Case summaries

Sweden - Migration Court of Appeal, 31 May 2011, UM 10190-10
Country of applicant: Uzbekistan

When protection grounds are invoked only after a decision on removal becomes final, these shall be deemed admissible. On any appeal, the  Migration Court or the Migration Court of Appeal cannot take into account such factors that could be the basis for granting a residence permit unless (for example, family links or humanitarian reasons) they are based on protection grounds. 

Date of decision: 31-05-2011
Italy - Turin Appeals Court, 30 May 2011, No. RG 717/2011
Country of applicant: Gabon

When presented with a detailed story that is logical, free from internal contradictions and accords with the social and political situation in the country of origin as described in international reports, the statements of the Applicant have to be deemed to be credible and therefore international protection has to be granted.

Date of decision: 30-05-2011
Germany - High Administrative Court Sachsen-Anhalt, 25 May 2011, 3 L 374/09
Country of applicant: Syria

A stateless Kurd from Syria was not recognised as a refugee. The court held:

  1. 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).
  2. 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.
Date of decision: 25-05-2011
Netherlands - District Court Haarlem, 25 May 2011, AWB 10/44949
Country of applicant: Iran

Restriction of the right to attend church is an act of persecution and therefore a violation of Art 10 of the Qualification Directive.

Date of decision: 25-05-2011
Netherlands - District court Zwolle, 24 May 2011 , AWB 11/38687
Country of applicant: Iraq

Art 4:6 of the General Administrative Law Act, just as Art 32 of the Asylum Procedures Directive, requires not only that the claimed facts and circumstances of the subsequent application are new, but also that they are relevant and thus contribute to the likelihood that the applicant qualifies for an asylum residence permit.

Date of decision: 24-05-2011
Belgium – Council for Alien Law Litigation, 19 May 2011, Nr. 61.832
Country of applicant: Somalia

Refugee status was granted on the basis of a well-founded fear of persecution based on the applicant facing  a second act of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) on return to Somalia (persecution ground: membership of a particular social group). 

Date of decision: 19-05-2011
Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, 18 May 2011, H.P. v Ministry of Interior, 5 Azs 6/2011-49
Country of applicant: Ukraine

The fact that one of the grounds for requesting asylum was to legalise residency in the Czech Republic was not sufficient in itself to allow the application to be deemed unfounded.

The Ministry of Interior must address all factual statements made, even if not formally named as grounds for the asylum application.

Date of decision: 18-05-2011
Ireland - High Court, 18 May 2011, M.M.v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform 2011 No. 8 J.R.
Country of applicant: Rwanda

This Judicial Review concerned the way in which the Minister for Justice should assess applications for subsidiary protection and, in particular, whether the duty to ‘co-operate’ with the applicant  referred to in Art 4.1 of the Qualification Directive 2004/83/EC means that the decision maker must communicate matters of concern to the applicant before making a final decision. As there appeared to be a conflict between the Irish and Dutch interpretations of Art 4.1, and uncertainty as to the true meaning of the phrase ‘in co-operation with’ the Court (Hogan J) referred a question to the CJEU.

Date of decision: 18-05-2011
Sweden – Migration Court, 16 May 2011, UM 27323-10
Country of applicant: Iraq

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.

Date of decision: 16-05-2011
Belgium – Council for Alien Law Litigation, 13 May 2011, Nr. 61.439
Country of applicant: Egypt
The CALL held that a psychological report, submitted in the context of a subsequent application, which indicated that the applicant’s condition seriously affected his intellectual capacity, could be considered as a “new element” within the meaning of Art 51/8 of the Belgian Aliens Law (please see comments section below), as it implied that the application should be dealt with according to a special procedure (§§ 208-211, UNHCR handbook).
 
Date of decision: 13-05-2011