EDAL case summaries
In countries where there is a high prevalence of female genital mutilation (FGM), as in Nigeria, non-excised persons can be considered as having a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of membership of a particular social group within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of 1951 Refugee Convention. Refugee status can be granted where there is a considerable risk of excision and insufficient protection against this threat.
Analysing the legality of the refusal to grant child benefit payments to parents who are not habitually resident within the State for the benefit of their children.
This case dealt with the extent to which in the case of a child the prospect of discrimination could amount to a real risk of persecution sufficient to found a successful asylum claim in a situation where a comparably placed adult would not be at such a risk.
The case examined the allegations of the applicants that their detention conditions in Greek detention centres were contrary to Article 3 due to overpopulation and poor hygiene conditions. It further examined their complaint under Article 5 para 4 that the administrative tribunal in Greece, which should have examined the legality of their detention did not, in fact, adequately do so.
In the case of the Nigerian asylum-seeker, the Court found the objection of the OIN unfounded, repealed its decision and ordered the OIN to conduct a new procedure.
The Court emphasised that the contradictions which were encountered by the OIN were irrelevant regarding the applicant’s flight testimony, therefore the applicant can be considered credible.
Female genital mutilation constitutes an act of persecution relating to membership of a particular social group and, if it is established that such mutilation could specifically affect the Applicant, constitutes a reason for granting refugee status under Article 2 and subsequent articles of Legislative Decree No 251 of 19.11.2007, implementing Directive 2004/83/EC.
The Migration Board accepted the applicant and her children were in need of international protection as refugees in relation to Senegal but claimed that they could obtain protection in Nigeria (considered a safe third country). The Migration Court upheld the applicant’s appeal stating that once a case has been examined in substance in relation to a country of origin and protection needs ascertained it is not possible subsequently to refuse protection by referring to a safe third country. Cases concerning safe third countries must be dismissed in accordance with Art 25.2(c) of the Asylum...
This case concerned the interpretation of Article 4.3 of the Qualification Directive and the nature of the assessment of the facts and circumstances of a refugee application that should take place. The Court rejected the argument that a failure by a first instance decision-maker to consider each of the mandatory matters set out in Article 4.3 rendered that decision unlawful such that it must be quashed, rather than allowing for any such defect to be cured by an appeal body. The obligation imposed by the Directive is satisfied when any errors or misjudgements at the first instance stage,...
The Minister for Justice issued a mother and her 5 children with deportation orders as failed asylum seekers pursuant to section 3(2)(f) of the (Irish) Immigration Act 1999. The only application for asylum was in the mother’s name. The children had not been issued with refugee status determinations at all and were not mentioned in the decision. The minor applicants challenged the deportation orders on the basis that their designation as failed asylum seekers was wrong in law. They had never made asylum applications. The High Court granted the applicants leave to seek judicial review but...
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Refugee Status filterRefugee Status
- Membership of a particular social group 3
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 2
- Child Specific Considerations 2
- Family unity (right to) 2
- Female genital mutilation 2
- Gender Based Persecution 2
- Persecution (acts of) 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Actors of protection 1
- Credibility assessment 1
- Dependant (Dependent person) 1
- Detention 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- Effective remedy (right to) 1
- Individual assessment 1
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 1
- Material reception conditions 1
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 1
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 1
- Protection 1
- Real risk 1
- Reception conditions 1
- Safe third country 1
- Subsidiary Protection 1
- Well-founded fear 1
Filter by country of applicant
- (-) Remove Nigeria filterNigeria
- Afghanistan 1
- China 1
- Egypt 1
- Iran 1
- Ivory Coast 1
- Senegal 1