You are here
Home › Credibility assessment ›EDAL case summaries
National authorities are best placed to assess the credibility of asylum claimants.
The ill-treatment of people of non-Arab ethnic origin in Sudan is not systematic. Therefore, when the personal circumstances of an applicant that may create a risk of persecution are insufficiently substantiated, the applicant’s removal to Sudan will not give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
In the case of an Afghan Shia Hazara applicant, the Belgian Council for Alien Litigation considered that the request for international protection was based on several sources of fear, which must be analysed in combination with each other, forming a cluster of concordant evidence.
The Council granted the applicant refugee status.
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.
In a case of an asylum application on the grounds of gender based persecution, supported by medical reports, the Belgian Council of State held that it belongs to the asylum authorities to investigate the origin of injuries, whose nature and seriousness imply a presumption of treatment contrary to article 3 ECHR and to assess the risks they reveal.
Without this assessment, the judge cannot legally conclude that the Applicant does not establish that he has been persecuted or has suffered serious harm or been subjected to direct threats of such...
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.
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.
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.
In the absence of EU rules concerning the procedural requirements with regard to the submission and examination of an application for international protection, Member States must determine those requirements provided that they do not render in practice impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of the right to seek asylum.
The judicial examination of whether subsidiary protection shall be approved requires a thorough assessment of the individual case. This applies in particular for especially vulnerable persons.
National authorities can order experts’ reports with the purpose of assisting in the assessment of the facts and circumstances relating to a declared sexual orientation of an applicant, provided that the procedures for these reports are consistent with fundamental rights. However, the examining authority, courts or tribunal must not base their decision solely on the conclusions of an expert’s report and are not bound by these conclusions when assessing the applicant’s statements relating to his or her sexual orientation.
Moreover, national...
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Credibility assessment filterCredibility assessment
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 61
- Country of origin information 51
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 47
- Subsidiary Protection 44
- Membership of a particular social group 41
- Burden of proof 35
- Internal protection 35
- Well-founded fear 33
- Refugee Status 32
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 27
- Relevant Documentation 27
- Persecution (acts of) 25
- Real risk 25
- Standard of proof 25
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 24
- Personal circumstances of applicant 20
- Religion 20
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 19
- Benefit of doubt 19
- Political Opinion 19
- Procedural guarantees 19
- Individual assessment 18
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 18
- Previous persecution 18
- Gender Based Persecution 17
- Obligation to give reasons 17
- Sexual orientation 17
- Child Specific Considerations 16
- Effective remedy (right to) 16
- Relevant Facts 16
- Serious harm 15
- Country of origin 14
- Individual threat 14
- Personal interview 14
- Torture 14
- Protection 12
- Unaccompanied minor 11
- Duty of applicant 10
- Indiscriminate violence 10
- Refugee sur place 10
- Internal armed conflict 9
- Non-refoulement 9
- Safe country of origin 9
- Effective access to procedures 8
- Actors of protection 7
- Vulnerable person 7
- Accelerated procedure 6
- Armed conflict 6
- Discrimination 6
- Humanitarian considerations 6
- Return 6
- Subsequent application 6
- Best interest of the child 5
- Manifestly unfounded application 5
- Detention 4
- Exclusion from protection 4
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 4
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 4
- Safe third country 4
- Accommodation centre 3
- Family member 3
- Female genital mutilation 3
- Nationality 3
- Trafficking in human beings 3
- Access to the labour market 2
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 2
- Death penalty / Execution 2
- Delay 2
- Dependant (Dependent person) 2
- Dublin Transfer 2
- Family reunification 2
- Family unity (right to) 2
- Final decision 2
- First country of asylum 2
- Inadmissible application 2
- Race 2
- Revocation of protection status 2
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 2
- Country of former habitual residence 1
- Crime against humanity 1
- Reception conditions 1
- Responsibility for examining application 1
- Serious non-political crime 1
- War crimes 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Iran 24
- Afghanistan 23
- Somalia 22
- Iraq 16
- Nigeria 12
- Russia 8
- Congo (DRC) 7
- Sudan 7
- Syria 6
- Gambia 5
- Sri Lanka 5
- Guinea 4
- Pakistan 4
- Rwanda 4
- Bangladesh 3
- Cameroon 3
- Colombia 3
- Eritrea 3
- Ivory Coast 3
- Albania 2
- Algeria 2
- Belarus 2
- China 2
- Libya 2
- Sierra Leone 2
- South Africa 2
- Turkey 2
- Uganda 2
- Unknown 2
- Angola 1
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- Burkina Faso 1
- Burundi 1
- Central African Republic 1
- Egypt 1
- Ethiopia 1
- Gabon 1
- Ghana 1
- Kazakhstan 1
- Kenya 1
- Kosovo 1
- Kuwait 1
- Lebanon 1
- Mauritania 1
- Mongolia 1
- Morocco 1
- Nepal 1
- Niger 1
- Russia (Chechnya) 1
- Senegal 1
- Tanzania 1
- Uzbekistan 1
- Zimbabwe 1
Filter by country of decision
- Ireland 31
- Belgium 20
- United Kingdom 18
- Sweden 15
- Hungary 13
- Greece 12
- Austria 9
- Germany 7
- Spain 7
- Netherlands 6
- Denmark 5
- Finland 5
- Italy 5
- Switzerland 5
- Poland 4
- Slovakia 4
- Czech Republic 3
- Slovenia 3
- France 2
- Luxembourg 1