Finland - Helsinki Administrative Court, 7 April 2011, 11/0425/3
| Country of Decision: | Finland |
| Country of applicant: | Afghanistan |
| Court name: | Helsinki Administrative Court |
| Date of decision: | 07-04-2011 |
| Citation: | 11/0425/3 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Persecution Grounds/Reasons
Description
Per Article 1A ofthe1951 Refugee Convention, one element of the refugee definition is that the persecution feared is “for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion“. Member States must take a number of elements into account when assessing the reasons for persecution as per Article 10 of the Qualification Directive. |
|
Refugee sur place
Description
In the EU context, a person granted refugee status based on international protection needs which arose sur place, i.e. on account of events which took place since they left their country of origin. In a global context, a person who is not a refugee when they leave their country of origin, but who becomes a refugee, that is, acquires a well-founded fear of persecution, at a later date. Synonym: Objective grounds for seeking asylum occurring after the applicant's departure from his/her country of origin Note: Refugees sur place may owe their fear of persecution to a coup d'état in their home country, or to the introduction or intensification of repressive or persecutory policies after their departure. A claim in this category may also be based on bona fide political activities, undertaken in the country of residence or refuge. |
|
Religion
Description
One of the grounds of persecution specified in the refugee definition under Article 1A ofthe1951 Refugee Convention. According to the Qualification Directive, the concept of religion includes in particular the holding of theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, the participation in, or abstention from, formal worship in private or in public, either alone or in community with others, other religious acts or expressions of view, or forms of personal or communal conduct based on or mandated by any religious belief. |
Headnote:
The Administrative Court did not consider credible the claim that the applicant’s conversion to Christianity had come to the attention of the Afghan authorities. The Court held that even if this information had reached the authorities, the applicant would not be at risk on return.
Facts:
The applicant converted to Christianity in Greece. The applicant was originally from Kabul, which was considered to be a safe region of origin.
Decision & reasoning:
Based on the baptism and documentary evidence, the Administrative Court decided that there was no reason to doubt the genuineness of the applicant’s conviction or of his conversion. The applicant’s contention that information regarding his conversion had reached the authorities in his country of origin was only raised during the appeal in the Administrative Court. The Court held that there were considerable reasons to doubt the authenticity of the claim. The applicant had not presented in detail how the news of his conversion had supposedly reached Afghanistan. The Court also held that even if the news had reached his country of origin, there were no grounds to suspect that the applicant would be at particular risk on return. The applicant had not participated in missionary work or raised suspicion through his actions. The applicant had also not been to his country of origin since the mid-1990s, so it was unlikely that his return or his quiet practice of Christianity would raise the particular interest of the authorities. It is also unlikely that the applicant would be at risk of facing harsh sanctions under Islamic law.
Outcome:
The Administrative Court rejected the appeal. The applicant was not given a residence permit based on international protection, nor on other grounds.
Subsequent proceedings:
An appeal is pending before the Supreme Administrative Court, which has issued interim measures.