Excluding without returning: treatment of corruption convictions in the Colombian refugee regime (2020–2025)

Abstract

Starting from the research question —to what extent does Colombia apply the 1951 Convention’s exclusion clauses to persons convicted of corruption without violating the non-refoulement principle (2020–2025)?— the hypothesis asserts that compatibility is viable only if a sequential architecture is adopted: first, decide status by applying Art. 1F(b) restrictively (gravity as verifiable social harm, significant participation, and non-political character); second, assess non-refoulement autonomously, focusing on a personal, current, and foreseeable risk (including chain refoulement); finally, if the risk persists, do not return and activate documentation and the management of “non-removables,” coordinated with anti-corruption cooperation (UNCAC). Thus, the status → risk → measure rule prevents mechanically carrying exclusion over to removal and aligns international protection with anti-corruption policy.

To demonstrate this, the document proposes: (i) systematically analyzing the model applied in 2020–2025; (ii) identifying the relevant rules and evidentiary standards for Art. 1F(b) in 

corruption cases; (iii) setting operational criteria that cleanly separate the non-refoulement assessment from the status determination; and (iv) specifying the consequences when there  is exclusion without possible return (documentation status and minimum rights). Methodologically, it translates the normative framework into verifiable instruments —a  flowchart, an evidentiary matrix (fact → evidence → standard → conclusion), and a checklist— that correct the expansive application of Art. 1F(b) and evidentiary deficits, reduce decisional variability, and, consequently, increase judicial defensibility, improve evidentiary traceability, and ensure robust compliance with non-refoulement through alternative measures when risk persists.