EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: China
Keywords: Country of origin information, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Political Opinion, Refugee Status, Relevant Documentation, Torture
The applicant, a Chinese citizen, feared, if she returned to China, she would be persecuted and exposed to torture by the Chinese Communist Government due to her Falun Gong activities.
The Refugee Appeals Board did not find that she was a particular profiled member of Falun Gong or that she was wanted by the Chinese Authorities as she left China legally notwithstanding that she had been detained several times for shorter periods and imprisoned for seven years during which she was exposed to torture. However, the Board found that the Chinese Authorities were aware of the applicant ‘s...
Date: 18-06-2018
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Country of origin information, Personal circumstances of applicant, Refugee Status, Relevant Documentation, Sexual orientation, Well-founded fear
The applicant, an ethnic Kurd and Sunni Muslim from Kirkuk, Iraq, became aware of his sexual orientation when he was 20/22 years of age and has since had relations with several men and during a longer period worked as a prostitute.
The Refugee Appeals Board accepted the applicants account and found that the applicant as a Kurd from Northern Iraq, according to country of origin information, would risk persecution if he was to return to Iraq and live openly as a homosexual. Consequently, the applicant was granted refugee status under the Danish Aliens Act art. 7 (1).
Date: 06-03-2018
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Country of origin information, Internal armed conflict, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Refugee Status, Relevant Documentation
The complainant, an Ethnic Arab and Sunni Muslim from Damascus, Syria, was granted temporary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (3).
On 1 March 2017, the complainant lodged a complaint claiming refugee status under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1).
The Board accepted that the complainant, who did not want to be redrafted into the Syrian Army, if he returned to Syria, would be at risk of being recalled to military service and therefore at specific and individual risk of persecution covered by the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1). Consequently, the complainant was granted...
Date: 01-03-2018
Country of Decision: Poland
Country of Applicant: Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Best interest of the child, Child Specific Considerations, Individual threat, Internal protection, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Persecution (acts of), Procedural guarantees, Refugee Status, Relevant Documentation, Subsidiary Protection
Following the appeal of the Children’s Rights Ombudsman, the Supreme Administrative Court set aside the order of the Regional Administrative Court, in relation to a challenge to the decision of the Polish Refugee Board, and set aside the aforementioned decision to refuse tolerated stay, dismissing the appeal in all other respects.
The court justified its decision with reference to the procedural errors of the Polish Refugee Board, which included failing to gather evidence in an appropriate manner and inappropriately establishing the facts relating to the Applicant’s children....
Date: 22-06-2017
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Congo (DRC), Lebanon, United Kingdom
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Best interest of the child, Dependant (Dependent person), Family member, Family reunification, Family unity (right to), Persecution (acts of), Personal circumstances of applicant, Refugee Status, Relevant Documentation, Sponsor, Well-founded fear
The Immigration Rules (“the Rules”) minimum income requirements (“the MIR”) for individuals who have a right to live in the UK who wish to bring their non-EEA citizen spouses to live with them are not open to legal challenge.
The Rules fail unlawfully to give effect to the duty of the Secretary of State (“the SoS”) in respect of the welfare of children under s.55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (“the 2009 Act”), however the challenge to the validity of the Rules was dismissed.
To ensure that their decisions are compatible with the Human Rights Act...
Date: 22-02-2017
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: 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: Greece
Country of Applicant: Bangladesh
Keywords: Personal interview, Refugee Status, Relevant Documentation, Safe third country, Well-founded fear
The applicant did not have the possibility to have his allegations (which also supported his subsequent application) duly taken into consideration. His written answers to the questions asked by the administrative authorities on his subsequent application were not documented with precision. His allegations need to be examined and evaluated further.
Date: 24-09-2015
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: Somalia
Keywords: Credibility assessment, Duty of applicant, Relevant Documentation, Internal protection, Refugee Status, Well-founded fear, Obligation to give reasons, Procedural guarantees
Date: 20-11-2012
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Refugee Status filterRefugee Status
- (-) Remove Relevant Documentation filterRelevant Documentation
- Well-founded fear 8
- Credibility assessment 6
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 6
- Country of origin information 5
- Persecution (acts of) 5
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 4
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 3
- Duty of applicant 3
- Internal protection 3
- Obligation to give reasons 3
- Procedural guarantees 3
- Protection 3
- Real risk 3
- Religion 3
- Subsequent application 3
- Subsidiary Protection 3
- Best interest of the child 2
- Individual threat 2
- Internal armed conflict 2
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 2
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Relevant Facts 2
- Safe third country 2
- Torture 2
- Accommodation centre 1
- Actors of protection 1
- Burden of proof 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Dependant (Dependent person) 1
- Detention 1
- Discrimination 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- Effective remedy (right to) 1
- Exclusion from protection 1
- Family member 1
- Family reunification 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- Individual assessment 1
- Membership of a particular social group 1
- Nationality 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Personal interview 1
- Political Opinion 1
- Sexual orientation 1
- Sponsor 1
- Standard of proof 1
- Stateless person 1
- Unaccompanied minor 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Bangladesh 2
- Syria 2
- Afghanistan 1
- China 1
- Congo (DRC) 1
- Eritrea 1
- Ethiopia 1
- Iraq 1
- Lebanon 1
- Nepal 1
- Russia 1
- Russia (Chechnya) 1
- Somalia 1
- Turkey 1
- United Kingdom 1
- Unknown 1
