You are here
Home › Well-founded fear ›EDAL case summaries
Country of Applicant: Sudan
Keywords: Access to the labour market, Burden of proof, Credibility assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Internal armed conflict, Political Opinion, Real risk, Refugee Status, Well-founded fear
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.
Date: 02-06-2020
Belgium - X v. Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons, 26 November 2019, N° 229 288
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Ivory Coast
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Gender Based Persecution, Membership of a particular social group, Previous persecution, Real risk, Well-founded fear
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...
Date: 26-11-2019
Country of Decision: Greece
Country of Applicant: Ghana
Keywords: Gender Based Persecution, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Membership of a particular social group, Sexual orientation, Unaccompanied minor, Well-founded fear
Date: 12-06-2019
Country of Applicant: Algeria, Morocco
Keywords: Cessation of protection, Circumstances ceased to exist, Country of origin, Personal circumstances of applicant, Protection, Relevant Facts, Revocation of protection status, Stateless person, Subsidiary Protection, Well-founded fear
Member States are required to revoke subsidiary protection on the basis of art. 19(1), if they find out that the conditions that led to the granting of status were never met, regardless of whether the incorrect assessment of facts leading to the status is imputable exclusively to the national authority itself
Date: 23-05-2019
Country of Applicant: Iran
Keywords: Country of origin information, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Return, Serious harm, Well-founded fear
Extradition to Iran to face criminal charges would risk a violation of Article 3 due to possible exposure to flogging under Iranian penal law.
Date: 04-04-2019
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Pakistan
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Country of origin, Country of origin information, Individual threat, Membership of a particular social group, Personal circumstances of applicant, Religion, Standard of proof, Well-founded fear
This case dealt with the issue of the whether the guidance of MN and others Pakistan CG [2012] was still accurate in terms of asylum protection due to failing to ask the question of why an individual would act in a discreet way in their country of origin. This question draws the distinction between concealment of faith due to fear of persecution or simply due to social norms or personal preference.
WA sought to challenge the correctness of the guidance in MN and others Pakistan CG [2012] in that it...
Date: 06-03-2019
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Uganda
Keywords: Discrimination, Membership of a particular social group, Refugee Status, Relevant Facts, Sexual orientation, Well-founded fear
The applicant, an ethnic Samia and Christian Protestant from Mukono, Uganda, became aware of his sexual orientation when he was between 7 and 9 years old and has had several both short and longer relations with men.
The Refugee Appeals Board accepted the applicants account which included imprisonment and physical and sexual abuse as well as harassment by village locals. Consequently, the Board found that the applicant was at risk of persecution by his family and locals against which no protection by the authorities could be obtained. Therefore, the applicant was granted refugee...
Date: 17-05-2018
Country of Applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Credibility assessment, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Membership of a particular social group, Personal circumstances of applicant, Sexual orientation, Well-founded fear
In assessing the credibility of a sexual orientation-related claim, personal circumstances have to be taken into account. That a person is not able to elaborate on his awareness and acceptance of his sexual orientation, is not sufficient to conclude that the applicant’s story lacks credibility, when the personal circumstances that explain this inability are considered credible.
Date: 19-03-2018
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Country of origin information, Personal circumstances of applicant, Refugee Status, Relevant Documentation, Sexual orientation, Well-founded fear
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).
Date: 06-03-2018
Country of Decision: Spain
Country of Applicant: Gambia
Keywords: Family unity (right to), Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Well-founded fear
When examining the acceptance of an asylum claim, the authorities have to study whether the testimony of the applicant is based on presumably true facts. Only if it is manifestly false could the admission of this application be denied.
The principle of family unity has to be taken into account regarding the assessment of the circumstances of the applicant, especially since his sister’s application for international protection was accepted.
Date: 05-12-2017
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Well-founded fear filterWell-founded fear
- Refugee Status 55
- Real risk 46
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 38
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 34
- Credibility assessment 34
- Country of origin information 28
- Membership of a particular social group 28
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 27
- Persecution (acts of) 27
- Protection 24
- Political Opinion 18
- Detention 17
- Personal circumstances of applicant 17
- Country of origin 16
- Effective remedy (right to) 16
- Relevant Documentation 16
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 14
- Relevant Facts 14
- Religion 14
- Subsidiary Protection 14
- Discrimination 13
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 13
- Standard of proof 13
- Non-refoulement 12
- Obligation to give reasons 12
- Serious harm 12
- Torture 12
- Burden of proof 11
- Internal protection 11
- Previous persecution 11
- Sexual orientation 11
- Gender Based Persecution 10
- Individual assessment 10
- Individual threat 10
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 10
- Procedural guarantees 10
- Race 8
- Child Specific Considerations 7
- Exclusion from protection 7
- Manifestly unfounded application 7
- Benefit of doubt 6
- Duty of applicant 6
- Effective access to procedures 6
- Nationality 6
- Return 6
- Safe country of origin 6
- Death penalty / Execution 5
- First country of asylum 5
- Internal armed conflict 5
- Personal interview 5
- Refugee sur place 5
- Unaccompanied minor 5
- Best interest of the child 4
- Revocation of protection status 4
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 4
- Stateless person 4
- Terrorism 4
- Accelerated procedure 3
- Access to the labour market 3
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 3
- Armed conflict 3
- Cessation of protection 3
- Circumstances ceased to exist 3
- Crime against humanity 3
- Dependant (Dependent person) 3
- Family unity (right to) 3
- Humanitarian considerations 3
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 3
- Reception conditions 3
- Subsequent application 3
- War crimes 3
- Actors of protection 2
- Delay 2
- Family member 2
- Final decision 2
- Indirect refoulement 2
- Indiscriminate violence 2
- Material reception conditions 2
- Responsibility for examining application 2
- Trafficking in human beings 2
- Accommodation centre 1
- Country of former habitual residence 1
- Dublin Transfer 1
- Family reunification 1
- Female genital mutilation 1
- Genocide 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- International armed conflict 1
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 1
- Request to take back 1
- Safe third country 1
- Serious non-political crime 1
- Sponsor 1
- Vulnerable person 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Turkey 15
- Iran 14
- Afghanistan 13
- Iraq 10
- Somalia 5
- Lebanon 4
- Russia 4
- Sudan 4
- Syria 4
- Algeria 3
- Ghana 3
- Palestinian Territory 3
- Sri Lanka 3
- Uganda 3
- Albania 2
- Bangladesh 2
- Gambia 2
- Nigeria 2
- Pakistan 2
- Rwanda 2
- Senegal 2
- Tunisia 2
- Angola 1
- Burkina Faso 1
- Congo (DRC) 1
- Egypt 1
- Eritrea 1
- Ethiopia 1
- Georgia 1
- Haiti 1
- Ivory Coast 1
- Kazakhstan 1
- Kyrgyzstan 1
- Mauritania 1
- Moldova 1
- Mongolia 1
- Morocco 1
- Namibia 1
- Russia (Chechnya) 1
- Sierra Leone 1
- South Africa 1
- United Kingdom 1
- United States 1
