EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Turkey
Keywords: Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN, Exclusion from protection, Refugee Status, Terrorism
The applicant’s asylum claim has been rejected on the grounds of Article 1F(c) of the 1951 Refugee Convention. The act he committed would amount to being contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN. However, the Council of State hereby decided that in failing to seek and qualify the severity of this act in the light of its effects internationally, the lower court made an error of law.
Date: 11-04-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Dependant (Dependent person), Female genital mutilation, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Membership of a particular social group, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Protection, Refugee Status, Subsidiary Protection
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.
Date: 23-10-2017
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Mongolia
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin information, Discrimination, Membership of a particular social group, Persecution (acts of), Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Previous persecution, Real risk, Refugee Status, Sexual orientation, Well-founded fear
An applicant may be granted refugee status under Article 1 of the 1951 Geneva Convention for fear of persecution based on sexual orientation. This depends on whether or not, according to the conditions prevailing in the country of origin, persons sharing a sexual orientation may be regarded as a social group within the meaning of the Convention.
Date: 31-05-2017
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Bangladesh
Keywords: Country of origin information, Membership of a particular social group, Refugee Status, Sexual orientation
The fact that the membership of a particular social group is not subject to specific repressive criminal provisions has no incidence on the granting of refugee status.
Date: 21-04-2017
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Rwanda
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Individual assessment, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Refugee Status, Well-founded fear
The French National Asylum Court (CNDA) must do a complete assessment of facts and circumstances in deciding whether an applicant should be granted refugee status, or failing that, subsidiary protection. In doing so, it must take into account all the documentation provided by the Applicant in support of the application. In this case, the Applicant’s medical evidence documentation and the evidence relating to the potential risks she is likely to face if she returns to her country (fear of persecution due to imputed political opinions) should have been taken into account.
The CNDA did...
Date: 08-11-2016
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Sri Lanka
Keywords: Refugee Status, Subsequent application
The Council of State (the “Council”) overturned an order of the National Court of Asylum (the “NCA”) rejecting a request for annulment of a decision of the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (the “OFPRA”) rejecting the Applicant’s request for refugee status or subsidiary protection. The reasoning for the rejection by the NCA was that no new elements had been presented since the previous decision that had been given.
The Council considered that the disclosure by the prefecture to the Sri Lankan Embassy...
Date: 10-02-2016
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Sri Lanka
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Refugee Status, Well-founded fear
The French National Asylum Court (the “CNDA”) must assess whether or not the applicant should be granted refugee status or, failing that, subsidiary protection,taking into account all the factual on the basis of the circumstances which are known to the CNDA when it rules. In order to assess the accuracy of the facts reported by an applicant, the CNDA must take into account all evidence presented by an applicant in support of his application. In particular, when an applicant produces circumstantial evidence relating to the alleged risks that he is likely to face if...
Date: 10-04-2015
Country of Decision: France
Keywords: Discrimination, Refugee Status, Safe country of origin
The Council of State denied the Applicants’ appeal against the decision made by the Board of the Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) to include Georgia and the Republic of Albania in the list of safe countries of origin because, amongst other things, these countries are democratic institutions and are parties to the ECHR.
The Council of State granted the Applicants’ appeal against the decision made by the Board of OFPRA to include the Republic of Kosovo in the list of safe countries of origin because, amongst other things, the country’s political and...
Date: 10-10-2014
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Effective access to procedures, Individual assessment, Persecution (acts of), Protection, Refugee Status, Visa
A claim challenging the refusal to grant a visa -in order to claim asylum on French territory- qualifies as being urgent. The consular authority is not qualified to assess the asylum claim.
Date: 16-09-2014
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: First country of asylum, Inadmissible application, Individual threat, Protection, Refugee Status, Well-founded fear
Interventions from third parties to proceedings initiated before the National Asylum Court may be admitted.
A person with refugee status in one European Union state who applies for refugee status in a second European Union state is presumed to have unfounded fears relating to lack of protection. However, that presumption may be rebutted by evidence to the contrary.
Date: 13-11-2013
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Refugee Status filterRefugee Status
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 7
- Membership of a particular social group 5
- Protection 5
- Persecution (acts of) 4
- Well-founded fear 4
- Individual assessment 3
- Sexual orientation 3
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 2
- Country of origin information 2
- Discrimination 2
- Effective access to procedures 2
- Female genital mutilation 2
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 2
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Subsequent application 2
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 1
- Country of origin 1
- Dependant (Dependent person) 1
- Exclusion from protection 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Individual threat 1
- Internal protection 1
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 1
- Nationality 1
- Political Opinion 1
- Previous persecution 1
- Procedural guarantees 1
- Real risk 1
- Relevant Documentation 1
- Religion 1
- Safe country of origin 1
- Subsidiary Protection 1
- Terrorism 1
- Visa 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Congo (DRC) 2
- Sri Lanka 2
- Turkey 2
- Bangladesh 1
- Eritrea 1
- Ethiopia 1
- Mongolia 1
- Nigeria 1
- Russia (Chechnya) 1
- Rwanda 1
- Syria 1
- Unknown 1
Filter by country of decision
- (-) Remove France filterFrance
