Case summaries

The applicant was eligible for subsidiary protection as an internal armed conflict is taking place in Logar. The applicant, in case of return to Afghanistan, could not relocate to Kabul, since he could not secure his livelihood there. In order to secure his livelihood, he could not rely on property which his family had possessed in the province of Logar.

At issue in this case was whether the applicant qualified for subsidiary protection or protection for humanitarian reasons, considering her personal circumstances of extreme vulnerability.

Greater caution is required when applying an internal protection alternative to families with children than to adults without children. The Kurdish controlled areas of northern Iraq cannot be considered as a relevant and reasonable flight option for a Christian family, as the Migration Board was not able to show that there currently is no requirement for sponsorship, either to enter or to legally establish oneself there.

An internal protection alternative must be relevant and reasonable. Relevant means that the location is accessible to the individual in a practical, safe and legal manner. The individual must also have access to effective protection at the location. That the option should be reasonable means that an individual assessment of the individual's ability to settle in a new location should be made, and of whether he or she has a social network. There ought also to be a realistic possibility for the individual to support himself and be able to live in a way that does not involve unnecessary suffering or hardship.

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

The expulsion of relatives providing care can breach Art. 8 ECHR, particularly if the foreigner requiring care and who is resident here is not removed from the country himself, but only the relative providing care.

The applicant based her claim for asylum on the threats and human rights violations arising as a result of her common-law husband’s political activities and the authorities’ suspicion of the applicant’s support of the opposition party. Refugee status was refused. The Administrative Court found that the applicant had failed to establish a risk of persecution based on her imputed political opinion. The Administrative Court held, that to return the applicant to her country of origin where she has experienced serious human rights violations, in the final stages of pregnancy or with a newborn child, without any social networks to fall back on, taken into account together, would form a real threat of serious harm suffering inhuman or degrading treatment as laid out in Art 88 of the Aliens Act.

The suppression of the expression of racist opinions in a State does not constitute persecution pursuant to the 1951 Refugee Convention, if actions of this kind are considered justified and proportionate following analysisof the particular circumstances.

An unmarried woman with a “Western“ lifestyle, who is not religious and has no financial means, is at risk of gender based persecution by non-State actors in case of return to Iraq (continuation of the court’s case law, compare decision of 26 June 2007. A 6 K 394/07)

The case considered whether the security situation in central-Iraq, and particularly in Baghdad, met the prerequisites for granting a residence permit on the grounds of subsidiary protection. It was confirmed that the need for international protection must be evaluated not only on points of law but also on points of fact. Both the applicant’s account of prior events in the country of origin, as well as current country of origin information regarding the security situation, must be taken into account in the risk assessment. As such, the evaluation is tied to a particular individual and to a particular time and place.

In this case the court considered the risk to a refugee of indirect refoulement from a third country.