Abstract
People who flee their own countries do so due to compelling circumstances. People who are stateless or otherwise vulnerable frequently turn to neighboring states for protection. International law requires states to refrain from sending people back to countries where they may face persecution or other life-threatening situations that compromise their human rights and dignity. The principle of non-refoulement safeguards refugees and asylum seekers from being transferred to countries that may negatively impact their human rights. South African courts have long recognized the non-refoulement principle. In the Scalabrini Centre v. Minister of Home Affairs case, the court upheld the principle and confirmed that it is deeply rooted in the South African Refugees Act and that any behavior that deviates from it will be deemed invalid. The undeveloped country of South Africa is home to a sizable population of illegal migrants and refugees. Despite its substantial protection, the principle of non-refoulement has become difficult due to the lack of distinction between economic migrants and real refugees. Because of this, this study will examine the procedure for determining status. It will look at the extent of protection provided by the non-refoulement principle under the South African refugee-asylum system, which prevents refugees and asylum seekers from being deported to countries that are partially governed by international law and partially by South African law. The influence of the non-refoulement principle in situations involving illegal migrants and possible violations of the principle will be examined in this study.