Case summaries

Asylum seeker’s return to Iran would not violate Article 2 or 3 because the risk of political persecution was unsubstantiated and peripheral and his conversion to Christianity was likely unknown to the authorities.

Swiss deportation to Sudan of non-high-profile political opponent of Sudanese government would risk inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3.

It is the Applicant's age on the date of the asylum application rather than the date of the transfer decision that forms the basis for the assessment of whether or not the Dublin Regulation applies.

The case appeals a decision of the Ministry of Interior to deny asylum and subsidiary protection considering the alleged crimes against humanity committed by the appellant, national of Iran. He was a member of a declared criminal organization. The Court analyses his adherence to the organisation following a proportionality approach. It addresses the need to examine the existence of substantial proof of the commission of crimes against humanity when applying the exclusion clauses to deny international protection. 

The Migration Court committed serious breaches of procedure in an asylum case (in which grounds arising sur place were cited), as the Court failed to respond to all requests, state its assessment of political activity sur place, or communicate important written documents.

Processing an appeal without a hearing, on application of Article 91(2) of the Foreigners Act (2000), is not in breach of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Two things are required for recognition of refugee status: the existence of a ground for persecution (whether actual or threatened) and the breakdown of the social bonds between the country of origin and its citizen to the extent that the State is no longer able to guarantee protection.

The seven year time lapse since the Sunni Muslim Applicant’s former service in the Iraqi army, no evidence of future risk arising from previous injuries, and no medical reasons preventing return, led the majority to find that return to Iraq would not violate the applicants rights under Articles 2 or 3.

Internal contradictions in the Sunni Muslim Applicant’s account, coupled with the time lapse since the relevant acts of persecution, led the majority to conclude that his return to Iraq, despite former employment with US-backed security companies, would not violate Articles 2 or 3.

The return of a Pakistani national of the Ahmadiyya religion to Pakistan would violate Article 3. The French authorities had wrongly rejected the Ahmadiyya Applicant’s credibility, which is supported by evidence of prosecution by the Pakistani authorities for blasphemy.