Sweden - Migration Court, 18 October 2007, UM 6696-07

Facts:

The applicant, a Shia Muslim male from Baghdad, applied for asylum in February 2007. The applicant claimed he was at risk of being killed as a consequence of the situation of general violence in Baghdad.

The Migration Board denied the application on July 5 2007 as the applicant was not found to have shown that he faced an individual risk of persecution upon return, nor that the situation in Iraq or Baghdad amounted to internal armed conflict.

In the proceedings before the Migration Court the applicant invoked additional grounds to his claim, all related to an individual risk of persecution. Alternatively the applicant invoked the situation of general violence in Iraq claiming it amounted to an internal armed conflict.

Decision & reasoning:

In its judgement the Migration Court stated that the assessment of an application for international protection is to be carried out on an individual basis and should take into account any previous persecution and/or serious harm suffered by the applicant, in accordance with Article 4.4 of the Qualifications Directive. The new/additional grounds invoked by the applicant before the Court were found lacking in credibility. The explanations offered by the applicant for not having invoked those grounds from the beginning were considered unreliable and/or un acceptable.

As concerns subsidiary protection the Migration Court relied on case law from the Migration Court of Appeal from February 2007 (MIG 2007:9) in which the Migration Court of Appeal ruled that the situation in Iraq was not an armed conflict according to the Aliens Act Chapter 4, Paragraph 2, Section 2 of the Aliens Act (wording before 2010). The Migration Court concluded that no facts concerning the situation in Baghdad or Iraq suggested another conclusion than the one made by the Court of Appeal in MIG 2007:9.

On the need for protection based on ”other severe conflicts” Aliens Act (Chapter 4 Section 2 item 2, wording before 2010) the Migration Court concluded that such a severe conflict indeed had been recognised to exist in Bagdad at the time, but that the applicant did not fulfill the requirements for this to be applicable in the present case. The causal link between the applicant’s personal circumstances and the conflict as such was concluded to be at the core of the assessment. The Migration Court concluded, after a discussion on previous case law from the Migration Court of Appeal, that it is difficult to determine how strong this causal link has to be. As the applicant’s personal circumstances were not considered to be credible the Migration Court found no reason the grant the applicant international protection.

Outcome:

The decision by the Migration Board was upheld and was asylum denied.

Observations/comments:

Also, the case is interesting because of its discussion on the causal link as regards subsidiary protection. The requirements concerning an individualiszed risk/threat under the subsidiary rules on protection appear to be unclear.

Other sources:

UNHCR’s Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Iraqi Asylum-seekers.