Case summaries
Courts must establish the current situation of the region from which the complainant originates or which can be considered as an internal flight alternative and relate it to the individual situation of the complainant in the grounds of the decision.
In the case of a Sunni Iraqi, the lower instance court did not sufficiently consider the complainant’s region of origin, the possibility of return to that region or the possibility of internal flight. Thereby the court violated the right to equal treatment among foreigners.
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).
The complainant, an Ethnic Maktumin Stateless Kurd from Amuda, Al-Hasakah, Syria, was granted temporary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (3).
On 31 August 2017 the complainant lodged a complaint claiming refugee status under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1) or alternatively subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2).
The Board found that the complainant fulfilled the conditions for subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2) as he would risk participating in acts of war during the compulsory military service.
The fact that a person cannot be repatriated under Article 3 of the ECHR does not imply that that person should be granted a leave to reside in the host country by way of subsidiary protection under Directive 2004/83. The person concerned is eligible for subsidiary protection only if there is a real risk of him being intentionally deprived, in his country of origin, of appropriate health care.
§ 104 para. 13 S. 1 of AufenthG (Residence Law) impedes the claim of a person with subsidiary protection for the assessment of a case of non-refoulment referring to the situation in the state of origin according to § 60 Abs. 5 AufenthG and Art. 3 ECHR in order to enable family reunion due to the lack of a defensible interest.
The judicial examination of whether subsidiary protection shall be approved requires a thorough assessment of the individual case. This applies in particular for especially vulnerable persons.
An internal armed conflict, characterised by armed clashes, prevails throughout the whole territory of Afghanistan. The situation in the Kabul region and the city itself constitutes indiscriminate violence resulting from this internal armed conflict.
Transferring a family to Finland under the Dublin Regulation where their asylum application and subsequent appeals have been rejected is unlawful on account of the humanitarian and security situation in Afghanistan.
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).
In the case of doubts about family relationships, both the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (BFA) and the Austrian embassy abroad must for the purpose of family reunification enable applicants to have a DNA-analysis carried out at their request and inform them of this possibility. The purpose of this DNA-analysis is to enable the applicant to eliminate existing doubts about a family relationship and thus to achieve family reunification.