Case summaries
The applicant, an ethnic Kurd and Sunni Muslim from Kirkuk, Iraq, became aware of his sexual orientation when he was 20/22 years of age and has since had relations with several men and during a longer period worked as a prostitute.
The Refugee Appeals Board accepted the applicants account and found that the applicant as a Kurd from Northern Iraq, according to country of origin information, would risk persecution if he was to return to Iraq and live openly as a homosexual. Consequently, the applicant was granted refugee status under the Danish Aliens Act art. 7 (1).
In the assessment of a real risk of inhuman treatment or a serious threat to life or physical integrity in a situation of indiscriminate violence within an armed conflict, not only the general security and supply situation has to be considered, but also the “specific distinguishing features” of the applicant, which expose him/her to a higher risk than the average population.
In the present case, the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, BVwG) did not assess the individual circumstances of the applicant, disregarding the binding force of a previous ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof, VwGH).
When examining the acceptance of an asylum claim, the authorities have to study whether the testimony of the applicant is based on presumably true facts. Only if it is manifestly false could the admission of this application be denied.
The principle of family unity has to be taken into account regarding the assessment of the circumstances of the applicant, especially since his sister’s application for international protection was accepted.
In countries where there is a high prevalence of female genital mutilation (FGM), as in Nigeria, non-excised persons can be considered as having a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of membership of a particular social group within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of 1951 Refugee Convention. Refugee status can be granted where there is a considerable risk of excision and insufficient protection against this threat.
Kabul cannot be considered as a reasonable internal flight alternative for the complainant due to the lack of a sustainable social network for him there and no other particular factors which would enable the applicant's removal . Therefore the complainant does not meet the requirements for a removal to Afghanistan.
The right to be heard entails the obligation of the court to take note of the arguments put forward by the parties and to take these arguments into consideration when taking its decision. While this does not require the court to explicitly address every single fact put forward by the parties, the grounds of the decision have to refer to the essential issues raised by such facts.
In case of a single mother and her four minor children facing deportation to a country where beneficiaries of international protection had to live under difficult conditions, these personal circumstances of the applicants are of key importance to the legal evaluation. Independently of the question, whether deportations to Bulgaria were, in light of the current conditions, generally permissible, the provisions of Art. 21 et seqq. of the Reception Conditions Directive clearly stipulated that the concerns of families with children had to be given particular consideration.
Consequently, under such circumstances a court was required to specifically set out why it assumed that the family would be guaranteed suitable accommodation that excluded the possibility of health risks and met the needs of a family with children. Otherwise, the decision amounts to an infringement of the applicant’s right to be heard under Art. 103 (1) of the Basic Law.
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.
1. Afghans who have worked for international aid organisations are particularly endangered of becoming victims of political persecution by non-state actors (e.g. Taliban) according to § 3 (1) AsylG in case of a return to Afghanistan.
2. There is no internal protection for these people. They cannot escape the clutches of non-state actors as these groups have a wide (information) network at their disposal and an increased interest in persons who have worked for international aid organisations.
The Migration Court of Appeal considered the applicant’s ability to obtain subsidiary protection status based on his need for protection as a Shia Hazara and a minor.
The Court denied the appeal by the Migration Agency and granted the defendant subsidiary protection status.
The Immigration Rules (“the Rules”) minimum income requirements (“the MIR”) for individuals who have a right to live in the UK who wish to bring their non-EEA citizen spouses to live with them are not open to legal challenge.
The Rules fail unlawfully to give effect to the duty of the Secretary of State (“the SoS”) in respect of the welfare of children under s.55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (“the 2009 Act”), however the challenge to the validity of the Rules was dismissed.
To ensure that their decisions are compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 (“the HRA”) however, revisions to instructions for entry clearance officers (“the Instructions”) are necessary.