jus.br/trf4; (In Portuguese) Chile: https://juris.pjud.cl/busqueda?Corte_Suprema (In Spanish) Ecuador: https://procesosjudiciales.funcionjudicial.gob.ec/busqueda; https://buscador.corteconstitucional.gob.ec/buscador-externo/principal (In Spanish) Greece: https://www.areiospagos.gr/; https://adjustice.gr (In Greek) India: https://www.refworld.org/jurisprudence/caselaw (In English) Italy: https://www.italgiure.giustizia.it/sncass/; https://www.asgi.it/aggiornamenti-giurisprudenza/ (In Italian) Kenya: https://new.kenyalaw.org, https://kenyalaw.org (In English) Malaysia: https://www.refworld.org/jurisprudence/caselaw (In English) Mexico: https://www2.scjn.gob.mx/consultatematica/paginaspub/tematicapub.aspx (In Spanish) Pakistan: not available. Spain: https://www.poderjudicial.es/portal/site/cgpj/?vgnextlocale=en&lang_choosen=en#; https://www.poderjudicial.es/search/TS/ (In Spanish) South Africa: https://www.saflii.org; https://collections.concourt.org.za; https://lawyersforhumanrights.b-cdn.net; https://www.refugee.co.za; https://iarmj.africa/case-summary (In English) Tunisia: not available. Türkiye: https://karararama.yargitay.gov.tr/ https://www.yargitay.gov.tr/ (In Turkish) United States: https://storage.courtlistener.com; https://www.supremecourt.gov; https://cgrs.uclawsf.edu; https://iptp-production.s3.amazonaws.com; https://www.justice.gov; https://assets.aclu.org; https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov; https://pacer.uscourts.gov/ (In English) Methodology -------------------------------------------------- The data collection and processing for the dataset were conducted as follows: Data Collection: Through documentary research, an initial list of 40 relevant cases (spanning 2010 to 2024) was compiled for each jurisdiction. Following discussion by the core team, these lists were validated by local experts. The search window was extended back to 2000 in certain jurisdictions to capture highly relevant earlier precedents. Additionally, select decisions from 2025–2026 were included to encompass the final resolutions of cases that originated during the main study period. Data Processing: Upon finalizing the lists, each decision was analysed to extract general case details, the issuing court, the date, the specific barrier(s) addressed, and a summary of the decision. List of variables -------------------------------------------------- Region: The global region where the decision was issued (Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, North America). Country: The specific jurisdiction where the decision was issued (Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Greece, India, Italy, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Poland, South Africa, Spain, Tunisia, Türkiye, USA) Deciding Court: The English-translated name of the presiding court. Barrier: Refers to measures, arrangements, approaches, implementation practices, or structures that impede access to asylum. They can be implemented by state actors and others (if tolerated by the state); be of a practical or legal character; incorporate socioeconomic and cultural elements; and pertain to administrative or judicial spheres. Barriers implemented after the formal start of territorial asylum processing can be considered if the processing is conducted as a sham or pretence rather than allowing effective access to asylum. • “Pushbacks” denote the removal or non-admittance of individuals trying to access asylum, without a substantive assessment of risks or potential rights violations. They can occur both on land and sea, including on international waters. • “Pullbacks” are the dragging back of individuals approaching a destination state to the territory of a state from which they had departed without a substantive assessment of risks or potential rights violations. Such practices are often implemented in cooperation between two or more countries. While typically practiced at sea, such as in the territorial waters of the state of departure, pullbacks can also occur on land. • “Walls and fences” include physical barriers that prevent access to territory at or near borders, irrespective of the specificities of the construction or the materials used. • “Detention” is the imprisonment or other limitations of the right to liberty and security of person of individuals, territorially or extraterritorially, in connection with their asylum accessing. • “Externalization of asylum processing” denotes outsourcing procedures and transferring individuals to other jurisdictions to assess protection claims. Under such practice, for example, potential destination states disallow asylum procedures on their territory, dismiss the corresponding applications, and deport individuals to cooperating countries. Externalized asylum processes can be based on formal and informal agreements between states. • “Procedural barriers” refers to any administrative practice or arrangement which, after individuals (attempt to) claim asylum, impedes the formalization of the application or the commencing of a procedure for obtaining asylum. This barrier can, for example, take the form of sham processes or (fast-track) processes based on the safe third country or safe country of origin concept, or a lack of mechanisms for ensuring appointments at registration offices. • “Barriers that are particularly significant to specific jurisdictions”, for instance, visa systems or carrier sanctions; applications of artificial intelligence; lack of access to technological tools to raise an asylum claim; restrictions on freedom of movement (not amounting to detention); discriminatory policies against specific groups; the implementation of legal fictions (such as of non-entry); practical impediments to registering an asylum claim. Registration / Case Number: The official case identification data according to the local jurisdiction. Decision Date: The exact date the judicial decision was issued (DD-MM-YYYY). Summary: A brief English summary of the court’s ruling and the outcome.