You are here
Home › Assessment of facts and circumstances ›EDAL case summaries
Well-grounded information is of central importance to any decision to exclude a person convicted for criminal matters from international protection in accordance with Article 1 F of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
The standardised nature of the questions to the applicants and similarities in the responses recorded do not necessarily indicate a lack of individualised assessment. The applicants were not deprived of an opportunity to submit arguments against their expulsion and did not make any claim of persecution risks in their country of origin. No collective expulsion under Article 4 Protocol 4 has been established.
Similarly, no violation of Article 4 Protocol 4 in conjunction with Article 13 has been established, as the claim cannot be considered...
Belgium - X v. Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons, 26 November 2019, N° 229 288
The fact that an asylum applicant has already been persecuted in the past or has already suffered serious harm is a serious indication of the well-founded fear of the claimant, or of the real risk of suffering serious harm, unless there is good reason to believe that this persecution or serious harm will not happen again.
When an applicant has suffered female genital mutilation in her country of origin, there is a rebuttable presumption that she will again be the...
In order to guarantee that an applicant for international protection has an effective judicial remedy within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter, a national court or tribunal is required to vary a decision of the first-instance determining body that does not comply with its previous judgment. The court or tribunal must substitute its own decision on the application for international protection by disapplying, if necessary, the national law that prohibits it from proceeding in that way.
In order to examine prohibitions of deportation, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) has to consider the case of each family member even in cases of family associations separately whether deportation prohibitions exist. In this case, the risk assessment must be based on the assumption that a nuclear family living together in the Federal Republic of Germany will return to its country of origin as a family unit. This also applies if individual family members have already been granted a protection status or if national deportation prohibitions have been...
The lower Court could not have carried out a more critical analysis, especially since there was no evidence, since the applicant’s entire claim was based on personal reasons.
LGBT individuals who have left Morocco can be granted refugee status as the socially and legally hostile environment towards LGBT individuals in this country can justify fear of persecution based on their membership to a particular group. A cautious assessment of the consequences of a return to the country of origin and an extensive benefit of the doubt are advised in the review of asylum applications of Moroccan nationals identifying as LGBT.
It is necessary to make a proportionality assessment with consideration of both the gravity of the crime committed by the applicant and the interests of society, and the applicant’s individual rights, particularly his right to private and family life under Article 8.
The Federal Administrative Court failed to fully assess the impact that the measure of removal would have on the applicant. The evolution of the applicant's conduct since the occurrence of the crime, the applicant’s deteriorating medical condition, and his social, cultural and...
This appeal considered what the correct approach is to the assessment of medical evidence in asylum claims alleging torture. Hence, it was declared that decision-makers can receive assistance from medical experts who are able to offer an opinion about the injury inflicted. The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal and remitted KV’s appeal against the refusal of asylum to the Upper Tribunal for fresh determination.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
- National Case law 197
- ECrtHR Case law 14
- CJEU Case law 10
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Assessment of facts and circumstances filterAssessment of facts and circumstances
- Credibility assessment 61
- Country of origin information 50
- Individual assessment 45
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 41
- Personal circumstances of applicant 40
- Subsidiary Protection 39
- Well-founded fear 33
- Internal protection 30
- Membership of a particular social group 30
- Refugee Status 30
- Real risk 29
- Burden of proof 27
- Effective remedy (right to) 26
- Procedural guarantees 25
- Relevant Facts 24
- Relevant Documentation 22
- Persecution (acts of) 21
- Standard of proof 18
- Country of origin 17
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 17
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 17
- Political Opinion 17
- Obligation to give reasons 16
- Return 16
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 15
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 14
- Previous persecution 14
- Protection 14
- Religion 14
- Serious harm 14
- Effective access to procedures 13
- Torture 13
- Dublin Transfer 12
- Responsibility for examining application 12
- Subsequent application 12
- Non-refoulement 11
- Personal interview 11
- Benefit of doubt 10
- Detention 10
- Gender Based Persecution 10
- Unaccompanied minor 10
- Best interest of the child 9
- Child Specific Considerations 9
- Nationality 8
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 8
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 8
- Sexual orientation 8
- Accelerated procedure 7
- Actors of protection 7
- Duty of applicant 7
- Individual threat 7
- Safe third country 7
- Family unity (right to) 6
- Inadmissible application 6
- Indiscriminate violence 6
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 6
- Refugee sur place 6
- Request to take back 6
- Circumstances ceased to exist 5
- Delay 5
- Exclusion from protection 5
- Family member 5
- Final decision 5
- First country of asylum 5
- Humanitarian considerations 5
- Internal armed conflict 5
- Discrimination 4
- Manifestly unfounded application 4
- Race 4
- Reception conditions 4
- Revocation of protection status 4
- Safe country of origin 4
- Vulnerable person 4
- Cessation of protection 3
- Country of former habitual residence 3
- Crime against humanity 3
- Dependant (Dependent person) 3
- Family reunification 3
- Female genital mutilation 3
- Material reception conditions 3
- Stateless person 3
- Terrorism 3
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 2
- Armed conflict 2
- Indirect refoulement 2
- Serious non-political crime 2
- Trafficking in human beings 2
- Access to the labour market 1
- Accommodation centre 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Integration measures 1
- More favourable provisions 1
- Residence document 1
- Sponsor 1
- Visa 1
- War crimes 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 26
- Nigeria 16
- Iran 12
- Iraq 12
- Congo (DRC) 10
- Russia 10
- Somalia 9
- Syria 9
- Pakistan 7
- Sri Lanka 7
- Turkey 7
- Eritrea 6
- Unknown 6
- Ethiopia 5
- Russia (Chechnya) 5
- Rwanda 5
- Cameroon 4
- Sudan 4
- China 3
- Guinea 3
- Ivory Coast 3
- Kosovo 3
- Lebanon 3
- Morocco 3
- Albania 2
- Angola 2
- Azerbaijan 2
- Burundi 2
- Gambia 2
- Kazakhstan 2
- Palestinian Territory 2
- Tunisia 2
- Ukraine 2
- United Kingdom 2
- Bangladesh 1
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- Burkina Faso 1
- Central African Republic 1
- Cuba 1
- Egypt 1
- France 1
- Gabon 1
- Ghana 1
- Haiti 1
- India 1
- Israel 1
- Mauritania 1
- Mongolia 1
- Namibia 1
- Nepal 1
- Niger 1
- North Korea 1
- Senegal 1
- Sierra Leone 1
- South Korea 1
- Togo 1
- Uganda 1
- Uzbekistan 1
- Vietnam 1