Poland - Polish Refugee Board, 29 August 2013, RdU-246-1/S/13
Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
29-08-2013
Citation:
RdU-246-1/S/13
Court Name:
Polish Refugee Board
Keywords:
Relevant Legislative Provisions:
European Union Law
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 15 > Art 15 (b)
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 15
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 15 > Art 15 (b)
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 15
National / Other Legislative Provisions:
Poland - Ustawy o udzielaniu cudzoziemcom ochrony na terytorium Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (Act on granting protection to foreigners in the territory of the Republic of Poland) - Art 15 § 2
Printer-friendly version
PDF version of Summary
Headnote:
This was a decision of the Polish Refugee Board of 29 August 2013 to uphold that part of the decision of the Head of the Polish Office for Foreigners which concerned refusal to accord refugee status and to overturn the remainder of the decision as well as to grant subsidiary protection.
The results of the linguistic analysis carried out by an external expert company should be assessed in the context of all the evidence gathered in the case, taking into account the principle of the benefit of doubt, also as regards establishing the country of origin.
Certain inaccuracies in the detail actually lend credibility to the testimony. This is evident particularly if one takes into account the fact that the foreign woman is a simple person without any education.
Facts:
The refugee status proceedings in this case lasted over two years. The Head of the Polish Office for Foreigners questioned the foreign woman’s claim that she is from Darfur in Sudan. It did so on the basis of a pioneering method used to establish the country of origin of foreigners whose identity is unconfirmed, i.e. on the basis of an expert study carried out by the Swedish company Verified AB. The company specialises in determining what region a foreigner is from on the basis of a linguistic analysis and an assessment of their knowledge of the region’s topography.
The final report presented by the company shows that the foreign woman speaks a variant of English that is “probably inconsistent” with her declared country of origin, i.e. Sudan. The variant of Swahili spoken by the foreign woman was likewise seen as “probably consistent” with the Tanzanian rather than the Sudanese variant of this language. The external expert company also found that the foreign woman did not know the topography of the region where she claimed she had lived.When asked to list the towns in the region, aside from towns in Sudan, she also listed towns situated in Chad.
It was on this basis that the Head of the Polish Office for Foreigners excluded the possibility that the foreign woman was from Sudan and instead assumed her country of origin to be either Kenya or Tanzania. The Head of the Polish Office for Foreigners therefore refused the foreign woman all forms of protection and decided to deport her. The appeal authority overturned part of the decision appealed against and granted the foreign woman subsidiary protection.
Decision & Reasoning:
There are insufficient grounds in this case to question the foreign woman’s claim that she is from Sudan. The results of the linguistic analysis should be assessed in the context of all the evidence gathered in the case, taking into account the principle of the benefit of doubt. An important consideration is the fact that the she was brought up by a Tanzanian family and that she spent time in a centre run by missionaries, where people from various countries lived. This explains the fact that the foreign woman speaks a language that points to Tanzanian origins and it cannot justify questioning her claim that she is from Sudan.
Moreover, the fact that the foreign woman listed towns located in Sudan as well as in Chad cannot be interpreted to her disadvantage, since she herself testified that she lived in a part of Sudan that borders Chad. The specific nature of the borders of African countries and the Applicant’s lack of education should be taken into account.
Certain inaccuracies in the detail actually lend credibility to the testimony. This is evident particularly if one takes into account the fact that the foreign woman is a simple person without any education.
Outcome:
Subsidiary protection granted to the foreign woman.
Observations/Comments:
The expert opinion is only one of the pieces of evidence in the case, but the first-instance authority saw it as decisive and ignored the foreign woman’s assertions, which remained consistent throughout the drawn-out proceedings. Evidence in the form of an expert opinion, particularly as it contains such ambiguous findings, cannot take precedence over the foreign woman’s testimony.
Case Law Cited:
ECtHR - D v. United Kingdom, Application No. 30240/96 (UP)
ECtHR - N v United Kingdom (Application no. 26565/05)
