You are here
Home › Relevant Facts ›EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Country of origin information, Internal armed conflict, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Refugee Status, Relevant Facts, Subsidiary Protection
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.
Date: 25-05-2018
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Uganda
Keywords: Discrimination, Membership of a particular social group, Refugee Status, Relevant Facts, Sexual orientation, Well-founded fear
The applicant, an ethnic Samia and Christian Protestant from Mukono, Uganda, became aware of his sexual orientation when he was between 7 and 9 years old and has had several both short and longer relations with men.
The Refugee Appeals Board accepted the applicants account which included imprisonment and physical and sexual abuse as well as harassment by village locals. Consequently, the Board found that the applicant was at risk of persecution by his family and locals against which no protection by the authorities could be obtained. Therefore, the applicant was granted refugee...
Date: 17-05-2018
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Burden of proof, Duty of applicant, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Subsidiary Protection
The complainant is a Sunni Muslim from Mogadishu, Somalia. In July 2015 the Danish Immigration Service decided that his subsidiary protection status under the Danish Aliens Act. Art. 7 (2) had lapsed according to the Danish Aliens Act Art. 17 (1) and (4). The Refugee Appeals Board did not consider that the Danish Immigrations Service had lifted its burden of proof according to the Danish Aliens Act Art 17 (4). Consequently, the Board granted the complainant continued subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2).
Date: 01-12-2017
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Relevant Facts, Revocation of protection status, Subsidiary Protection
The complainant is an ethnic Galadi and a Muslim from Afgoye, Somalia. On 6 April 2017, the Danish Immigration Service decided not to prolong the complainant’s subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 11 (2), cf. Art. 19 (1) no. 1 and Art. 19 (7) cf. Art. 26 (1).
After an overall assessment of the country of origin information the Board found that a deportation of the complainant to Afgoye no longer constitutes a violation of Denmark’s international obligations including ECHR article 3. However, regarding the assessment under the Aliens Act article 26, the Board found...
Date: 01-12-2017
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Internal protection, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Refugee Status, Relevant Facts, Religion
The applicant, an ethnic Turkman and an atheist from Aache, Afghanistan had received death threats from local residents close to the imam as well as from his own father because of his apostasy.
The Refugee Appeals Board found that the applicant because of his apostacy would be at risk of being persecuted by local residents, Afghan authorities and the Taleban. Consequently, the applicant was granted refugee status under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1).
Date: 13-06-2017
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Country of origin information, Family member, Internal armed conflict, Membership of a particular social group, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Refugee Status, Relevant Facts
The applicant, an ethnic Kurd and a Sunni Muslim from Aleppo, Syria was granted temporary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (3).
A complaint to the Refugee Appeals Board was lodged claiming refugee status under the Danish Aliens Act Art 7 (1), alternatively subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art 7 (2).
The applicants mother was granted refugee status under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1) due to her work in a health clinic treating injured insurgents.
The majority of the Board, referring to country of origin information, found that the...
Date: 10-05-2017
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Pakistan
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Best interest of the child, Child Specific Considerations, Family member, Refugee Status, Relevant Facts, Return
Following the careful examination of International, European and domestic law, the Court concluded that the grant of refugee status supersedes any order made by a Family Court (regarding the return of the child to Pakistan), because it is the Secretary of State for the Home Department that is the entrusted public authority to deal with asylum matters. However, were the Family Court to discover new facts, the relevant public authority would be responsible, in principle, under the tenets of UK Administrative Law to review their decision.
Date: 26-04-2017
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Kuwait
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Child Specific Considerations, Dependant (Dependent person), Effective access to procedures, Family member, Family reunification, Family unity (right to), Refugee Status, Relevant Facts, Responsibility for examining application
Judicial review to challenge the failure/refusal of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“SoS”) to determine the application of the applicant’s spouse and two youngest children for family reunification in the UK on the following grounds: a failure to apply the SoS published policy; irrationality; breach of all the family members’ rights under Art. 8 ECHR; and (regarding the two children in the UK), breach of the duties owed under s.55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (“the 2009 Act”).
