Austria – Administrative Court - 24 June 2020, Ra 2020/20/0195

Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
Court Name:
Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof)
Relevant Legislative Provisions:
National / Other Legislative Provisions:
Art. 133 IV B-VG
§ § 34 Ia
25 a I
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF version of SummaryPDF version of Summary

A court may dismiss the appeal without further proceedings in a non-public session, if the appeal does not depend on the solution of a legal question that is of fundamental significance.

In the case of an Afghan, the appeal does not depend on the solution of a fundamental question, if the lower instance has sufficiently examined the situation in the appellant’s country of origin. This is the case, if the court sufficiently considered possible internal flight alternatives by air.



The appellant is an Afghan citizen.

By decision of 27 June 2018, the Federal Office for Foreign Affairs and Asylum (Bundesamt für Fremdwesen und Asyl) rejected the appellant’s application for international protection for asylum regarding his state of origin Afghanistan. The complaint was dismissed by the lower instance as unfounded and a potential appeal as inadmissible.  

The appellant’s subsequent appeal contends that the lower instance has not properly examined the possible internal flight alternatives by air to Herat and Mazar-e Sharif. It claims that Kabul and the internal flight alternatives in Herat and Maza-e Sharif are classified as unsafe. Further, it asserts that the deportation of the appellant to Afghanistan is inadmissible, if an internal flight alternative exists, but a direct deportation into the region of an internal flight alternative is impossible and only feasible over unsafe regions as Kabul. Moreover, the appellant mentions that the federal administrative court did not sufficiently consider the integration, the improved German language skills and the nonage of the applicant.


Decision & Reasoning: 

The court dismissed the appellant’s appeal without further proceedings in a non-public session, because the appeal does not depend on the solution of a legal question that is of fundamental significance.

The lower instance court asserted correctly that according to the UNHCR guidelines and the EASO report, these cities are safe possibilities for the appellant to reach his final destination. First, it is acceptable to arrive at the airport of Kabul (which is an unsafe region) but then go straight to the final destination in Herat or Mazar-e Sharif. Second, also direct international flight connections to Mazar-e Sharif and other safe regions without a stop in Kabul exist.

Further, the lower instance court’s balance of interests is not reversible, because it was carried out on a procedurally correct basis and in a reasonable manner within the framework of the principles developed by case law. The lower instance court decided that the public interest in a termination of residence overweighs the appellant’s interest, notwithstanding his advanced integration in Austria and his nonage.



Appeal dismissed.


The appeal of the applicant was against the judgement of the federal administrative court of the 10th of march 2020 (W114 2202885-1/17E).

This case summary was written by Leona Sitz, student at the University Cologne.


Other sources cited: 

Domestic Case Law Cited

VwGH 27.4.2020, Ra 2019/20/0242

VwGH 30.10.2019, Ra 2019/14/0451

VwGH 27.8.2019, Ra 2019/14/0351

VwGH 28.1.2010, Ra 2020/20/0010

VwGH 2.12.2019, Ra 2019/20/0537,

VwGH 5.6.2019, Ra 2019/18/0078

Other Sources Cited

EASO Report, Key socio-economic indicators, Focus on Kabul City, Mazar-e Sharif and Herat City, Country of Origin Information Report, April 2019, S 19

EASO report: Country Guidance: Afghanistan, Guidance note 2019