Case summaries
The case concerned an appeal lodged before the Supreme Court against a decision of the High National Court to reject a claim for refugee status based on membership of a particular social group (this particular group was determined by economic status).
Members of a family, who are Russian citizens of Chechen ethnicity, who originate from Chechnya, can avail of internal protection (in the context of persecution by non-state actors, Section 60 (1) sentence (4) (c) of the Residence Act in conjunction with Art 8 of the Qualification Directive) in areas outside Chechnya, if one family member (in this instance the wife) possesses a new Russian internal passport, which is an important requirement for registration.
The case concerned a woman who feared return to Sierra Leone because she would face gender specific persecution in the form of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). The issue was whether she was entitled to recognition as a refugee because she feared persecution on account of her membership of a particular social group. Her appeal was allowed on the basis that women in Sierra Leone and, alternatively, uninitiated women who had not been subjected to FGM in Sierra Leone, were particular social groups.
The case concerned the issue of whether ‘family’ constitutes a particular social group. The applicant was recognised as a refugee on the basis of her well founded fear of persecution as a member of her husband’s family.
The sexual orientation of the Applicant for asylum may, depending on circumstances and with regard to the situation in the country of origin, be considered a sign of his membership of a particular social group. The threat of injury to the Applicant for asylum as a result of actions causing psychological pressure may not be as serious as injuries that result in threats to life or freedom, but must be at least of a comparable type.
The UNHCR Handbook is an important source of law concerning the procedure to determine protection needs. The Migration Court is responsible for ensuring that a case is sufficiently investigated by holding an oral hearing or otherwise investigating the ambiguities of the case, when an asylum seeker who has been rejected because of credibility grounds has submitted relevant documents that are deemed to be genuine by a Swedish embassy.
This case concerned the application of Art 10.1 (d) of the Qualification Directive, as applied to lesbians from Iran. It was found that the "particular social group", described as homosexual (lesbian) women, has a distinct identity in Iran, because they are perceived as being different by the surrounding society (Art. 10.1 (d) (1) of the Qualification Directive).
Further, that there is a high likelihood that a homosexual relationship between women would be persecuted when detected, because it constitutes a breach of a cultural norm, even worse than among homosexual (gay) men.
Persecution by non-State actors according to Section 60 (1) sentence 4 (c) of the Residence Act (similar to Art 6 (c) of the Qualification Directive) is not established if the group of actors is small and only consists of a limited number of private persons. In this case, the "dangerousness" of the persecution is not comparable to those cases where the persecution stems from the State or State-like actors according to Section 60 (1) sentence 4 (a) and (b) of the Residence Act (similar to Art. 6 (a) and (b) of the Qualification Directive) .
A family or an extended group of relatives do not constitute a "social group" in the context of refugee protection. A family is not clearly perceived as a definable group with its own "group" identity. Such a clear definition of a family or clan could only be established if membership of the family was considered of high importance and the family or clan had a distinct identity.
Membership of a political party is not required to establish persecution for reasons of political opinion.