You are here
Home › Relevant Documentation ›EDAL case summaries
The fact that an asylum seeker has already been persecuted in the past or has been subject to direct threats of persecution, was considered as a well-founded argument to believe that the applicant would face the risk to be persecuted under Article 1, Section A §2 of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
The domestic body of civil law and civil procedure relating to family disputes was found to be applicable in accordance with Articles 12 and 16 of the 1951 Geneva Convention, as the applicant was a recognised refugee in the country and needed to end her marriage.
The administrative detention of an Afghan national was imposed on the basis of a procedural error due to the lack of relevant documentation and unjustified information by the French authorities (Prefect and Prosecutor).
A Guinean woman who has been forced into marriage at a young age and subsequently harassed into marrying her late husband’s brother, is a refugee under article 1, section A §2 of the Geneva Convention. She risks being persecuted by reason of her membership in the social group of women, and considering the regular violation of women’s rights occuring in Guinea.
When deciding upon an asylum applicant’s age, authorities should assess the evidence in a holistic way, and not rely solely on medical examinations of the applicant. If, in the absence of sufficient evidence, authorities conclude that the applicant is an adult, they need to justify their decision by reference to the grounds for its conclusion.
A birth certificate is not a decision within the meaning of paragraph 108 FamFG. As a child grows older the need of beeing looked after by both its parents decreases. There is no necessity for interim order in the case of family reunification, when the child is about to come of age, as the right to subsequent immigration is not lost upon the child’s coming of age according to the CJEU.
After being notified of his return decision, set to take place on the same day, the applicant requested an interim measure on Article 3 ECHR grounds in the morning but was nonetheless expelled to Morocco in the afternoon. The Court found no violation of Article 3, regarding the applicant’s expulsion to Morocco, by taking into account subsequent information. It found a violation of Article 34 of the Convention, owing to the fact that the applicant had no sufficient time to file a request to the Court, hence running the risk back then of being potentially subjected to treatment prohibited...
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...
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).
The Appellant and the appellant’s children were applying for leave to remain in Sweden due to affiliation with their husband and father respectively who had been granted a permanent right of residency in Sweden as a refugee - despite them not being able to prove their identities. Due to the appellant’s lack of relevant documentation for her and the children, the court had to consider the circumstances in which a person can be granted alleviation of evidentiary burden in terms of proving their identity.
The Migration Court of Appeal granted the appeal and held that...
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Relevant Documentation filterRelevant Documentation
- Credibility assessment 27
- Relevant Facts 23
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 22
- Country of origin information 18
- Refugee Status 16
- Well-founded fear 16
- Procedural guarantees 14
- Burden of proof 12
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 12
- Subsidiary Protection 10
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 9
- Real risk 9
- Standard of proof 9
- Duty of applicant 8
- Obligation to give reasons 8
- Detention 7
- Personal circumstances of applicant 7
- Personal interview 7
- Religion 7
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 6
- Effective access to procedures 6
- Effective remedy (right to) 6
- Individual threat 6
- Internal protection 6
- Persecution (acts of) 6
- Political Opinion 6
- Protection 6
- Subsequent application 6
- Benefit of doubt 5
- Individual assessment 5
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 5
- Membership of a particular social group 5
- Torture 5
- Dependant (Dependent person) 4
- Family member 4
- Family reunification 4
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 4
- Previous persecution 4
- Unaccompanied minor 4
- Best interest of the child 3
- Child Specific Considerations 3
- Family unity (right to) 3
- First country of asylum 3
- Internal armed conflict 3
- Nationality 3
- Refugee sur place 3
- Accelerated procedure 2
- Country of origin 2
- Dublin Transfer 2
- Exclusion from protection 2
- Material reception conditions 2
- Non-refoulement 2
- Reception conditions 2
- Residence document 2
- Responsibility for examining application 2
- Return 2
- Safe country of origin 2
- Safe third country 2
- Sexual orientation 2
- Visa 2
- Accommodation centre 1
- Actors of protection 1
- Cessation of protection 1
- Circumstances ceased to exist 1
- Crime against humanity 1
- Delay 1
- Discrimination 1
- Female genital mutilation 1
- Freedom of movement (right to) 1
- Gender Based Persecution 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Humanitarian considerations 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Indirect refoulement 1
- Indiscriminate violence 1
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 1
- Request to take back 1
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 1
- Serious harm 1
- Sponsor 1
- Stateless person 1
- Terrorism 1
- Vulnerable person 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Iraq 7
- Somalia 6
- Iran 5
- Afghanistan 4
- Bangladesh 4
- Eritrea 3
- Pakistan 3
- Syria 3
- Turkey 3
- Unknown 3
- Guinea 2
- Lebanon 2
- Nigeria 2
- Russia 2
- Russia (Chechnya) 2
- Sri Lanka 2
- Sudan 2
- China 1
- Colombia 1
- Congo (DRC) 1
- Congo (Republic of) 1
- Ethiopia 1
- France 1
- Georgia 1
- Ghana 1
- India 1
- Kosovo 1
- Morocco 1
- Nepal 1
- Rwanda 1
- Tanzania 1
- United Kingdom 1
Filter by country of decision
- Greece 10
- Denmark 7
- France 7
- Ireland 7
- United Kingdom 5
- Belgium 3
- Poland 3
- Spain 3
- Sweden 3
- Germany 2
- Hungary 2
- Netherlands 2
- Slovenia 2
- Austria 1
- Czech Republic 1
- Slovakia 1
- Switzerland 1