Case summaries
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 Tribunal considered an appeal which raised issues relating to when the arbitrary deprivation of nationality, including the circumstances in which the refusal by the State of nationality to provide documents to allow the applicant to be re-admitted constitutes persecution. It held that these were matters within its jurisdiction and the question of whether a national of a State has been lawfully or unlawfully deprived of that nationality was a legitimate issue to be considered in deciding upon a claim for international protection. Whether arbitrary deprivation of nationality amounts to persecution is a question of fact. The same is true of the denial of the right of return as a national; although in practice it is likely that such a denial will be found to be persecutory.
The Court held that the question of whether discrimination, taken cumulatively, amounts to persecution in a given case is a matter for the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.
The guidance in HJ (Iran) (see separate summary in this database) should be applied, by analogy, in cases where the applicant feared persecution on account of their religion. Consequently, the Tribunal had to consider the reason why an Ahmadi applicant for asylum had modified his behaviour by preaching only to people who would not put him at risk of persecution.
A stateless Kurd from Syria was not recognised as a refugee. The court held:
- The denial of re-entry of stateless Kurds is not to be considered political persecution because a general institutional practice cannot be detected which is aimed against ethnic Kurds in a manner that is relevant to asylum grounds (Art 10 of the Qualification Directive).
- Whether the legal practice of Syrian legislation on citizenship and the denial of re-entry are part of a restrictive policy towards Kurds, and support the aims of the State of Syria in respect of its settlement policy, is not important when determining political persecution under Section 60 (1) sentence (5) of the Residence Act in connection with Art. 9 and 10 Qualification Directive.
A claim based on past persecution was rejected on the basis that it lacked credibility. A challenge to the decision of the Tribunal was successful on the basis that the decision did not contain any reasoned assessment of the prospective risk of future persecution if returned to Sudan. The High Court in its judgment cautioned against the use of case law as a source of country of origin information.
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.
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.
An Egyptian transgender woman, who first underwent gender reassignment surgery and hormone treatment in Austria, was recognised as a refugee as it was accepted that there were problems with the police, a refusal to issue her a passport using her new personal data and social issues of an intensity relevant to asylum matters.