Finland - Supreme Administrative Court, 8 April 2011, KHO:2011:1012
| Country of Decision: | Finland |
| Country of applicant: | Afghanistan |
| Court name: | Supreme Administrative Court |
| Date of decision: | 08-04-2011 |
| Citation: | KHO:2011:1012 |
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 Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) returned the case to the Administrative Court for reconsideration based on the applicants' change of circumstance (conversion to Christianity in Finland) which only became apparent during the appeal before the SAC.
Facts:
The applicants, a family consisting of a mother, father and children, claimed asylum in Finland. They had, in their home town, received threats from unknown people.
The Finnish Immigration Service rejected the application for international protection and held that the applicants faced a threat from a non-state actor and that they could avail themselves of the protection of the authorities in their country of origin.
The applicants had converted to Christianity in Finland. This information was first brought to light during the appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court.
Decision & reasoning:
In light of the changed circumstances (the applicants conversion to Christianity in Finland), the Court assessed if the new grounds could, in principle, constitute evidence of a risk of persecution or inhuman treatment in Afghanistan. If this risk was possible, further assessment of the credibility of the applicants’ conversion must be carried out.
According to its Constitution, Afghanistan is an Islamic republic, and its religion is Islam. UNHCR guidelines (UNHCR: Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-seekers from Afghanistan, July 2009) discuss the renouncing of Islam in Afghanistan in the same context as they discuss violations of Sharia law, and religious minorities. According to some interpretations, renouncing Islam is punishable by death. No known death penalties have been carried out in recent years.
In light of COI, it can be estimated that renouncing Islam may come to the knowledge of at least local communities and that the authorities respond to such renouncements negatively. Therefore it cannot be ruled out that renouncing Islam could lead to a need for international protection. However, a final judgment cannot be reached without assessing the sincerity of the applicants’ conversion. This can be most reliably assessed in an oral hearing.
Outcome:
The Supreme Administrative Court overturned the decisions made by the Administrative Court and the Immigration Service and returned the case to the Administrative Court for further investigation.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Other sources:
UNHCR: Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-seekers from Afghanistan, July 2009