Denmark - the Refugee Appeals Board’s decision of 25 January 2017
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Assessment of facts and circumstances
{ return; } );"
>
Description
The duty of the state to carry out an individual assessment of all relevant elements of the asylum application according to the provisions of Article 4 of the Qualification Directive, including considering past persecution and credibility; and the duty of the applicant to submit as soon as possible all statements and documentation necessary to substantiate the application. |
|
Non-state actors/agents of persecution
{ return; } );"
>
Description
People or entities responsible for acts or threats of persecution, which are not under the control of the government, and which may give rise to refugee status if they are facilitated, encouraged, or tolerated by the government, or if the government is unable or unwilling to provide effective protection against them. |
|
Persecution Grounds/Reasons
{ return; } );"
>
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. |
|
Relevant Facts
{ return; } );"
>
Description
An assessment of an application for international protection must take into account all relevant facts, including those relating to: the country of origin at the time of taking a decision on the application, including laws and regulations of the country of origin and the manner in which they are applied; relevant statements and documentation presented by the applicant; the individual position and personal circumstances of the applicant; and other matters set out in Article 4 of the Qualification Directive |
|
Relevant Documentation
{ return; } );"
>
Description
“All documentation at the applicants disposal regarding the applicant's age, background, including that of relevant relatives, identity, nationality(ies), country(ies) and place(s) of previous residence, previous asylum applications, travel routes, identity and travel documents and the reasons for applying for international protection.” |
|
Well-founded fear
{ return; } );"
>
Description
One of the central elements of the refugee definition under Article 1A ofthe1951 Refugee Convention is a “well-founded fear of persecution”: "Since fear is subjective, the definition involves a subjective element in the person applying for recognition as a refugee. Determination of refugee status will therefore primarily require an evaluation of the applicant's statements rather than a judgement on the situation prevailing in his country of origin. To the element of fear--a state of mind and a subjective condition--is added the qualification ‘well-founded’. This implies that it is not only the frame of mind of the person concerned that determines his refugee status, but that this frame of mind must be supported by an objective situation. The term ‘well-founded fear’ therefore contains a subjective and an objective element, and in determining whether well-founded fear exists, both elements must be taken into consideration." |
|
Religion
{ return; } );"
>
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. |
|
Political Opinion
{ return; } );"
>
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. |
|
Real risk
{ return; } );"
>
Description
In order to be eligible for subsidiary protection, a third country national or stateless person must demonstrate that if returned to his or her country of origin, or in the case of a stateless person, to his or her country of former habitual residence, s/he would face a real risk of serious harm as defined in QD Art. 15 and that s/he is unable, or owing to such risk, unwilling to avail her/himself of the protection of that country. The fact that an applicant has already been subject to persecution or serious harm or to direct threats of such persecution or such harm, is a serious indication of the applicant's well-founded fear of persecution or real risk of suffering serious harm, unless there are good reasons to consider that such persecution or serious harm will not be repeated. |
Headnote:
The applicant, an ethnic Arab and a Sunni Muslim from Baghdad, who had worked in a firm with foreign connections in the Green Zone, had received threats from a Shia militia and his brother was abducted during a search for him at his home.
The Board found that the applicant, if returned to Iraq, was in real risk of suffering serious harm.
The Board did not find reason for granting refugee status under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1). The Board therefore granted subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2).
Facts:
The applicant, born in 1985, is an ethnic Arab and a Sunni Muslim from Baghdad, Iraq. He entered Denmark in December 2014 and applied for refugee status. He stated that he feared if he returned to Iraq he would be killed by the Shia militia Asaieb Ahe Alhaq because he is a Sunni Muslim and has worked in the Green Zone in Baghdad. He also fears the Shia militia Alhashed Alshabi because they kill Sunni Muslims. In support of his application regarding his fear for the Shia militia, Asaieb Ahe Alhaq, he referred to a phone call in the summer of 2014, which he assumed came from a representative of the militia and in which his life was threatened. That same day a work colleague and friend, [A], also received a phone call threatening A. [Three days later] [A] was kidnapped. That same day the applicant left his home and stayed with a friend who lived not far from the applicant’s home. [The following day] [A] was found dead in a container. The applicant assumed that a Shia militia was behind the abduction and killing of [A]. [Two days later] a group of men in police uniforms came to the applicant’s home and as the applicant was not at home they abducted the applicant’s younger brother. The applicant assumed that the militia was behind the abduction and the militias and the authorities had collaborated. [Four days later] the applicant legally left Iraq from Baghdad’s International Airport.
The Danish Immigration Service rejected the asylum application in August 2016.
Decision & reasoning:
The account of the applicant has been established by the Refugee Appeals Board.
The board accepted that the applicant is a Sunni Muslim and in [the summer] 2014 worked in a firm with foreign connections situated in the Green Zone where the USA controlled the accessibility and issued ID cards. The Board noted that the applicant had presented several documents for the documentation of his terms of employment as well as ID documents. The applicant’s account of the threat from an unknown person, who according to the applicant represented a Shia militia, had been consistent and trustworthy. The Board also emphasised that the applicant’s younger brother was abducted from the home during the search for the applicant. As the threat came shortly before his departure and in part was based on the applicant’s employment and that [A], the applicants colleague and friend, received a similar threat the same day and immediately after was abducted and killed, the Board found that the applicant in the case of returning to Iraq would be in real risk of suffering serious harm covered by the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2). The Board did not find reason for granting refugee status under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1). The Board therefore granted subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2).
Outcome:
The applicant was granted subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2).
Observations/comments:
The Board did not give reasons for not granting refugee status under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1), in spite of the applicant being persecuted on the ground of imputed political opinion.
Cited National Legislation:
| Cited National Legislation |
| (2) |
| (1) |
| Denmark - The Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 |