EDAL case summaries
The applicant, an ethnic Kurd and a Yarsan from Kanehar, Kermanshah, Iran, had performed religious activities aimed at spreading the knowledge of the faith and thereby attracted the attention of the authorities.
The majority of the Board accepted the applicants account and consequently the Board found that the applicant risked persecution because of his Yarsan religious activities and granted refugee status under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1).
An Article 3 compliant assessment requires a full and ex nunc evaluation of a claim. Where the State is made aware of facts that could expose an applicant to an individual risk of ill-treatment, regardless of whether the applicant chooses to rely on such facts, it is obliged to assess this risk ex proprio motu.
Asylum seeker’s return to Iran would not violate Article 2 or 3 because the risk of political persecution was unsubstantiated and peripheral and his conversion to Christianity was likely unknown to the authorities.
This case involved recognition of refugee status under Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention on grounds of religious beliefs.
More specifically, it was held that the arrest and torture the Applicant suffered at the hands of his father and the State authorities because of his Christian faith, the risk of being executed for apostasy because he was baptised in Greece, and the risk of being arrested and maltreated again should he return to Iran, constituted persecution under Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention, the actor of persecution being the State. Furthermore, being forced to...
Although the asylum seeker has been unable to offer any credible account of the death penalty allegedly imposed on him due to his homosexuality, it must nevertheless be assessed whether, he has grounds to fear persecution or is in real danger of suffering serious harm in his home country due to his sexual orientation, and what weight must be given to the fact that he must hide his homosexuality to avoid this kind of threat. The judgments of the Administrative Court and the Immigration Service were overturned and the case was returned to the Immigration Service for further consideration...
1. If an Iranian national is declined the opportunity to obtain a school-leaving certificate and attend a state school because of the refusal by Iranian authorities to issue him with identity papers, this constitutes a significant discriminatory administrative measure according to Article 9 paragraph 2 of the Qualification Directive.
2. The right to suitable education corresponding to a child’s abilities is recognised as a human right according to international law.
The applicant, from Iran, had not been politically active in Iran but participated in demonstrations in Sweden and appeared with his photo on dissident websites and TV. The applicant was considered to have been engaged in low-level political activity. Thus, he was deemed not to be of interest to the Iranian authorities and was therefore not considered to be a refugee or in need of subsidiary protection on “sur place” grounds.
The Supreme Court does not consider an assessment of the Applicant as an untrustworthy person to be justifiable where it is based only on the fact that he failed to mention all of the details of the case immediately in the admission interview, providing them gradually instead, as the Applicant‘s claims are logical, consistent, and in line with the situation in the country of origin. The argument of untrustworthiness can be used only in situations where there are additional factors indicating that the facts asserted by the Applicant are not true, and that has not been demonstrated in the...
This was an appeal against the rejection of an application for asylum before the Appeal Committees formed pursuant to Articles 26 and 32 of Presidential Decree 114/2010; and against the Minister for Citizen Protection's decisions 5401/3-498356 dated 11.2.2011 and 4000/1/67-f dated 18.5.2011. The rejection of the application (and the legal consequences arising from the rejection) was an excusable error, due to the body issuing the decision having adopted misguided practices. The fear of persecution was based on membership of a particular social group. The domestic violence endured by the...
Restriction of the right to attend church is an act of persecution and therefore a violation of Art 10 of the Qualification Directive.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Persecution Grounds/Reasons filterPersecution Grounds/Reasons
- Credibility assessment 10
- Membership of a particular social group 10
- Political Opinion 9
- Religion 9
- Refugee sur place 7
- Discrimination 5
- Persecution (acts of) 5
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 4
- Country of origin information 4
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 4
- Well-founded fear 4
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 3
- Actors of protection 3
- Death penalty / Execution 3
- Internal protection 3
- Real risk 3
- Subsequent application 3
- Subsidiary Protection 3
- Torture 3
- Burden of proof 2
- Gender Based Persecution 2
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Protection 2
- Refugee Status 2
- Relevant Facts 2
- Serious harm 2
- Sexual orientation 2
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Country of origin 1
- Dependant (Dependent person) 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- Final decision 1
- Individual assessment 1
- Individual threat 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Obligation to give reasons 1
- Personal interview 1
- Previous persecution 1
- Relevant Documentation 1
- Return 1
- Standard of proof 1
Filter by country of applicant
Filter by country of decision
- Finland 5
- Germany 5
- Greece 3
- Sweden 2
- United Kingdom 2
- Belgium 1
- Denmark 1
- Hungary 1
- Netherlands 1
- Slovakia 1