Case summaries

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.

This Case examines the refusal to grant refugee status to a Nepalese national. The Tribunal failed to provide clear, cogent reasoning for the decision. Documentation and explanations provided by the Applicant were not included in the decision. Unreasonable assumptions were made by the Tribunal including: as the Applicant’s wife, children and brother were safely residing in the country of origin, this inferred that the Applicant could do the same; since the applicant spent 6 years living safely in India, he could continue to live there safely. The High Court criticised the procedural approach by the Tribunal and the lack of coherent reasoning provided. The High Court granted leave and quashed the Tribunal’s decision.

LGBTI asylum seekers (1) may be members of particular social group, (2) cannot be expected to conceal or restrain their expression of sexual orientation to reduce risk of persecution. (3) All criminalisation does not per se amount to persecution, but imprisonment actually applied does.

A man from Cameroon whom the UNHCR considered a refugee and granted permanent leave to remain in Sweden as a quota refugee was refused his application for refugee status and travel documents.

The risk of arranged marriage is widespread in Afghanistan, particularly for underage girls, which means that it may constitute grounds for refugee status for women.  
In the examination of Article 8 of Directive 2004/83/EC, it is important to take into account the fact that family members may only return together with their children and spouses on the grounds of the protection of marriage and family. 

Ahmadis, for whom the practise and possibly also the promotion of their faith in public are elements which define their identity and as such are essential, are very likely to be at risk of political persecution in Pakistan. The “relationship consideration” demanded by the Federal Administrative Court, whereby the number of members of a particular group is compared with the number of actual threatening acts of persecution, seems virtually impossible in this case.

In order to determine whether an Applicant is exposed to a significant, specific risk stemming from an armed conflict, reference should be made to the actual target location of the foreign national upon return in the case of a localised armed conflict. This is often the region of origin of the Applicant. If the region of origin cannot be considered as the target location due to the risk facing the claimant, the latter may only be referred to another region in the country subject to the requirements of Article 8 of the Qualification Directive.

With regard to the evaluation as to whether extraordinary circumstances exist which do not come under the direct responsibility of the target deportation state and which prohibit the deporting state from deporting the foreign national according to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, reference should be made to the target deportation state as a whole in order to verify whether these circumstances exist in the location in which the deportation ends. 

Refugee status was recognised for a transgender woman from Pakistan because discrimination for reasons relevant to asylum as well as involuntary prostitution to earn a living are sufficiently serious to represent persecution within the meaning of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

In the context of the prediction of danger required for subsidiary protection, it is the actual target location to which the foreign national intends to return which is relevant in the case of a non-countrywide armed conflict. If the region of origin of the foreign national cannot be considered as a target location due to the danger presented there, he may only be referred to another region of the country according to the requirements of Article 8 of the Qualification Directive.

The CALL held that the fact the Applicant had already suffered very severe genital mutilation (type III – infibulation) was a serious indicator of a well-founded fear of persecution due to her membership of a particular social group.