Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
Belgium - Council for Alien Law Litigation, 11 March2008, No. 8512
Country of applicant: Rwanda

Extremely serious previous persecution was sufficient to establish a well-founded fear of persecution even when it appeared unlikely to recur. 

Date of decision: 11-03-2008
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 1A (2),Art 4.4,Art 1C (5)
France - CNDA, 29 January 2008, Mr. D., n°602367
Country of applicant: Morocco

Homosexuals in Morocco form a social group within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention for reasons of common characteristics which define them in the eyes of Moroccan criminal law and society.

Date of decision: 29-01-2008
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1A (2),Art 2 (e),Art 10.1 (d),Art 6
Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, 24 January 2008, E.M. v Ministry of Interior, 4 Azs 99/2007-93
Country of applicant: Congo (DRC)
 
When assessing if the applicant could seek protection in their country of origin, it is necessary to establish if the solution would be feasible, adequate, rational and sensible. Internal protection is a concept that is applied within the country of origin only and not if that protection exists outside the country of origin.
 
Date of decision: 24-01-2008
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1A (2),Art 8,Art 8.1,Art 8.2
Poland - Regional Administrative Court, 16 January 2008, V SA/Wa 2193/07
Country of applicant: Russia

This case was an appeal against the decision of the Polish Refugee Board on refusal to accord refugee status on the grounds that the application was manifestly unfounded application, and on granting a permit for tolerated stay. The lack of grounds for an application does not mean that the case should not be examined on its merits.

When assessing a subsequent application, the authority may find that, in the framework of the new assertions of the interested party, the application is manifestly unfounded. The authority has the right to reach such a conclusion provided that the application is first examined in the context of its contents and in the context of the evidence cited by the Applicant.

The authority is also obliged to examine the case initiated by the subsequent application in light of the progress made, if any, in the case concerning the previously submitted (first) application for refugee status.

Date of decision: 16-01-2008
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 1A (2),Art 32
Greece - Council of State, 31 December 2007, M.N. v Minister for Public Order, Application No. 1423/2007
Country of applicant: Iran

The Court held that the conditions for offering the Applicants temporary judicial protection had been satisfied, taking into consideration that the Asylum Committee had rejected the asylum-seeker's claims as being unsubstantiated without assessing his credibility, and also because the decision which rejected the application for asylum only vaguely referred to the prevailing situation in Iran.

Date of decision: 31-12-2007
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 1A (2),Art 9.1,Art 9.2,Art 7,Art 4.5 (e),Art 1A (1)
UK - House of Lords, 14 November 2007, Secretary of State for the Home Department v AH (Sudan) & Ors [2007] UKHL 49
Country of applicant: Sudan

The House of Lords test in Januzi (see separate summary) for assessing internal protection was approved.  In assessing whether the proposed area of internal relocation was unreasonable or unduly harsh it was an error of law to require that the circumstances would result in a breach of Art 3 of the ECHR or that the circumstances will be worse than the circumstances experienced by anyone else in that country.

Date of decision: 14-11-2007
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 1A (2),Art 8,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3
Sweden - Migration Court, 18 October 2007, UM 6696-07
Country of applicant: Iraq

There is not an internal armed conflict in Iraq. Also, the applicant has not shown that he is eligible for protection because of other severe conflict in the region.

Date of decision: 18-10-2007
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1A (2),Art 2,Art 15,Art 4,UNHCR Handbook,Para 44
UK - Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, 15 March 2007, LQ, Afghanistan [2008] UKAIT 00005
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

For the purposes of assessing whether a child is a member of a particular social group, a person's age is an immutable characteristic.

Date of decision: 15-03-2007
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1A (2),Art 10,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3
UK - House of Lords, 18 October 2006, Fornah v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (linked with Secretary of State for the Home Department v. K) [2006] UKHL 46
Country of applicant: Sierra Leone

The case concerned a woman who feared return to Sierra Leone because she would face gender specific persecution in the form of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).  The issue was whether she was entitled to recognition as a refugee because she feared persecution on account of her membership of a particular social group.  Her appeal was allowed on the basis that women in Sierra Leone and, alternatively, uninitiated women who had not been subjected to FGM in Sierra Leone, were particular social groups.

Date of decision: 18-10-2006
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1A (2),Art 10.1 (d),Art 10,Art 28,Art 34,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3
UK - House of Lords, 18 October 2006, Secretary of State for the Home Department v. K (linked with Fornah v. Secretary of State for the Home Department)
Country of applicant: Iran

The case concerned the issue of whether ‘family’ constitutes a particular social group. The applicant was recognised as a refugee on the basis of her well founded fear of persecution as a member of her husband’s family.

Date of decision: 18-10-2006
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1A (2),Art 10.1 (d),Art 10,Art 28,Art 34,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3