Case summaries

Refugee status was granted to an Algerian woman who was at risk of forced marriage due to membership of a particular social group.

The case refers to an appeal before the High National Court brought by the Appellant against the decision of the Central Court for Contentious-Administrative Proceedings to uphold the Ministry of the Interior’s denial of asylum.

The Appellant is a Nigerian national.In the application she claimed that when her father died, she was left in debt to the chief of the tribe to which they belonged.In order to settle the debt, the Applicant was forced to marry the tribal chief and was kept as a prisoner.

Therefore, the High National Court upheld the Applicant’s appeal as it deemed the situation suffered by women in Nigeria, and particularly forced marriage, constitutes a form of persecution for membership of a particular social group.

A mother of two children was recognised as a refugee as there was sufficient probability of her being forced to undergo sterilisation in China due to violation of the one child policy. Forced sterilisation constitutes a violation of the basic human right to physical integrity and human dignity to such an extent that it is without doubt relevant under Section 60 (1) of the Residence Act. / Art 1 A 2 of the 1951 Refugee Convention.

The Helsinki Administrative Court held that the applicant was not considered at risk of persecution as it was unlikely that the Iranian authorities were aware of the applicant’s extramarital affair and the applicant was able to rely on her friends for support in different parts of Iran.

The Helsinki Administrative Court held that the applicant was not considered at risk of persecution as it was unlikely that the Iranian authorities were aware of the applicant’s extramarital affair and the applicant was able to rely on her friends for support in different parts of Iran.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the Tribunal must make a best interest of the child determination in considering an asylum appeal made by an unaccompanied minor. Further, that although the Secretary of State has a duty to trace the applicant’s family under the Reception Conditions Directive, this duty exists independently of the obligation to appropriately consider an asylum claim. Therefore the Secretary of State’s failure to act on the basis of the duty is not a ground on which an asylum appeal could be allowed.  

In the opinion of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, the decision of the defendant was arbitrary only with regard to the statement that “in view of the fact that there is no legal entitlement to asylum in the territory of the Slovak Republic on humanitarian grounds and in the course of the procedure no facts were found which would have led the Migration Office to such a conclusion, it will not grant asylum on humanitarian grounds under Section 9 of the Asylum Act“, which could not be reviewed due to lack of grounds. 

Rights violations resulting from a forced marriage, including the use of physical and mental violence, constitute severe violations of basic human rights in terms of Art 9.1 (a) of the Qualification Directive.

The Iranian state is neither able nor willing to protect women against persecution by relatives in case of forced marriage.