Case summaries

The Council of State ruled that significant similarities between accounts that were being presented by different asylum seekers with the same nationality, ethnic origin and provenance, who applied for asylum in the same period of time, was certainly remarkable, even suspicious, but that this suspicion alone does not  suffice to establish fraud by the applicants.

Honour-related violence should be examined in the context of grounds for protection and not humanitarian considerations. The Migration Court of Appeal also discussed the application of the benefit of the doubt.

This case examines why asylum or protection grounds should be examined carefully before the issuing of a permit may be considered for ‘exceptionally distressing circumstances’ as expressed in Chapter 5 Section 6 of the Aliens Act. Once an applicant has been assessed as having a reasonably likely need for protection against a specific part of the country of origin, then the assessment of whether there is an internal flight alternative must be carried out within the framework of the provisions on protection.

The Migration Court of Appeal concluded that the Migration Court made an error in carrying out a credibility assessment before evaluating the evidence. The Migration Board and the Courts must first consider if an applicant was able to make his or her account plausible based on the evidence relied on, and only thereafter make a credibility assessment.

The Court emphasised that an applicant may have the advantage of the benefit of the doubt if his or her account appears credible. In this case, the applicant was deemed not credible and therefore the benefit of the doubt was not applied.

It is important to carefully distinguish between what constitutes evidence and information submitted by the applicant.

The case concerned an appeal lodged before the Supreme Court against a decision of the High National Court to reject a claim for refugee status based on membership of a particular social group (this particular group was determined by economic status).

The UNHCR Handbook is an important source of law concerning the procedure to determine protection needs. The Migration Court is responsible for ensuring that a case is sufficiently investigated by holding an oral hearing or otherwise investigating the ambiguities of the case, when an asylum seeker who has been rejected because of credibility grounds has submitted relevant documents that are deemed to be genuine by a Swedish embassy.

The European Court of Human Rights held that the expulsion of an Eritrean deserter to Eritrea would give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.