Hungary - Metropolitan Court, 28 December 2010, A.M. v. Office of Immigration and Nationality, 15.K.34.141/2009/12
Machine-found from the cited source, not yet confirmed by a human. Open the source before relying on it.
What was at stake
EDAL summary. Country of origin information can verify a situation in which the risk of persecution can exceptionally be considered to be proved without substantiating the personal circumstances of the applicant. T...
What happened
The applicant, an Afghan national, alleged he was accused of converting to Christianity upon his return to Afghanistan from the UK. His father was killed, and his mother died of shock. He received death threats and fled to Switzerland, where he converted to Christianity. The applicant applied for asylum in Hungary, but his application was rejected by the Office of Immigration and Nationality due to perceived inconsistencies in his account.
What the court decided
The Metropolitan Court held that when country of origin information demonstrates a situation of indiscriminate violence reaching the threshold of an armed conflict, the risk of persecution can exceptionally be considered proved without requiring the applicant to substantiate personal circumstances. The Court found that the Office of Immigration and Nationality had failed to properly collect and evaluate relevant country of origin information, and that the applicant's credibility was not a prerequisite for granting subsidiary protection under Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive. Consequently, the Court determined that the applicant faced a real risk of serious harm in Ghazni Province, Afghanistan, and was entitled to subsidiary protection.
How the court got there
The Metropolitan Court decided that the Office of Immigration and Nationality failed to properly collect and evaluate relevant country of origin information. The court emphasized that country of origin information can verify an exceptional situation where persecution is proven without needing to substantiate the applicant's personal circumstances. The court found that the indiscriminate violence in Ghazni Province, Afghanistan, reached the threshold of an armed conflict, thus meeting the requirements for subsidiary protection.
Statutes and cases cited
- § Qualification Directive Art 15(c)
- § Hungary Act LXXX of 2007 Art 12
- § Hungary Act LXXX of 2007 Art 61(c)
- § European Convention on Human Rights Art 3
- § 1951 Refugee Convention
Categories
Authoritative link
This is a research and reference resource, not legal advice. Summaries are prepared from public sources and may be incomplete or out of date. Always read the original judgment or document and consult a qualified lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction before acting.
Narrative summaries on this page are licensed CC BY-NC 4.0. Reuse them with attribution to JusticeHub for non-commercial purposes. Original judgments and source documents remain under their own terms; follow the authoritative link for the source of record.