EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Sri Lanka
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Benefit of doubt, Credibility assessment, Duty of applicant, Relevant Documentation, Standard of proof
The Tribunal reasserted the decision maker’s duty of confidentiality in considering documents produced in support of a protection claim. Where there is a needed to make an inquiry in the country of origin then written consent must be given by the applicant. Moreover, Article 22 of the Asylum Procedures Directive prohibits direct contact with the alleged actor of persecution. Additionally, the Refugee Convention requires that the authentication of a document is undertaken with a precautionary approach, namely whether an inquiry is necessary or should be framed in a specific manner and...
Date: 19-07-2017
Country of Decision: Sweden
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Credibility assessment, Dependant (Dependent person), Family unity (right to), Relevant Documentation, Standard of proof
The Applicant and the Applicant’s children were applying for leave to remain in Sweden due to affiliation with their husband and father respectively who had permanent residency in Sweden. The Applicant and the Applicant’s children were all granted evidentiary relief regarding their identities. Further, one of the Applicant’s children, a 20 year old daughter, was deemed to fulfil the criteria for household community and special dependency. The Applicant and all of the Applicant’s children were granted leave to remain.
Date: 01-06-2016
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Burden of proof, Credibility assessment, Detention, Duty of applicant, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Individual threat, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Persecution (acts of), Real risk, Refugee Status, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Standard of proof, Subsequent application, Well-founded fear
The Court found a violation of Article 3 in relation to a subsequent application for asylum, which had been rejected on the basis that it contained no new elements indicating that the Applicants ran a real risk of being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment on deportation to Russia. Because new information had in fact been provided, the national authorities were under an obligation to thoroughly review the information in order to assure themselves that the Applicants’ rights under Article 3 would be safeguarded.
Date: 19-01-2016
Country of Decision: Ireland
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Best interest of the child, Credibility assessment, Membership of a particular social group, Obligation to give reasons, Political Opinion, Relevant Documentation
The case dealt primarily with the standard of reasoning required in credibility assessment among other issues (travel findings and best interests of the child). In quashing the RAT decision, the High Court ruled that the RAT had not met the standard of reasoning required in assessment of the credibility of oral testimony (as established in the jurisprudence of the Court and EU law), reiterating the obligation upon the decision maker to ensure that each negative credibility finding is accompanied by an adequate rationale clearly outlining the reasons for such findings.
Date: 17-12-2015
Country of Decision: Spain
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Accommodation centre, Credibility assessment, Internal armed conflict, Refugee Status, Relevant Documentation, Subsidiary Protection
When addressing asylum claims, refugee status must be recognised when there is a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the reasons foreseen in the 1951 Refugee Convention. Assessment of an asylum request fundamentally needs careful consideration of the facts and personal circumstances of the asylum seeker, as well as an analysis of the nature of the risk. The criteria of this test does not have to be restrictive, it is sufficient that the competent authority has a rational belief that the requirements are met for the purpose of receiving refugee status.
Date: 15-12-2015
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: Iran
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Benefit of doubt, Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Relevant Documentation, Standard of proof, Well-founded fear
This judicial review case quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision on the basis that the Tribunal member incorrectly made credibility findings regarding the applicant’s claim without a fully reasoned consideration of the country of origin information and a flawed reliance on inconsistencies in an Iranian Court document.
Date: 03-06-2015
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 Applicant: Rwanda
Keywords: Credibility assessment, Family member, Family reunification, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Relevant Documentation
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the procedure for examining applications for family reunification had to contain a number of elements, having regard to the applicants’ refugee status on the one hand and the best interests of the children on the other, so that their interests as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention from the point of view of procedural requirements were safeguarded.
Date: 10-07-2014
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Iran
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Credibility assessment, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts
A national decision maker must pay close attention to a United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) decision when determining an application for asylum. Such a decision does not create a presumption, however, substantive countervailing reasons are required to justify the decision maker coming to a different decision to the UNHCR.
Date: 29-01-2014
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Credibility assessment filterCredibility assessment
- (-) Remove Relevant Documentation filterRelevant Documentation
- Country of origin information 7
- Obligation to give reasons 6
- Refugee Status 6
- Well-founded fear 6
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 5
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 5
- Duty of applicant 5
- Membership of a particular social group 5
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 5
- Relevant Facts 5
- Standard of proof 5
- Individual threat 4
- Procedural guarantees 4
- Religion 4
- Burden of proof 3
- Effective remedy (right to) 3
- Internal protection 3
- Persecution (acts of) 3
- Political Opinion 3
- Previous persecution 3
- Real risk 3
- Subsidiary Protection 3
- Accelerated procedure 2
- Benefit of doubt 2
- Effective access to procedures 2
- Internal armed conflict 2
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 2
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Personal interview 2
- Protection 2
- Refugee sur place 2
- Unaccompanied minor 2
- Accommodation centre 1
- Actors of protection 1
- Best interest of the child 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Dependant (Dependent person) 1
- Detention 1
- Discrimination 1
- Family member 1
- Family reunification 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 1
- Safe third country 1
- Subsequent application 1
- Torture 1
