Case summaries

The Palestinian applicant’s claim was rejected by the authorities as he was not found to be credible. However, the court held that the security situation in the West Bank needed to be reexamined on the basis of the latest country of origin information to assess if the applicant would face a risk of torture or inhuman treatment upon return.

An applicant from Somalia was eligible for refugee status. The court found:

1. There was sufficient probability that the applicant’s life and freedom, in case of return to Somalia, were at risk due to his membership of a particular social group.
2. Clan membership constitutes a particular social group.
3. Protection against persecution is not provided by the State, by parties or by other organisations in Somalia.
4. There is no internal protection in Somalia.

An applicant from Guinea was recognised as a refugee. The court found that because of his homosexuality he faced a threat of persecution from family members. The State was unwilling or unable to provide protection.

The case concerned the interested party's obligation to cite specific facts which can provide evidence that the conditions for falling within the scope of the 1951 Convention had been satisfied. There must be a thorough examination of the main claims and a full justification of any negative decision in the case. If the Minister for Public Order adopts the Committee's negative judgment, then the relevant document must cite not only the interested party's claims but also the questions which were put to the foreigner and the responses he gave. The contested order – based on a defective opinion – referred in general terms to the Applicant not having shown a risk of persecution on racial, political or other grounds, and is deficiently reasoned. The application for annulment was granted.

The administrative authorities, when carrying out an assessment of whether a subsequent application for refugee status is inadmissible (based on the same grounds), should compare the factual basis for the administrative case on which a final decision has been made with the testimony of the foreignor provided in the subsequent application and should also examine whether the situation in the country of origin of the applicant and also the legal position have changed.

The state cannot remove an applicant for asylum if the conditions of Art 31 of 1951 Refugee Convention are met.

Refugee status was granted to the applicants (parents) because of their advocacy in Afghanistan for democracy, separation of state and religion, equality between men and women, and their membership of and support for the party “Comprehensive movement for democracy and progress in Afghanistan”. Refugee status was granted to their children because of their membership of a particular social group of “family”.

Threats by political opponents are to be considered as imminent persecution by non-State actors according to Art. 60 (1) sentence 4 (c) of the Residence Act in conjunction with Art. 6 (c) of the Qualification Directive. The Afghan State is unwilling and unable to grant protection against such persecution by non-State actors (Art 7 of the Qualification Directive).

There was no serious reason, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Qualification Directive, to rule out with sufficient confidence that the risk of persecution, from which it is established that the applicant suffered, would not be repeated.

The applicant was recognised as a refugee because of a threat of forced marriage in Afghanistan. The court found that rights violations resulting from forced marriage, including the use of physical and psychological violence, constitute severe violations of basic human rights according to Art. 9 (1) (b) of the Qualification Directive. The applicant belonged to the particular social group of "unmarried women from families whose traditional self-image demands a forced marriage." The Afghan State is neither willing nor able to protect women against persecution in case of forced marriage. Internal protection was not available to the applicant.

The Council for Alien Law Litigation (CALL) held that Art 48/5, §3 of the Belgian Aliens Law, which refers to the principles of internal protection alternative and protection within a country of origin, is in principle applicable in cases where the threat comes from a non-state agent. In a case where the threat of persecution comes from a state agent, the decision-maker should explain why it believes that this provision is applicable nonetheless.