Belgium - Council for Alien Law Litigation, 31 May 2010, Nr. 44.471
| Country of Decision: | Belgium |
| Country of applicant: | Russia (Chechnya) |
| Court name: | Council for Alien Law Litigation |
| Date of decision: | 31-05-2010 |
| Citation: | Nr. 44.471 |
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. |
|
Burden of proof
Description
"In the migration context, a non-national seeking entry into a foreign State must prove that he or she is entitled to enter and is not inadmissible under the laws of that State. In refugee status procedures, where an applicant must establish his or her case, i.e. show on the evidence that he or she has well-founded fear of persecution. Note: A broader definition may be found in the Oxford Dictionary of Law." |
|
Duty of applicant
Description
The duty imposed on an applicant for international protection by Article. 4(1) of the Qualification Directive to submit as soon as possible all elements needed to substantiate the application for international protection. |
|
Relevant Documentation
Description
“All documentation at the applicants disposal regarding the applicant's age, background, including that of relevant relatives, identity, nationality(ies), country(ies) and place(s) of previous residence, previous asylum applications, travel routes, identity and travel documents and the reasons for applying for international protection.” |
|
Standard of proof
Description
The degree or level of persuasiveness of the evidence required in a specific case. For example, in the refugee context, ‘well-founded’ is a standard of proof when assessing the fear of persecution. |
Headnote:
Facts:
(1) that the application was based solely on the applicant’s statements, given that the applicant had not provided any exhibits in support of her statements that would allow the decision maker to conclusively determine the well-founded fear (such as newspaper articles or witness statements);
(2) that research conducted by the documentation service of the CGRS had not revealed any trace of the events described by the applicant; and
(3) that the applicant had not claimed that her mother, who had remained in the country of origin, had experienced problems, and that there were no elements indicating that the applicant was still being sought in her country of origin.
Decision & reasoning:
The CALL then observed that the CGRS’ reasons for refusal were irrelevant, namely that there was no or limited evidence on the problems the applicant’s mother would have faced, and that the applicant had no or limited evidence that would allow it to be believed that the applicant would still be sought in her country of origin.
According to the CALL the CGRS gave “the false impression that the applicant could only have a current fear of persecution or face a real risk of serious harm if they were being sought by the authorities: if such searches are taking place, that confirms the existence of a fear or a risk, but such a search cannot be taken as a necessary condition for establishing their existence.”
On this basis, the CALL concluded that the CGRS’ examination of the facts was entirely insufficient.