The Upper Tribunal found that:
1) the Home Office family...
Date: 25-04-2017
Country of Decision: Poland
Country of Applicant: Pakistan
Keywords: Burden of proof, Child Specific Considerations, Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Individual assessment, Manifestly unfounded application, Material reception conditions, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Reception conditions, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Standard of proof
The application of S.C. and her minor children Z.C. and F.C. related to the cassation of an Appeal Court judgement regarding compensation for the harm they suffered as a result of an indisputably unjust decision to place the Applicants in a Guarded Detention Centre for Foreigners. The Supreme Court reversed the challenged judgement and passed the case to the Appeal Court for re-consideration.
Date: 02-03-2017
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Sudan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Benefit of doubt, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Political Opinion, Real risk, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Torture, Well-founded fear
The applicant, an ethnic Al-Bagal and Sunni Muslim from Moraya, Nyala, Darfur, Sudan feared imprisonment or execution by the Sudanese authorities. According to the applicant’s account he had been imprisoned for alleged political activities for a total of 18 months during which he was tortured. Subsequently, he was regularly harassed by the Intelligence Service.
The Danish Immigration Service rejected the asylum application in July 2016.
On 29 November 2016, the Refugee Appeals Board upheld the decision of the Danish Immigration Service. The majority of the Board did not find...
Date: 22-02-2017
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Relevant Facts filterRelevant Facts
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 20
- Relevant Documentation 18
- Credibility assessment 14
- Refugee Status 14
- Country of origin information 13
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 12
- Well-founded fear 12
- Real risk 11
- Subsidiary Protection 11
- Personal circumstances of applicant 9
- Internal protection 8
- Political Opinion 8
- Burden of proof 7
- Membership of a particular social group 7
- Procedural guarantees 7
- Standard of proof 7
- Detention 6
- Effective remedy (right to) 6
- Individual assessment 6
- Child Specific Considerations 5
- Effective access to procedures 5
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 5
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 5
- Persecution (acts of) 5
- Personal interview 5
- Subsequent application 5
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 4
- Country of origin 4
- Discrimination 4
- Duty of applicant 4
- Family member 4
- First country of asylum 4
- Internal armed conflict 4
- Religion 4
- Accelerated procedure 3
- Best interest of the child 3
- Circumstances ceased to exist 3
- Crime against humanity 3
- Humanitarian considerations 3
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 3
- Nationality 3
- Non-refoulement 3
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 3
- Sexual orientation 3
- War crimes 3
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 2
- Benefit of doubt 2
- Delay 2
- Dublin Transfer 2
- Family unity (right to) 2
- Gender Based Persecution 2
- Inadmissible application 2
- Individual threat 2
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 2
- Obligation to give reasons 2
- Previous persecution 2
- Reception conditions 2
- Responsibility for examining application 2
- Return 2
- Safe third country 2
- Serious harm 2
- Serious non-political crime 2
- Torture 2
- Unaccompanied minor 2
- Actors of protection 1
- Armed conflict 1
- Dependant (Dependent person) 1
- Education (right to) 1
- Exclusion from protection 1
- Family reunification 1
- Final decision 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Indirect refoulement 1
- Indiscriminate violence 1
- International armed conflict 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Material reception conditions 1
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 1
- Protection 1
- Race 1
- Request to take back 1
- Revocation of protection status 1
- Temporary protection 1
Filter by country of applicant
Filter by country of decision
- Denmark 13
- Poland 7
- France 5
- Germany 4
- Ireland 4
- United Kingdom 4
- Hungary 3
- Austria 2
- Czech Republic 2
- Netherlands 2
- Slovenia 2
- Belgium 1
- Greece 1
- Spain 1
- Switzerland 1
