Publication
EMARK - JICRA - GICRA 
Publication
EMARK - JICRA - GICRA
Decision
2000 / 1, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
Art. 42 para. 2 Asylum Law, arts. 31 and 40 Asylum Ordinance 1: prerequisites for the immediate expulsion to a third country.
Decision 2000 / 2, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
),
concerning the subsidiary nature of international protection (domestic
alternative to flight; EMARK - JICRA - GICRA 1996 no
1 ) and concerning
compelling reasons ("raisons impérieuses"; EMARK - JICRA - GICRA 1999
no 7 ).An individual who does not meet the conditions for the
granting of refugee status at the time of his departure from his country of
origin cannot plead compelling reasons ("raisons impérieuses") in
connection with prior persecution
In the event of an armed conflict between two quasi-state
bodies, the possibility of seeking refuge in the territory of the other
civil war party cannot generally be considered as an effective protection.
Individuals who were subjected to persecution in the sense
of article 3 of the Asylum Law during the civil war in
Bosnia-Herzegovina and who left the country before 14 December 1995 (date of
the Dayton Peace Agreement) fulfil the conditions necessary for the granting
of refugee status; on the other hand, this is not the case regarding persons
subject to persecution who only left the country after 12 December 1996
(date of UN-resolution no. 1088).
If the departure took place between these two dates, the question of whether the conditions for the granting of refugee status were met at that time has to be evaluated according to the circumstances of each specific case. If the applicant had the possibility to seek refuge in a quasi-state body which predominantly consisted of members of his own ethnic group, the protection granted precludes a well-founded fear of persecution and the need for international protection.
Decision 2000 / 3, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
According to Czech law, former nationals of Czechoslovakia who were not in possession of the nationality of either the Czech or the Slovak Republic at the time of the division of Czechoslovakia (01.01.1993) can acquire the nationality of the Czech Republic by a simple declaration. In this particular case, the Czech Republic is to be considered as the home country of the appellant despite his assertion that he is stateless. The changed circumstances in this country and the fact that the applicant entered into contact with its authorities constitute grounds for the revocation of the refugee status according to article 1 C ciph. 1 and 5 of the Geneva Convention.
Decision 2000 / 4, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
Art. 56 Asylum Law: procedure for admission into a refugee quota (distinction from the individual proceeding); art. 51 Asylum Law: asylum for families (definition of family/ particular circumstances).
Only the Federal Office for Refugees (FOR) may admit an
individual into the refugee quota which results in a direct granting of
asylum without the necessity of an individual proceeding. The UNHCR-list,
upon which the selection by the FOR is based, does not constitute an
automatic right of the listed persons to be admitted to the quota.
Prerequisite for the collective admission of refugee groups
according to article 56 of the Asylum Law is, besides the admission
into the quota, the controlled entry of the quota refugee in question into
Switzerland together with this group.
The existence of particular circumstances in favour of a
family reunion with relations that do not belong to the nuclear family have
to be considered with regard to the family members who stayed in the country
of origin as well as to those who have been granted refugee status (confirmation
of precedent EMARK - JICRA - GICRA 1994 no
9 ). In case a person who has been
granted refugee status depends on support by his or her family, asylum
cannot be granted according to article 51 para 2 Asylum Law to
family members still residing in the country of origin if the required
support can be provided by other family members who have a permanent right
of abode in Switzerland.
Decision 2000 / 5, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
Art. 67 Law on Administrative Procedure: time limit for filing a request for review of a decision with the FOR.
Decision 2000 / 6, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
Art. 65 paras 1 and 2 Law on Administrative Procedure: interpretation of the legal requirements for the granting of legal aid.
Decision 2000 / 7, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
Art. 52 para. 2 Law on Administrative Procedure: The deliberate submission of a defective notice of appeal with the object of extending the time limit constitutes an obvious abuse of rights.
Decision 2000 / 8, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
Art. 32 para. 2(c) Asylum Law: inadmissibility of an application for asylum in the case of an unintentional violation of the obligation to cooperate with the authorities.
Decision 2000 / 9, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
Case of a person who held the position of minister in the interim government of Rwanda during the genocide of 1994. The AAC has no jurisdiction concerning the question of whether the appellant is guilty of the crime of genocide in the sense of the penal law. It is sufficient that the documents before the Commission yield no indications that the Rwandan state would impute subversive political opinions to the appellant and would try to harm him on these grounds.
Decision 2000 / 10, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
Prerequisite for the immediate expulsion to a third country
in case of an asylum application at the airport (article 23 para. 1(b) Asylum Law) is that the three requirements quoted in the law (previous
stay in the third country, possibility of re-entry and possibility to seek
protection there) are cumulatively satisfied.
Because forcible expulsion is only possible if the asylum seeker can seek protection in the third country, the expulsion of a Tunisian national to Turkey is not admissible in this particular case due to the geographic reservation made by Turkey concerning the application of the Geneva Convention (limitation to European refugees).
Decision 2000 / 11, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
Art. 51 para. 2 Asylum Law: criteria for the granting of asylum based on the right to family.
Decision 2000 / 12, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
Arts 20, 21 and 24 Asylum Law: application for asylum at the border, denial of permission to enter the country and application for asylum from abroad; stop close to the border.
Decision 2000 / 13, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
Situation in the south-eastern provinces of Turkey; partially
new evaluation and overview (cf. EMARK - JICRA - GICRA
1999 no
9, 1998 no 2,
1997 no 2, 1996 no 2).
Decision 2000 / 14, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
Prerequisite for the application of this article is a summary
examination of the credibility of the applicant which in substance must find an
obvious absence of any indication that he might meet the requirements of refugee
status or for the granting of temporary admission. This corresponds to the
concept which, in precedent EMARK - JICRA - GICRA 1998 no 1 , was applied to
article 16 para. 1(d) of the 1979 Asylum Law (cf. EMARK - JICRA - GICRA
1994 no 6 and 1993 no 16).
