EDAL case summaries

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

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...

The appellant claimed that the Tribunals in their determinations had failed to give adequate reasons for their conclusions, in particular that the appellant had not demonstrated well-founded fear. The Court considered the grounds for this claim and found that since we should ‘avoid a requirement of perfection’ (para 26) they were not sufficient to establish that the tribunals had erred, nor that the claimant was at risk of persecution.

The Immigration and Asylum Office unlawfully rejected the claimant’s application for international protection. The court found that the authorities did not objectively assess the evidence and country information provided by the claimant, a Coptic Christian from Egypt. They also failed to correctly interpret the definition of a refugee in accordance with international law and disregarded the special status of the claimant who was an underage applicant.