Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

The objective of this paper is to clarify the use of PFRSD in practice and explore its legal foundation. It argues that the term ‘prima facie’ should be understood in refugee law as a shorthand reference to the general law relating to injunctions. That is, ‘prima facie’ is shorthand for a lower standard of proof, rather than a shifted burden of proof. PFRS can therefore be conceived as a quia timet injunction granted, in haste and ex parte, at the discretion of the host State with both prohibitory and mandatory elements. The injunction persists until, but is without prejudice to, RSD that considers exclusion and non-inclusion from Convention protection. The paper finds that this injunctive conception is founded in the Convention, accords with State and UNHCR practice, and clarifies the rights attached to PFRS. The paper ends by suggesting that PFRSD practice beclarified by way of an Executive Committee conclusion.

More information


Working paper


Refugee Studies Centre

Publication Date




Total pages