You are here

Home › Credibility assessment › Switzerland ›

EDAL case summaries

Switzerland - Federal Administrative Court, 13 October 2017, D-5800/2016

Country of Decision: Switzerland
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Internal protection, Personal circumstances of applicant

Kabul cannot be considered as a reasonable internal flight alternative for the complainant due to the lack of a sustainable social network for him there and no other particular factors which would enable the applicant's removal . Therefore the complainant does not meet the requirements for a removal to Afghanistan.
Date: 13-10-2017

Switzerland – Federal Administrative Court, 16 August 2016, E-4122/2016

Country of Decision: Switzerland
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Credibility assessment, Family member, Personal circumstances of applicant, Political Opinion, Refugee Status, Relevant Facts

A Syrian asylum-seeker successfully challenges a negative asylum decision before the Swiss Federal Administrative Court because of violations of his right to be heard.
Date: 16-08-2016

Switzerland – Federal Administrative Court, 18 July 2016, D-6806/2013

Country of Decision: Switzerland
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Gender Based Persecution, Personal circumstances of applicant, Personal interview, Trafficking in human beings

In cases of reasonable suspicion that a person applying for asylum was a victim of human trafficking, the Swiss State Secretary for Migration is obliged to clarify the facts thoroughly on its own initiative.
Date: 18-07-2016

Switzerland - Federal Administrative Court, 10 March 2016, D-5785/2015

Country of Decision: Switzerland
Country of Applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Burden of proof, Child Specific Considerations, Credibility assessment, Detention, Dublin Transfer, Inadmissible application, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Unaccompanied minor

The appeal procedure dealt with the question of whether the complainant is to be classified as a minor according to Article 2 lit. g of the Dublin III Regulation, with the consequence that Article 8 para. 1 of the Dublin III Regulation is applicable and the complainant can therefore remain with her sister in Switzerland. In particular the term “legally present” and the procedure of taking evidence were discussed in depth.
Date: 10-03-2016

Filter by case summary type

Filter by applicable legal provisions

Filter by date

Filter by country of applicant

Filter by country of decision