Hungary – Metropolitan Court, 18 July 2011, K.A.M. v. Office of Immigration and Nationality, 17.K.35.244/2010/9
| Country of Decision: | Hungary |
| Country of applicant: | Bangladesh |
| Court name: | Metropolitan Court |
| Date of decision: | 18-07-2011 |
| Citation: | 17.K.35.244/2010/9. |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Internal protection
Description
Where in a part of the country of origin there is no well-founded fear of being persecuted or no real risk of suffering serious harm and the applicant can reasonably be expected to stay in that part of the country. |
|
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. |
|
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 applicant claimed that he would face persecution if returned to Bangladesh due to his Ahmadi (Ahmadiyya) religion. Both the applicant’s father and brother were attacked because of their religion. The Office of Immigration and Nationality (OIN) rejected the application stating that effective protection is accessible within Bangladesh. The Court accepted the OIN’s reasoning. The prohibition of refoulement did not apply.
Facts:
The applicant belonged to the Ahmadi religious Muslim community and actively participated in protecting their mosque from extremists. The applicant left his hometown and studied in various other cities. While studying he changed his place of residence a couple of times to avoid further harassment. The OIN found that the applicant could reasonably be expected to move to other parts of the country where internal protection is available.
Decision & reasoning:
The court ruled that although the situation is not entirely peaceful and members of the Ahmadi religious group could be regarded as a particular social group, the discriminatory acts did not amount to persecution since these incidents were not sufficiently serious by their nature or repetition as to constitute a severe violation of basic human rights. The fact that the applicant could finish his studies and obtain the qualification to be able to find a job confirms that in his case that internal protection is a realistic option in Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh.
Outcome:
Judicial review was rejected and the Metropolitan Court upheld the decision.
Observations/comments:
The applicant’s statements were deemed plausible and credible.
The Court did not assess the fact that the applicant’s father was attacked and the perpetrators were looking for the applicant.