When it comes to immigration, Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America are the first to come to mind.
They have the largest number of people arriving each year, and are the biggest sources of asylum seekers.
But when it comes down to the numbers, they have one of the lowest asylum rates in the world.
It’s not surprising then that Spanish-speakers have been the subject of increasing interest in international law.
But it is important to recognise that there is a long history of legal challenges to their claims, and the recent changes to their legal status have been widely criticised.
In fact, there are several recent cases of courts in Spain, the United States and other countries ruling that they are in fact illegal immigrants, which has led to a significant number of legal proceedings being put in place.
But what are the legal arguments?
How has this happened?
What are the current legal cases?
The most recent case involved a young Australian woman, Kate Upton, who was born in China but was granted asylum in Australia in 2010.
Kate Upton’s case The decision came down in December of that year, when the High Court of Australia ruled that Kate Upton was not in fact a foreigner but a legal resident of Australia, despite being born in mainland China.
The court said that Kate’s immigration claims were made under the Immigration Act 1918, and were in relation to a family of five with children.
This is the same section of the Immigration Acts that applies to most people in Australia, so it’s not as if Kate was claiming asylum.
The High Court has previously ruled that there are “special circumstances” for asylum claims, such as that an Australian is a “person of Chinese descent”.
However, the High Council of Migration argued that the language Kate was speaking at the time of her visa application should have given her cause for fear of deportation.
The Court said that the woman’s family did not speak Mandarin, and that there was no evidence that the man’s wife spoke Chinese.
The case was heard by the Federal Court of Appeal, which heard a petition from the family, and decided that Kate should be granted asylum.
In its decision, the Court found that the family did speak Mandarin at the relevant time, but it was not clear how that language would have affected the case.
However, it said that there were a number of “general legal factors” that “might be relevant” to the asylum claim.
These include “whether the language spoken is one of those that gives rise to the protection against deportation that is provided by the Refugee Convention”; “whether language used by the claimant has a substantial and distinct meaning and whether the claimant’s position is sufficiently different from that of others of the family”; and “whether, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the claimant should be considered a genuine refugee”.
The court then rejected the argument that the mother spoke Chinese to her son, and ruled that this did not constitute a cause for deportation, because the child spoke English.
Kate’s lawyer, Chris O’Connor, said he was satisfied that the High Courts ruling would have been “a welcome development” for Kate, but he added that “it’s not enough to just say that Kate has a case.
We need to be able to establish what those circumstances are”.
In fact the High Commissioner for Refugees (CHR) has also said that it is necessary for the Government to consider whether a person’s language is a sufficient basis for a decision on asylum.
Kate and her family Kate Upton has now been granted asylum, but the matter is still being reviewed by the Immigration Department, and it is expected that Kate will be deported.
The Department of Immigration said that although it had heard that there had been a petition against Kate’s case, it was “not appropriate for us to comment on the outcome of the proceedings”.
It is expected Kate will also be deported, but she is appealing against her decision.
In a statement, Kate’s family said that “the case will be heard by a court of law and it will be up to the High Commission of Australia to make a decision about her case”.
Kate’s legal team has argued that she was in fact not a foreigner when she applied for her visa, and therefore did not qualify as a “foreign national”.
She is a British citizen, who is married to an Australian citizen, and has lived in Australia since the age of 18.
Kate is an Australian national with dual citizenship, and also has a Chinese passport.
The family said she was “welcome and respected” by her family, but added that she had not been offered an Australian passport, and was therefore entitled to the same rights as an Australian.
Kate says that her father, who works as a labourer in China, is worried about the impact of her being deported, and asked her to remain in Australia for the time being.
The Immigration Department has previously said that its position is that “people who arrive by sea do not fall into any category of illegal