Council of Alien Law Litigation, 7th April 2020, X v. General Commissioner for Refugees and Stateless persons, No 234.935

Facts:

On 30th August 2019, the applicant’s request for refugee status and subsidiary protection was denied by the General Commissioner for Refugees and Stateless persons. (GCRS)

The applicant’s request for international protection was refused due to a lack of credibility in her story.

The GCRS stressed out the inconsistency in the applicant narration and disregarded medical reports referring to female genital mutilation.

As the administrative authority did not believe that there existed a risk for the applicant in case of return to her country of origin, Guinea, the applicant was rejected.

Consequently, on the 1st October 2019, the applicant introduced an appeal against the administrative decision before the Council of Alien Law Litigation.

Decision & reasoning:

The legal issue here concerns the credibility of the applicant’s story and the risk of danger or persecution whether she returns to Guinea. Consequently, the CALL sought to examine the assessment made by the GCRS and the veracity of the applicant’s fear of serious harm.

The CALL identified several vulnerability elements on the part of the applicant such as her mental health. Regarding this psychological element, the CALL recalled jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights. (ECtHR)

The ECtHR’s cases – R.J. v. Sweden (19th September 2013) and I. v. Sweden (5th September 2013) state that medical reports attesting the existence of serious physical scars which are corroborated with the applicant’s statements, constitute a starting point for assessing the veracity of the applicant’s story.

In addition, R.C v. Sweden (9th March 2010) states that national administrations must verify the absence of any doubts on the causes of this scars before dismissing the applicant’s story. Based on this jurisprudence, the CALL considered that the same reasoning for serious scars must be applied in case of psychological issues and even more so, in case of post-traumatic stress.

Consequently, the administration must take special precautions when it assesses the applicant’s international protection application. It must comply with its duty to cooperate with the applicant in establishing the relevant facts of the case by being cautious and meticulous before concluding that certain contradictions and inaccuracies exist.

Furthermore, the CALL stated that the impact of the applicant psychologic trauma on the consistency of her story is questionable. Additionally, the CALL found out that the administration had not sufficiently investigated the negative consequences resulting from the applicant’s female genital mutilation.

The CALL declined the applicant’s request to reform the GCRS’s decision because there was a lack of information from the administrative investigation. It did however annul the GCRS’s decision and ordered the re-examination of the request for international protection considering the general context of Guinea and the applicant’s personal situation.

Outcome:

Application granted – Annulment of the national administration’s decision.

Subsequent proceedings:

The case is sent back to the administration (GCRS) to take another decision on the international protection request of the applicant.

Besides, the GCRS could go before the Council of State to ask for the annulment of the CALL’s judgment.

Observations/comments:

This case is interesting because it emphasises the idea that in case of vulnerability, the CALL will verify if the national administration had a more-in-depth examination of your case. The CALL seems to formulate an obligation for the national administration to investigate the case of a vulnerable applicant with a deeper focus.

Moreover, the Court reiterates the shared burden of proof between the asylum seeker and the national administration for requests of international protection.

This case summary has been written by Alexandre Piérard, LLM student at University of Ghent.