Case summaries

Rights violations resulting from a forced marriage, including the use of physical and mental violence, constitute severe violations of basic human rights in terms of Art 9.1 (a) of the Qualification Directive.

The Iranian state is neither able nor willing to protect women against persecution by relatives in case of forced marriage.

Applying the guidance on assessing internal protection found in Januzi and AH (Sudan) (see separate summaries), an applicant’s “home area” must be established as a matter of fact. The applicant’s social and economic position may assume particular importance where the applicant’s “home area” is rural and the area of proposed internal relocation is urban.

The applicant based her claim for asylum on the threats and human rights violations arising as a result of her common-law husband’s political activities and the authorities’ suspicion of the applicant’s support of the opposition party. Refugee status was refused. The Administrative Court found that the applicant had failed to establish a risk of persecution based on her imputed political opinion. The Administrative Court held, that to return the applicant to her country of origin where she has experienced serious human rights violations, in the final stages of pregnancy or with a newborn child, without any social networks to fall back on, taken into account together, would form a real threat of serious harm suffering inhuman or degrading treatment as laid out in Art 88 of the Aliens Act.

A young couple (both minors) were eligible for subsidiary protection as they risked being the victims of honour-related violence in their country of origin. The Migration Court of Appeal concluded that in this particular case, it would be unreasonable to ask the applicants to have sought the protection of domestic authorities.

For the purposes of Art 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention a person is “of” or “has” a nationality where it is established that  he or she is already of that nationality or he or she is not of that nationality but is entitled to it.  The person should not be considered to hold a nationality if he or she only “may” be able to acquire it.

In assessing nationality in claims for refugee status, nationality is a matter for the State in question’s law, constitution and (to a limited extent) practice which should be proved by evidence and decided on, as a matter of fact, by the court deciding the protection claim.  In considering whether a person is a national or is entitled to a nationality of a second State, the person must use their “best efforts” to clarify their status.  The evidence of the attitude of a State towards a person who is seeking not to be removed to that State may be of very limited relevance.

Plea for an ab initio re-examination of an application for asylum. The Special Committee formed under Article 3(5) of Presidential Decree 61/1999 gave a positive opinion because the Applicant had been involved in political activities in his country, as a Kurd, against the ruling regime; and that activity had increased during his stay in Greece. The application for asylum was rejected by the Minister for Public Order without any specific justification for deviating from the Special Committee's clear opinion. When assessing whether there is evidence that a person seeking recognition as a refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution, the Administration may take account of information regarding the activities of the interested party's close relatives.

This case concerned a Chinese applicant of Uyghur ethnicity who was granted residence and refugee status because of his sur place political activities in Sweden.

An Egyptian transgender woman, who first underwent gender reassignment surgery and hormone treatment in Austria, was recognised as a refugee as it was accepted that there were problems with the police,  a refusal to issue her a passport using her new personal data and social issues of an intensity relevant to asylum matters.

Application of the CJEU ‘s ruling of the 2 March 2010, Abdulla et al. Case C 175/08 et al, following the request for a preliminary ruling by the Federal Administrative Court.

The High Administrative Court was correct in holding that the circumstances upon which the recognition of refugee status was based have ceased to exist. However, it did not examine sufficiently whether a well-founded fear of persecution persists for other reasons.