Portugal - Administrative Litigation Section of the Central Administrative Court, 11/02/2016, proc. nº 12873/16
Headnote:
It is an appeal against the decision handed down by the Administrative Court of Lisboa that granted asylum to a Syrian citizen.
The recursive claim was declared unfounded by the Central Court, inter alia because the applicant’s mere transit from Brazil could not be considered as a connecting link that could render Brazil a safe third country.
Facts:
The Applicant, a national of Syria, had a tourist visa for the Federal Republic of Brazil that was issued under the special policy of tourist visas for Syrian citizens.
In May 2015, the Applicant arrived at Lisbon Airport, where he applied for asylum to the Portuguese State.
Decision & reasoning:
The Court considered the appeal unfounded for several reasons, pronouncing the admissibility of the asylum application.
First, two principles were invoked as a way to better explain the decision: The Principle of The Benefit of Doubt and The Principle of Non-Refoulement.
Second, the Court considered the fact that the applicant was coming from a country that was facing constant internal armed conflict. Because of that, the Court understood that the increased risk for his life and/or physical integrity would come simply from living there, consisting of a diffuse and widespread risk.
Finally, the failure to verify clauses of inadmissibility or accelerated processing in the domestic law of Portugal was determinant for the final decision.
The Portuguese Asylum Law have an exhaustive list of the accelerated procedure and inadmissibility clauses, on the basis of which an application for international protection may be examined without an in-merits examination.
In this case, the application could have been considered inadmissible if Brazil was considered the first country of asylum for the Syrian citizen. Nonetheless, the Court concluded that Brazil could not be considered the first country of asylum because, although the applicant had applied for international protection on Brazilian territory, he had not received any decision, temporary or definitive, thus excluding the possibility of the application of this clause.
Another possibility for inadmissibility would have been if Brazil was considered a safe third country for the Syrian citizen. The Court concluded that Brazil could not be considered a safe third country either because it is necessary that there exists a connection between the applicant and the safe third country. The short times that the applicant stayed in Brazilian territory could not establish any link between him and Brazil. Besides, the absence of any response from the Brazilian authorities highlights the characterization of Brazil as a mere transit country. According to UNHCR, transit is manifestly insufficient to create a link between the applicant and the State.
Therefore, the asylum application was admissible.
Outcome:
Appeal denied
Observations/comments:
In terms of Brazilian law, the visa that had been granted to the applicant was a tourist visa, with a procedure facilitated by Normative Resolution CONARE Nº17. The tourist visa fulfils the mission of being a way of accessing the protection of a third State. It does not constitute a form of asylum but only aims to simplify the access to international protection procedures in Brazilian territory. The Normative Resolution states that it will grant visas to “individuals affected by the armed conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic who express a desire to seek refuge in Brazil.” That is, the request for international protection will only be fulfilled when individuals, after arriving in Brazil, go to the competent authorities and submit their asylum application. The process of granting international protection will, as of this moment, follow the standard procedure.