Decision 2000 / 15, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
Confirmation of the precedents concerning so-called
quasi-states (cf. EMARK - JICRA - GICRA
1997 no 6 and
14, 1996 nos 6 and
42,
1995 no 2). The areas controlled by the two Kurdish parties "Kurdistan
Democratic Party" (KDP) and "Patriotic Union of Kurdistan" (PUK)
in northern Iraq qualify as quasi-states as referred to in these precedents.
According to the principle of domestic alternative to flight,
an applicant who can obtain protection from his state of origin against
persecution does not meet the requirements for the granting of a refugee
status (confirmation of precedents, cf. EMARK - JICRA - GICRA 1996 no
1 ).
This principle generally refers to protection by the state authorities. The
possibility that a quasi-state can offer protection of such a kind is not
excluded (confirmation of legal authority, cf. EMARK - JICRA - GICRA 2000
no. 2
concerning the Bosnian states); however, this requires a significant
likelihood that the quasi-state is able to grant protection, particularly
with respect to its permanence or international support. The northern-Iraqi
quasi-states do not offer the necessary protection; thus, the area under
control of KDP and PUK in northern Iraq can not be considered as a domestic
alternative to flight for individuals who are specifically being persecuted
by the Iraqi central state or a quasi-state group.
Decision 2000 / 16, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
The AAC modifies its practice in part inasmuch as Iraqi
nationals who left the autonomous Kurdish region can no longer claim
post-flight reasons for persecution due to their application for asylum and
their illegal departure, since they do not have to fear persecution for
these reasons if returning to this area.
Despite the impossibility of a forcible expulsion, the
voluntary return to the autonomous region is possible in principle. In
accordance with the precedents (cf. EMARK - JICRA - GICRA
1995 no
14, 1996
no 37, 1998 no 21), a temporary admission under the title of impossibility
of a forcible expulsion cannot be considered.
Decision 2000 / 17, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
Members of non-Arab ethnic groups who, in the context of the "arabization policy" of the Iraqi government, were expelled to the North from the area around the towns of Kirkuk and Mosul, which adjoins the Kurdish area, cannot be considered as refugees in the sense of the asylum law on these grounds alone. Nevertheless, their "refugee-like" situation is to be taken account of when evaluating the reasonableness of the forcible return.
Decision 2000 / 18, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
The return to the autonomous Kurdish region in Northern Iraq – with the explicit exclusion of that part of the country, which is under control of the central state - is generally not considered as unreasonable for persons who do not meet the requirements for the granting of asylum.
Decision 2000 / 19, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
For a determination of the actual age of an individual, the
radiographic examination of the bones of the hand has only a limited
evidentiary value, as the growth of the bones can vary individually, notably
with respect to race and/or sex.
A divergence of two and a half to three years between the
presumed age of the bones based on a medical examination and the actual age
of the individual can be considered as being within the standard range.
If the alleged age of the applicant lies within the standard divergence as compared to the medically determined bone age, the examination of the bones does not constitute a sufficient basis for declaring an application non-admissible because of fraudulent misrepresentation of age.
Decision 2000 / 20, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
Despite continuing shortcomings regarding human rights, the situation in Bulgaria has fundamentally improved, so that the application of article 1 C ciph. 5 para. 1 Geneva Convention is justified.
Decision 2000 / 21, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
Concerning a definition of compelling reasons as referred to
in the precedents (cf. EMARK - JICRA - GICRA 1999 no 7
and cited precedents),
in this particular case no such reasons exist due to a lack of intensity of
persecution.
Particular reasons as referred to in art. 51 para. 2 of the Asylum Law exist if the applicant depends on members of his family, who have been granted asylum in Switzerland, in such a manner that it is essential for him to live together with them on a permanent basis. Financial dependency alone does not constitute a particular reason as defined in the law.
Decision 2000 / 22, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
In the case of a marriage of a refugee who was granted asylum based on personal reasons for flight, the under age child of his spouse (step-child) is included in the family asylum provided the child lives together with both spouses.
Decision 2000 / 23, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
Art. 51 paras 1 and 3 Asylum Law: asylum based on the right to family is not granted to children born in Switzerland whose parents' asylum status was derived from the asylum status of a previous generation.
Decision 2000 / 24, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
Arts 48(a) and 52 Law on Administrative Procedure: cessation of the legitimate interest in sustaining an appeal concerning the admissibility of forcible return after the expulsion has been executed.
Decision 2000 / 25, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
Art. 64 para. 1(c) Asylum Law: termination of asylum through declaration of waiver.
Decision 2000 / 26, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
If a foreigner, in conformity with the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights, produces evidence of the existence of a real risk of being sentenced to death in case of his return to his country of origin, forcible return is inadmissible.
Decision 2000 / 27, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
Arts 18 and 51 Asylum Law: reasons for asylum based on the right to family are examined ex officio.
Decision 2000 / 28, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
Art. 32 para. 2(b) Asylum Law: a defective decision of inadmissiblity regarding false identy can be upheld if sufficient other evidence in the sense of this article can be produced during the appal procedure.
Decision 2000 / 29, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
Art. 66 para. 2 Law on Administrative Procedure; art. 40 Justice Administration Law: admissibility of a request for review solely concerning the question of legal expenses.
Decision 2000 / 30, English Summary
[Original decision] [Definition of Terms]
Art. 44 para. 1 Asylum Law, art. 32(a) Asylum Ordinance 1: Marriage with a Swiss citizen after conclusion of asylum proceedings does not constitute a reason for a reconsideration of an expulsion order based on the Asylum Law.
