EDAL case summaries
An Applicant with Syrian citizenship applied for asylum in Sweden. The Migration Court of Appeal found that (i) Armenia was considered a safe third country, and (ii) that the Applicant had such a connection to Armenia that it was reasonable for the Applicant to go there, given that the Applicant’s mother was from Armenia, Armenian was the Applicant’s native language, the Applicant was born and spent his first years in Armenia, and the Applicant had voluntarily returned to Armenia as an adult to study. The Applicant’s asylum application was rejected.
1. The issue as to whether an asylum-seeker was already protected against political persecution in a third country is only relevant in terms of the asylum application for recognition of refugee status in the context of the concept of the first country of asylum as defined in EU law in Article 29 of the Asylum Procedures Act (Articles 25 and 26 of the Asylum Procedures Directive).
2. If the Federal Office has reached a decision on the asylum application in this case, the substantive question of the subsidiarity of refugee protection in the assessment of refugee status is...
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove First country of asylum filterFirst country of asylum
- (-) Remove Protection filterProtection
- (-) Remove Safe third country filterSafe third country
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 1
- Exclusion from protection 1
- Refugee Status 1
- Serious non-political crime 1
- Terrorism 1