Case summaries
The court gave guidance on the application of a structured approach to credibility assessment.
Prospective extradition of Applicants, members of an established vulnerable group under ECtHR, to a country where the risk of ill-treatment is real shall trigger a violation of Article 3 ECHR. Detention orders not meeting Article 5§1(f) ECHR objective threshold are and should be deemed as unlawful. The plurality of domestic remedies with the same objective does not prescribe their use by the Applicant for the purposes of Article 35§1 ECHR.
The appellant claimed that the Tribunals in their determinations had failed to give adequate reasons for their conclusions, in particular that the appellant had not demonstrated well-founded fear. The Court considered the grounds for this claim and found that since we should ‘avoid a requirement of perfection’ (para 26) they were not sufficient to establish that the tribunals had erred, nor that the claimant was at risk of persecution.
The Immigration and Asylum Office unlawfully rejected the claimant’s application for international protection. The court found that the authorities did not objectively assess the evidence and country information provided by the claimant, a Coptic Christian from Egypt. They also failed to correctly interpret the definition of a refugee in accordance with international law and disregarded the special status of the claimant who was an underage applicant.
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 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.
The applicant, an ethnic Kurd and a Yarsan from Kanehar, Kermanshah, Iran, had performed religious activities aimed at spreading the knowledge of the faith and thereby attracted the attention of the authorities.
The majority of the Board accepted the applicants account and consequently the Board found that the applicant risked persecution because of his Yarsan religious activities and granted refugee status under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1).
A Stateless Palestinian and Sunni Muslim from Lebanon, single woman, born and raised in Saudi Arabia who had a conflict with her family because she had had a relationship with a French Christian man and lost her virginity.
The Board found that seen in isolation as a Stateless Palestinian the applicant is covered by the Danish Aliens Act Art 7 (1).
The Board found that because the applicant had never resided in Lebanon, did not have any relation to that country, and due to her conflict with her family and based on country of origin information regarding entry options to Saudi Arabia as well as Lebanon for Stateless Palestinians, neither Saudi Arabia nor Lebanon could be considered as a first country of asylum. Consequently, the applicant was granted refugee status under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1).
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).