EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Ireland
Country of Applicant: Nepal
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Obligation to give reasons, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Procedural guarantees, Refugee Status, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Safe third country
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...
Date: 28-07-2015
Country of Decision: Ireland
Country of Applicant: Ethiopia
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Individual assessment, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Membership of a particular social group, Obligation to give reasons, Procedural guarantees, Refugee Status
The applicant challenged by way of judicial review the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (hereinafter RAT) (adverse credibility findings) on the grounds that it failed to have reasonable regard to the documents submitted. The Court held that the Tribunal failed to provide reasons rejecting a medico-legal report and further held that the Tribunal’s analysis of documentary evidence supportive of ethnicity submitted was wrong in fact. The Court quashed the decision of the Tribunal.
Date: 04-02-2015
Country of Decision: Ireland
Country of Applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Effective access to procedures, First country of asylum, Personal interview, Procedural guarantees, Relevant Documentation
The case focused on, among other things (consideration of documentation & country of origin information), the crucial issue of the duty of the State to provide appropriate and competent interpreters during the asylum process. Quashing the RAT (Refugee Appeals Tribunal)decision in this case, Faherty J ruled that she was not satisfied that the RAT had done its utmost, as required by law, to procure a Kurdish-Badini interpreter, and that the Court has to countenance the possibility that an error in interpretation could account for the perceived discrepancies in the applicant’s oral...
Date: 12-12-2014
Country of Decision: Poland
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan, Russia
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Country of origin information, Individual assessment, Membership of a particular social group, Procedural guarantees, Relevant Facts
This was a decision of the Polish Refugee Board of 31 January 2013 to uphold that part of the decision of the Head of the Polish Office for Foreigners which concerned refusal to accord refugee status and to overturn the remainder of the decision as well as to grant subsidiary protection.
In the course of criminal proceedings conducted against a foreigner in Poland it was revealed to Iranian consular officials that the foreigner concerned was being held at the Centre for Foreigners seeking refugee status in Dębak. This could have been tantamount to disclosing that the foreigner was...
Date: 31-01-2013
Country of Decision: Ireland
Country of Applicant: South Africa
Keywords: Accommodation centre, Actor of persecution or serious harm, Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Effective remedy (right to), Gender Based Persecution, Internal protection, Membership of a particular social group, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal interview, Previous persecution, Procedural guarantees, Refugee Status, Safe country of origin, Subsidiary Protection, Well-founded fear
The Court granted permission to the Applicants to seek judicial review of the negative decision made in a written appeal (rather than an oral appeal) in an application for refugee status made by a South African one-parent family. The decision to allow a written appeal was based on the status of South Africa as a ‘safe country,’ and the appeal decision was based on personal credibility and the absence of a nexus to Convention grounds. The Applicants failed in their argument that the absence of an oral hearing may render the appeal decision unlawful by reference to the right to an effective...
Date: 18-12-2012
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Unknown
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin information, Personal circumstances of applicant, Procedural guarantees, Relevant Documentation
Where information used by the National Asylum Court (CNDA) to reach its decision is information concerning the asylum seeker’s specific situation, it must be kept on file so that the parties can take note of it and discuss it.
Date: 22-10-2012
Country of Decision: Slovenia
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Burden of proof, Child Specific Considerations, Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Duty of applicant, Individual assessment, Obligation/Duty to cooperate, Personal circumstances of applicant, Personal interview, Procedural guarantees
When assessing the application for international protection the Ministry of Interior (MI) did not take into account the Applicant’s youth, lack of education and background. The MI did not conduct the procedure and pose questions in a manner that was suitable to the Applicant’s age and personality.
The country of origin information that the Applicant submitted only in his appeal against the decision should be accepted as this is generally available information that MI could have obtained on its own.
Date: 18-10-2012
Country of Decision: Spain
Country of Applicant: Ivory Coast
Keywords: Armed conflict, Country of origin information, Humanitarian considerations, Indiscriminate violence, Procedural guarantees, Return, Subsidiary Protection
Two appeals have been made - by the asylum seeker and the State representative – to the Supreme Court against the judgment given by the High National Court which partially upheld the appeal filed against the Ministry of the Interior’s decision to deny international protection to an Ivorian national. The High National Court’s decision, while denying refugee status, granted the applicant permission to reside in Spain under Article 17(2) of the Asylum Law (humanitarian considerations).The asylum seeker requests that his refugee status be recognised.The Public Prosecutor requests that the...
Date: 23-05-2012
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Pakistan
Keywords: Country of origin information, Dublin Transfer, Indirect refoulement, Request that charge be taken, Responsibility for examining application, Procedural guarantees, Reception conditions
This was an appeal against the decision to transfer the applicant to Hungary on the ground that Hungary would transfer the applicant to Serbia, which would amount to indirect refoulement in violation of Article 3 ECHR. The Asylum Court allowed the appeal and held that, although Hungary can be assumed as a safe country, if an applicant gives individual reasons for why Hungary is not safe these must be examined in detail.
Date: 07-02-2012
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Country of origin information, Procedural guarantees, Trafficking in human beings
This case concerned the manner in which Country Guidance case law is reported in the UK, particularly with reference to the reporting of the headnote and, as in this case, the inversion of the guidance. The factual consideration of this case considered whether there was sufficient protection for victims of human trafficking.
Date: 22-02-2011
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Country of origin information filterCountry of origin information
- (-) Remove Procedural guarantees filterProcedural guarantees
- Credibility assessment 5
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 3
- Individual assessment 3
- Membership of a particular social group 3
- Personal interview 3
- Refugee Status 3
- Relevant Documentation 3
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 2
- Internal protection 2
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 2
- Obligation to give reasons 2
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Relevant Facts 2
- Subsidiary Protection 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Accommodation centre 1
- Actors of protection 1
- Armed conflict 1
- Burden of proof 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Dublin Transfer 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- Effective remedy (right to) 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Gender Based Persecution 1
- Humanitarian considerations 1
- Indirect refoulement 1
- Indiscriminate violence 1
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 1
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 1
- Previous persecution 1
- Reception conditions 1
- Request that charge be taken 1
- Responsibility for examining application 1
- Return 1
- Safe country of origin 1
- Safe third country 1
- Trafficking in human beings 1
- Well-founded fear 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 2
- Nigeria 2
- Ethiopia 1
- Iraq 1
- Ivory Coast 1
- Nepal 1
- Pakistan 1
- Russia 1
- South Africa 1
- Ukraine 1
- Unknown 1
Filter by country of decision
- Ireland 5
- Austria 1
- Czech Republic 1
- France 1
- Poland 1
- Slovenia 1
- Spain 1
- United Kingdom 1
