Finland - Helsinki Administrative Court, 10 Nov 2010, 10/1514/1
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Assessment of facts and circumstances
Description
The duty of the state to carry out an individual assessment of all relevant elements of the asylum application according to the provisions of Article 4 of the Qualification Directive, including considering past persecution and credibility; and the duty of the applicant to submit as soon as possible all statements and documentation necessary to substantiate the application. |
|
Credibility assessment
Description
Assessment made in adjudicating an application for a visa, or other immigration status, in order to determine whether the information presented by the applicant is consistent and credible. |
|
Subsidiary Protection
Description
The protection given to a third-country national or a stateless person who does not qualify as a refugee but in respect of whom substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned, if returned to his or her country of origin, or in the case of a stateless person, to his or her country of former habitual residence, would face a real risk of suffering serious harm as defined in Article 15 of 2004/83/EC, and to whom Article 17(1) and (2) of 2004/83/EC do not apply, and is unable, or, owing to such risk, unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country.” “Note: The UK has opted into the Qualification Directive (2004/83/EC) but does not (legally) use the term Subsidiary Protection. It is believed that the inclusion of Humanitarian Protection within the UK Immigration rules fully transposes the Subsidiary Protection provisions of the Qualification Directive into UK law. |
Headnote:
The Administrative Court held that the results of language analysis alone, contradicting the applicant’s description of events, cannot be seen as sufficient proof of the applicant’s place of residence if no other facts have been presented to support the result of the language analysis.
Facts:
The Finnish Immigration Service rejected the asylum claim and decided to return the applicant to Iraq. The applicant is Kurdish and he comes from Kirkuk, which was not considered a safe area. The Immigration Service carried out a language analysis to test if the applicant spoke a dialect of Sorani typical around the region of Arbil. At times the applicant used words typical of a dialect used in Kirkuk.
Decision & reasoning:
Based on the information presented, the Administrative Court held that the language analysis undertaken was not deficient in any particular way and that based on the language analysis it was possible to obtain information on the applicant’s place of residence. However, the Court held that the results of the language analysis alone, where contradicting with the applicant’s account, cannot be seen as sufficient proof of the applicant’s place of residence, if no other facts have been presented to support the result of the language analysis.
The Immigration Service had not shown clear discrepancies or contradictions in the applicant’s testimony regarding his place of residence. The case had also not presented other facts to support the result of the language analysis. On the contrary, in the language analysis statement, it was noted that the applicant used certain words typical of the dialect spoken in Kirkuk. The Administrative Court held that the applicant’s own description regarding his place of residence as Kirkuk must be viewed as credible and the applicant should be granted a residence permit based on subsidiary protection.
Outcome:
The Administrative Court rejected the application as regards to the need for asylum. However, regarding other grounds of protection, the Administrative Court overturned the Immigration Service’s decision and returned the case to the Immigration Service for re-examination. The Court held that the applicant was to be granted a residence permit based on subsidiary protection.