Case summaries

The complainant, a Somali Citizen and a Sufi Muslim from Jaameel Sheen, Hiiraan Region, Somalia, had been detained and tortured by al-Shabaab due to teaching English.

Based on a consistent account in accordance with a medico-legal report from a torture investigation and country of origin information the Board found the applicant profiled in relation to al-Shabaab.

The applicant was granted subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2).

In assessing the credibility of a sexual orientation-related claim, personal circumstances have to be taken into account. That a person is not able to elaborate on his awareness and acceptance of his sexual orientation, is not sufficient to conclude that the applicant’s story lacks credibility, when the personal circumstances that explain this inability are considered credible.

In assessing the credibility of a sexual orientation-related claim, personal circumstances have to be taken into account. That a person is not able to elaborate on his awareness and acceptance of his sexual orientation, is not sufficient to conclude that the applicant’s story lacks credibility, when the personal circumstances that explain this inability are considered credible.

National authorities can order experts’ reports with the purpose of assisting in the assessment of the facts and circumstances relating to a declared sexual orientation of an applicant, provided that the procedures for these reports are consistent with fundamental rights. However, the examining authority, courts or tribunal must not base their decision solely on the conclusions of an expert’s report and are not bound by these conclusions when assessing the applicant’s statements relating to his or her sexual orientation.

Moreover, national authorities are prohibited from preparing and using, in order to assess the veracity of a claim made by an applicant concerning his sexual orientation, of a psychologist’s expert report the purpose of which is, on the basis of a projective personality test, to provide an indication of the sexual orientation of the applicant. 

An asylum applicant who was a victim of previous persecution in their country of origin can be granted refugee status under article 1, C 5) of the Geneva Convention. This is because, due to the severity of the treatment applied, the applicant’s fear is exacerbated to such an extent that, even if the persecution has ceased to exist, a return to the country of origin would be unthinkable. 

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. 

Following the appeal of the Children’s Rights Ombudsman, the Supreme Administrative Court set aside the order of the Regional Administrative Court, in relation to a challenge to the decision of the Polish Refugee Board, and set aside the aforementioned decision to refuse tolerated stay, dismissing the appeal in all other respects.

The court justified its decision with reference to the procedural errors of the Polish Refugee Board, which included failing to gather evidence in an appropriate manner and inappropriately establishing the facts relating to the Applicant’s children. 

An Eritrean national claimed refugee status in Switzerland as a result of having allegedly been beaten and tortured for his attempt to escape from military service. His attempt to rely on Article 3 of the Convention of Human Rights to avoid an expulsion order issued by the Swiss authorities was denied as a result of his failure to corroborate his story with factual evidence, inconsistencies in his account and the fact that risk of ill-treatment on his return to Eritrea could be mitigated. 

The Court rejected the Applicant's challenges to the respondent's decision to certify his asylum claim and deport him, on the grounds (i) of his mistaken assessment of his probable situation if deported to Italy, (ii) of his misreading of the Dublin III Regulation, specifically insofar as it applies to effective remedy.