Decision

Based on the individual facts of the case, the Federal Office for Migration decides whether asylum is to be granted, whether an application must be rejected or whether the situation justifies the temporary admission of the asylum seeker. A negative decision on asylum comprises three parts: firstly, the facts of the asylum seeker’s claims are summarized. In the deliberations, grounds are given as to why the asylum seeker cannot be granted asylum in Switzerland. Any risk to the asylum seeker in his/her native country must be examined. A central factor is the assessment of the credibility and the asylum-relevance of the claim. In the third part, the permissibility, the reasonableness and the technical possibility of removal are to be examined (cf. Swiss Aliens Act, in short: AuG). Asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected have the right to lodge an appeal against the first-instance decision within 30 days with the Federal Administrative Tribunal (FAT).

Question: What decisions are made in the cases of Mamadou B., Ahmed H. and Sadiye C.?

The responsible official compares the information from the two hearings with the result of the scientific analysis of origin carried out by Lingua on 10th February. Based on the deviating information about the country of origin, the expert is certain that the account given by Mamadou B. cannot be true. On 1st March, not having received any feedback from Mamadou B. about the Lingua analysis, despite the FOM’s request for him to do so, the official issues the following order: Mamadou B. is not granted asylum. This means that Mamadou B.’s asylum application has been rejected. He had deceived the FOM about his real place of origin and about his identity. It is thus clear that his story about Sierra Leone cannot be true because he has never lived there. Mamadou B. can return to his real native country, Guinea. He has the possibility of lodging an appeal against this decision with the Federal Administrative Tribunal (FAT).

Ahmed H. left Mogadishu because of the difficult living conditions there and fled from the insecure situation resulting from the civil war. The grounds for his asylum application do not fulfil the requirements of the Swiss Asylum Act. According to Article 3 of the Asylum Act, refugees must be personally affected by a situation of persecution. In his asylum application, Ahmed H. spoke only of the general situation affecting (almost) everyone in Somalia. State or quasi-state (i.e. from an autonomous region) persecution is not present here, either. The Swiss Asylum Appeals Commission rejects this ground with regard to the situation in present-day Somalia. This is why the asylum application is rejected. When an asylum application is rejected, the FOM examines whether removal is permissible, reasonable and technically possible (Art. 44 para 1 of the Swiss Aliens Act: in short, AuG). Ahmed H.’s removal is permissible as he does not fulfil the requirements for refugee status. Furthermore, on his return to Somalia, he will not be exposed to any form of punishment forbidden by Art. 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). The removal of an asylum seeker is in particular unreasonable if it entails a risk to the person concerned (Art. 14a para. 4 Swiss Aliens Act). Owing to the special situation in Ahmed H.’s case, it was decided to admit him temporarily for a limited stay of 12 months and to monitor this regularly. This category of admission is considered temporary because – as soon as the conditions no longer apply – it will be suspended. Should Ahmed H. leave Switzerland voluntarily or if his return to Mogadishu becomes reasonable, the FOM will withdraw Ahmed H.’s residence permit for Switzerland.

With the FOM order of 30th August, Sadiye C. is recognized as a refugee and is granted asylum. It has been proven that she has suffered from persecution in her native country on political grounds, and that she could be exposed to persecution measures. She is therefore dependent on Switzerland’s protection. She availed herself of her political rights in Turkey in a democratic manner and did not attempt to enforce her aims by violent means.