Sweden - Migration Court, 1 March 2011, UM 20938-10
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. |
|
Political Opinion
Description
One of the grounds of persecution specified in the refugee definition per Article 1A ofthe1951 Refugee Convention. According to the Qualification Directive the concept of political opinion includes holding an opinion, thought or belief on a matter related to potential actors of persecution and to their policies or methods, whether or not that opinion, thought or belief has been acted upon by the applicant. |
Headnote:
This case concerned a Chinese applicant of Uyghur ethnicity who was granted residence and refugee status because of his sur place political activities in Sweden.
Facts:
The applicant, a Chinese national, sought asylum in Sweden on the 20th March 2010. In China, he was active on a political blog that discussed Uyghur rights. The applicant also participated in a demonstration in China protesting against the death of at least ten Uyghurs during a riot in a factory. The applicant fled to his hotel room but was arrested the day after when the authorities raided his hotel. He was detained for 20 days. During this time the police questioned him many times and subjected the applicant to torture in order to get him to admit that he had participated in the demonstration and that he was guilty of political crimes. The applicant's relatives managed to bribe some officials and the applicant was released until the investigation was complete.
Decision & reasoning:
The Migration Board rejected the applicant's asylum application. They questioned the intensity of the applicant's commitment and the Chinese authorities' interest in him. Amongst other things, the Migration Board found that the fact that the applicant, on several occasions (even after being released), was questioned by police but they found no reason to take any further action against him and that he was able to leave the country legally, contradicted any claim that the applicant had been involved at a level that had come to the Chinese authorities' attention.
The Migration Court concurred with the Migration Board that the applicant had not proved it likely that he was at risk of persecution because of what occurred in his country of origin. On the other hand, the Court maintained that the applicant, because of his political activities in Sweden through his membership in the Swedish Uyghur Committee, his participation in demonstrations and because of the dissident statements he made in an interview with Radio Free Asia, he risked treatment on return to China that qualifies as grounds for protection.
Since the applicant did not establish as probable that he had been politically active before his arrival in Sweden, the Migration Court believed that it was questionable whether the applicant's conduct in Sweden was an expression of a genuine political opinion. The Court also believed that the fact that the applicant started his political activities in Sweden, while his asylum claim was pending, raised some doubts as to his fear of return.
The country information on China shows, however, that a mere suspicion of regime-hostile involvement is sufficient for Uyghurs to be subjected to reprisals by the Chinese authorities. The applicant's contacts with Uyghurs in exile in Sweden and his participation in demonstrations, which are substantiated in both photos and an interview on the internet, are therefore considered adequate to show that the applicant risks reprisals if returned.
Outcome:
The applicant was granted refugee status in accordance with Chapter 4 Section 1 of the Aliens Act.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited National Legislation:
| Cited National Legislation |
| Sweden - Utlänningslagen (Aliens Act) (2005:716) - Chapter 4 Section 1 |