Hungary - Metropolitan Court, 22 April 2011, 17.K30.864/2010/18
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. The applicant could not substantiate the individual elements of his claim with respect to his well-founded fear of a blood feud; however, he was able to satisfy the criteria for subsidiary protection....
What happened
The applicant, an Afghan national, fled his country at age eight due to a family blood feud where his father killed his uncle's son. He lived in Pakistan for a year and then in Iran for ten years. He feared returning to Afghanistan as his uncle might kill him, but his asylum application was initially rejected by the Office of Immigration and Nationality.
What the court decided
The Metropolitan Court held that the applicant could not substantiate a well‑founded fear of a blood feud and therefore did not qualify for refugee status, but he satisfied the criteria for subsidiary protection because the indiscriminate violence in Ghazni province posed a serious and individual threat to his life, and internal protection was not reasonably available; consequently the court overturned the OIN decision and granted subsidiary protection.
How the court got there
The court decided to grant subsidiary protection because the applicant could not substantiate his fear of a blood feud, but the indiscriminate violence in Ghazni province posed a serious threat to his life. The court found that internal protection was not viable as the applicant had no family ties in other parts of Afghanistan.
Statutes and cases cited
- § Qualification Directive 2004/83/EC
- § 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 Summaries are prepared from public sources and may be incomplete or out of date.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.