Case summaries
The Migration Court of Appeal held that internal armed conflict prevails in all parts of southern and mid Somalia.
This case concerned the approach to be taken with evidence from witnesses. The CALL ruled that a witness statement from a private source cannot be automatically disregarded. The authority in charge of examining an application should examine whether the author of a witness statement can be identified, whether its content can be verified, and whether the information contained therein is sufficiently precise and coherent to usefully contribute to the assessment of the facts of the case.
It follows from the clear wording of Article 1D of the Refugee Convention that the clause contained therein on exclusion from refugee status applies only to persons who are actually making use of assistance provided by UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East), and this must be interpreted strictly, i.e. it cannot also apply to persons who have made use of or might make use of protection or assistance. For the purposes of Article 12(1)(a), sentence one, of the Qualification Directive, according to the Court a person makes use of the protection or assistance of a UN agency other than the UNHCR when such a person is truly makes use of such protection or assistance.
This case concerned exclusion and confirmed that Art 12.2 of the Qualification Directive, should be interpreted so that the determining authority must perform an individual examination of the applicant’s case and assess the individual responsibility according to the objective and subjective criteria, as set out in the judgment of Germany v B and D. In such cases, the burden of proof does not rest with the applicant but on the determining authority.
This case considered whether or not members of the Judiciary could be considered "a particular social group". It was found that they could not. The applicant did not convince the Court that on her return to Russia she would risk an unfair trial or unjust deprivation of liberty as a result of false allegations of bribery and knowingly handing down wrong decisions in court. The Court of Appeal considered that conditions in Russian prisons in general are not so severe as to warrant international protection.
The Iranian applicants’ asylum claim was rejected by the authorities as they were not found credible. As a result of this finding, the authorities did not consider their account in light of the country of origin information on Iran. The court quashed the decision and granted refugee status to the family reasoning that the authorities are obliged to carry out a thorough and complete fact assessment.
It was found that the contradictions in the applicants' account were not relevant from the point of view of international protection. The court also ruled that the authority is obliged to clarify misunderstandings at hearings, at the same time applicants have to be given the opportunity to justify contradictions and incoherencies in their statements.
The Court must inquire into the circumstances which establish a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment fulfilling the requirements of subsidiary protection.
The applicant, being a young, single man and fit for work, is at no substantial individual risk, neither in his home province Parwan nor in Kabul. Therefore, it can remain undecided if the conflict in Afghanistan constitutes an internal armed conflict.
The CALL considered that the internal protection alternative rule limits access to international protection and found that, in order for the rule to be applied, it is up to the asylum authority to demonstrate (1) that there is a part of the country of origin where the applicant has no reason to fear persecution and runs no real risk of serious harm, and (2) that it could be reasonably expected of the applicant to stay in that part of the country (taking into account the general circumstances in the country and the personal circumstances of the applicant).