You are here
Home › Membership of a particular social group ›EDAL case summaries
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...
National authorities can order experts’ reports with the purpose of assisting in the assessment of the facts and circumstances relating to a declared sexual orientation of an applicant, provided that the procedures for these reports are consistent with fundamental rights. However, the examining authority, courts or tribunal must not base their decision solely on the conclusions of an expert’s report and are not bound by these conclusions when assessing the applicant’s statements relating to his or her sexual orientation.
Moreover, national...
In countries where there is a high prevalence of female genital mutilation (FGM), as in Nigeria, non-excised persons can be considered as having a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of membership of a particular social group within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of 1951 Refugee Convention. Refugee status can be granted where there is a considerable risk of excision and insufficient protection against this threat.
The appellant claimed that the Tribunals in their determinations had failed to give adequate reasons for their conclusions, in particular that the appellant had not demonstrated well-founded fear. The Court considered the grounds for this claim and found that since we should ‘avoid a requirement of perfection’ (para 26) they were not sufficient to establish that the tribunals had erred, nor that the claimant was at risk of persecution.
An applicant may be granted refugee status under Article 1 of the 1951 Geneva Convention for fear of persecution based on sexual orientation. This depends on whether or not, according to the conditions prevailing in the country of origin, persons sharing a sexual orientation may be regarded as a social group within the meaning of the Convention.
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...
The fact that the membership of a particular social group is not subject to specific repressive criminal provisions has no incidence on the granting of refugee status.
Granting someone a refugee status for fear of persecution based on belonging to a social group due to his sexual orientation, cannot be linked to the fact that his sexual orientation has, or not, been made public. Indeed, a social group is instituted by how society perceive those in the group.
An individual applying for asylum does not have, in order to avoid persecutions in his country, to hide his sexual orientation.
In order to prove the risk of persecution, there is no requirement that belonging to a social group based on sexual orientation must be prohibited by any...
The applicant was granted refugee status under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1) because of the threat of forced marriage in Afghanistan. The applicant belonged to the particular social group of “widows in risk of forced marriage”. The Afghan State is neither willing nor able to protect women against persecution in case of forced marriage. Internal protection was not available to the applicant.
This case dealt with the extent to which in the case of a child the prospect of discrimination could amount to a real risk of persecution sufficient to found a successful asylum claim in a situation where a comparably placed adult would not be at such a risk.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Membership of a particular social group filterMembership of a particular social group
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 93
- Gender Based Persecution 43
- Credibility assessment 40
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 36
- Internal protection 33
- Refugee Status 33
- Country of origin information 30
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 27
- Persecution (acts of) 27
- Sexual orientation 25
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 24
- Well-founded fear 24
- Subsidiary Protection 22
- Discrimination 19
- Actors of protection 17
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 17
- Personal circumstances of applicant 15
- Protection 15
- Political Opinion 14
- Previous persecution 14
- Real risk 13
- Individual assessment 11
- Procedural guarantees 10
- Child Specific Considerations 9
- Standard of proof 9
- Burden of proof 8
- Effective remedy (right to) 8
- Female genital mutilation 8
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 8
- Religion 8
- Best interest of the child 7
- Obligation to give reasons 7
- Refugee sur place 7
- Relevant Facts 7
- Trafficking in human beings 7
- Unaccompanied minor 7
- Race 6
- Subsequent application 6
- Internal armed conflict 5
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 5
- Relevant Documentation 5
- Serious harm 5
- Humanitarian considerations 4
- Individual threat 4
- Torture 4
- Accelerated procedure 3
- Armed conflict 3
- Benefit of doubt 3
- Indiscriminate violence 3
- Manifestly unfounded application 3
- Non-refoulement 3
- Personal interview 3
- Reception conditions 3
- Safe country of origin 3
- Access to the labour market 2
- Accommodation centre 2
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 2
- Country of origin 2
- Death penalty / Execution 2
- Dependant (Dependent person) 2
- Effective access to procedures 2
- Family member 2
- Final decision 2
- Nationality 2
- Country of former habitual residence 1
- Detention 1
- Dublin Transfer 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- Exclusion from protection 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- Freedom of movement (right to) 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- International armed conflict 1
- Return 1
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 1
- Safe third country 1
- Vulnerable person 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 17
- Iran 13
- Iraq 13
- Nigeria 13
- Russia 9
- Somalia 7
- Guinea 6
- Albania 5
- Cameroon 5
- Colombia 4
- Kosovo 4
- Uganda 4
- Algeria 3
- Mauritania 3
- Turkey 3
- Armenia 2
- Bangladesh 2
- China 2
- Congo (DRC) 2
- Ethiopia 2
- Gambia 2
- Ivory Coast 2
- Moldova 2
- Pakistan 2
- Sierra Leone 2
- Sudan 2
- Ukraine 2
- Croatia 1
- Cyprus 1
- Egypt 1
- Ghana 1
- India 1
- Kenya 1
- Kuwait 1
- Kyrgyzstan 1
- Lebanon 1
- Macedonia 1
- Mongolia 1
- Montenegro 1
- Morocco 1
- Niger 1
- Russia (Chechnya) 1
- Rwanda 1
- Senegal 1
- Serbia 1
- South Africa 1
- Sri Lanka 1
- Syria 1
- Tunisia 1
- Unknown 1
- Vietnam 1