Finland - KHO:2013:23, Supreme Administrative Court, 4.2.2013

Facts:

The appellant and his/her three children claim to be from Mogadishu in Somalia, which they had to escape  due to human rights violations  infringements on the basis of  his/her clan background. The Finnish Immigration Service considered the appellant’s account to be totally unconvincing because in the refugee interview his/her knowledge of Mogadishu was very weak and in the language assessment he/she clearly speaks a Somalian dialect which is spoken in Northern Somalia.  Based on these facts the Immigration Service considered the appellant to be from Northern Somalia and therefore he/she couldn’t have had the problems he/she claimed in Mogadishu. It was deemed that the children accompanying the appellant didn’t have such ties to Finland which would favour the granting of a residence permit.  The children’s ties are to their country of origin, Somalia.  The refusal of entry cannot be considered to endanger the children’s development or health.  The Immigration Service considered that the appellants can be deported to their country of origin, Somalia (Somaliland), without being subjected to inhuman treatment as specified in Section 3 in the European Convention of Human Rights or treatment specified in Section 9, Article 4 of The Constitution or in Section 87, Article 1 of The Aliens Act, Section 88, Article 1 or Section 88 a, Article 1 or that they could be sent from there to a safe  region.

Helsinki Administrative Courtrejected the appeal and considered the appellant to be from Northern Somalia because, according to the language assessment, the appellant clearly speaks the kind of Somali that is spoken in Northern Somalia.  Additionally, according to the language assessment, the appellant clearly isn’t from Southern Somalia.  The language assessment result is the strongest possible of the four degrees of certainty in the test.

The appellants asked for leave to appeal to The Supreme Administrative Court and it was granted.  The appellant questioned the reliability of the language assessment as a basis for a decision.

Decision & reasoning:

Regarding the language assessment and domicile of the appellant, the Supreme Administrative Court stated thatwhen making a decision, domicile is an essential factor.  The language assessment in this case was justified because there was no reliable evidence of the applicant’s place of domicile and the person’s own account was  contradictory in parts.

When reporting the results, Skandinaviska Språkanalys AB, which carried out the assessment, uses four degrees of certainty.  The degrees in the result of the assessment are graded according to whether the person speaks a certain language or dialect either manifestly clearly, with great probability, probably, or possibly.  In this case the assessment, using the assessment criteria, has given the most reliable account of the appellant’s language dialect and its prevalence in Somalia.  The claims made in the appeal regarding the unreliability of and inadequate expertise used in the language assessment do not require that the result of the assessment be interpreted  in any other way. 

Language variations can change for several reasons. Contributory factors may be for example internal migration, prolonged stay in a different place as well as reasons relating to one’s living environment and environmental circumstances.  Also the person’s age, sex, profession, social group and state of health as well as other personal attributes can have an influence.  Such individual factors which would weaken the assessment have not arisen in this case.

The analysis gives a reliable result of the appellant’s dialect and its prevalence in Somalia.  However, this alone cannot be used to ascertain the appellant’s domicile with certainty.  Thus the appellant’s contradictory version of his/her domicile cannot be assessed solely based on the language analysis but an assessment must be made taking into account other applicable factors.

In this case the appellant has not produced any reliable evidence, such as an official document, which could be directly or indirectly used to determine his/her domicile.  Under these circumstances, further clarification can be mainly made on the basis of how well he/she knows the area he/she says he/she comes from.

Based on the report, the appellant has very little knowledge of the Mogadishu area where, according to him/her, he/she has lived and worked for a long time.  The reason for poor local knowledge cannot be blamed on the factors mentioned in the appeal nor have any factors arisen during the hearing on which a different assessment should be made. In addition, the credibility of his/her account is diminished by his/her contradictory information on his/her domicile.  Thus there is justification for concluding that the appellant is not from the Mogadishu area but from Somaliland.

Outcome:

The Supreme Administrative Court rejected the appeal and considered that there were no grounds to change the verdict of the administrative court.

Other sources:

UK Home Office Country of Origin Information Report, 19.5.2010