Case summaries
An applicant from Somalia was eligible for refugee status. The court found:
- There was sufficient probability that the applicant’s life and freedom, in case of return to Somalia, were at risk due to his membership of a particular social group.
- Clan membership constitutes a particular social group.
- Protection against persecution is not provided by the State, by parties or by other organisations in Somalia.
- There is no internal protection in Somalia.
The applicant, from Iran, had not been politically active in Iran but participated in demonstrations in Sweden and appeared with his photo on dissident websites and TV. The applicant was considered to have been engaged in low-level political activity. Thus, he was deemed not to be of interest to the Iranian authorities and was therefore not considered to be a refugee or in need of subsidiary protection on “sur place” grounds.
An applicant from Guinea was recognised as a refugee. The court found that because of his homosexuality he faced a threat of persecution from family members. The State was unwilling or unable to provide protection.
A former officer in Saddam Hussein’s Security Services was excluded from protection due to possible crimes against humanity. He was however granted a temporary residence permit as the decision could not be executed without violating the principle of non-refoulement.
The fact that riots took place in poorer neighbourhoods which resulted in sudden police charges to dispel the riots is insufficient for the application of Art 15(c) of the Qualification Directive.
If an applicant has serious criticism of a language test conducted to determine their country of origin, the Migration Board must investigate the grounds before making a decision, or at least respond to the applicant's criticism so that the submission can be completed.
If the Migration Court considers a language test report to be unreliable or inadequate, it can decide to request a new language analysis or return the case to the Migration Board for further investigation, but cannot choose to ignore the analysis entirely.
During the refugee status proceedings, the administrative authorities should clarify on what grounds a foreign husband has received protection in another country. These circumstances should be assessed consistently in two countries.
There are no objective reasons why the respective positions of two individuals should be viewed differently merely because they have applied for refugee status in two different democratic countries that respect human rights.
The case concerned the interested party's obligation to cite specific facts which can provide evidence that the conditions for falling within the scope of the 1951 Convention had been satisfied. There must be a thorough examination of the main claims and a full justification of any negative decision in the case. If the Minister for Public Order adopts the Committee's negative judgment, then the relevant document must cite not only the interested party's claims but also the questions which were put to the foreigner and the responses he gave. The contested order – based on a defective opinion – referred in general terms to the Applicant not having shown a risk of persecution on racial, political or other grounds, and is deficiently reasoned. The application for annulment was granted.
The applicant was eligible for subsidiary protection as an internal armed conflict is taking place in Logar. The applicant, in case of return to Afghanistan, could not relocate to Kabul, since he could not secure his livelihood there. In order to secure his livelihood, he could not rely on property which his family had possessed in the province of Logar.
Young Nigerian women, especially those coming from the region of Benin City (State of Edo), who were forced to prostitute themselves in Europe in a transnational network of human trafficking, and who managed to extricate themselves from this network and to stop this forced activity, should not be seen as members of a particular social group in Nigeria. However, they face inhuman or degrading treatment in case of return to their country of origin and should therefore be granted subsidiary protection.