Case summaries

Kabul cannot be considered as a reasonable internal flight alternative for the complainant due to the lack of a sustainable social network for him there and no other particular factors which would enable the applicant's removal . Therefore the complainant does not meet the requirements for a removal to Afghanistan.

Effective access to justice relies on an individual having a voice in the proceedings concerning him or her. Solely focusing on the credibility of the appellant’s account and not having regard to objective evidence testifying to the appellant’s vulnerability or the risk to the appellant of return to Afghanistan has led to the proceedings being neither fair nor just. A material error of law has therefore been committed. 

A third-country national whose entry was tolerated by the authorities of one Member State faced with the arrival of an unusually large number of third-country nationals seeking transit through that Member State in order to lodge an application for international protection in another Member State, without fulfilling the entry conditions generally imposed in the first Member State, must be regarded as having ‘irregularly crossed’ the border of the first Member State within the meaning of that provision. Article 13(1) of the Dublin Regulation III therefore applies and Croatia is deemed to be responsible for the protection claims. 

1. Afghans who have worked for international aid organisations are particularly endangered of becoming victims of political persecution by non-state actors (e.g. Taliban) according to § 3 (1) AsylG in case of a return to Afghanistan.

2. There is no internal protection for these people. They cannot escape the clutches of non-state actors as these groups have a wide (information) network at their disposal and an increased interest in persons who have worked for international aid organisations.

The applicant, an ethnic Turkman and an atheist from Aache, Afghanistan had received death threats from local residents close to the imam as well as from his own father because of his apostasy.

The Refugee Appeals Board found that the applicant because of his apostacy would be at risk of being persecuted by local residents, Afghan authorities and the Taleban. Consequently, the applicant was granted refugee status under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1).

The Federal Supreme Court rules that the separate detention of families with minor children and the placement in a children’s home violates the right to family life in Art. 8 ECHR, if less intrusive measures than detention have not been taken into consideration.

Where an asylum application is made by an unaccompanied child, the tribunal must take into consideration the best interests of the child in its examination (for example, education). The decision includes a presumption of minority that the tribunal must rebut in order to allow for the transfer of the applicant. 

Article 3 of the ECHR imposes an absolute obligation on contracting States not to deport an asylum seeker where doing so would expose him or her to a genuine and serious risk of violence. Under the discretionary clause in Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, this remains the case where the application does not fall within the immediate responsibilities of that State.

The Migration Court of Appeal considered the applicant’s ability to obtain subsidiary protection status based on his need for protection as a Shia Hazara and a minor.
The Court denied the appeal by the Migration Agency and granted the defendant subsidiary protection status. 

Decision to authorise legal aid in a process which concerns whether the applicant has a right to access an integration course.