H.A. and H.A. v Norway - inadmissible
The European Court of Human Rights has declared the complaint in H.A. and H.A. v Norway inadmissible.
The facts
The applicants are two brothers of Iranian nationality, born in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates. The first applicant was born in 1992, and the second in 1995. They are currently living in Norway.
The applicants entered Norway via Russia on 30 October 2015 together with their mother and three minor brothers, and applied for asylum on the same day. In support of their applications they submitted they feared being considered as apostates upon travelling to Iran.
The Directorate of Immigration rejected their applications for asylum, finding that there was no risk of persecution in Iran. Even though the applicants were of Buddhist faith, there was nothing in the way that they manifested their faith that would attract any sort of negative attention from the Iranian authorities.
Both applicants appealed against this decision, on grounds that they would be persecuted in respect of their Buddhist beliefs.
The Court declared this and the other aspects of the application inadmissible.
The facts
The applicants are two brothers of Iranian nationality, born in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates. The first applicant was born in 1992, and the second in 1995. They are currently living in Norway.
The applicants entered Norway via Russia on 30 October 2015 together with their mother and three minor brothers, and applied for asylum on the same day. In support of their applications they submitted they feared being considered as apostates upon travelling to Iran.
The Directorate of Immigration rejected their applications for asylum, finding that there was no risk of persecution in Iran. Even though the applicants were of Buddhist faith, there was nothing in the way that they manifested their faith that would attract any sort of negative attention from the Iranian authorities.
Both applicants appealed against this decision, on grounds that they would be persecuted in respect of their Buddhist beliefs.
The first applicant also argued that his father had alleged that he was homosexual and that he, his siblings and their mother had harmed the family honour by escaping from their father, and that this would put them at risk.
On the merits, the Immigration Appeals Board agreed with the decisions adopted by the Directorate of Immigration. As to the first applicant, the Board held that it was unlikely that the Iranian branch of his family would report him to the religious police or that he would risk persecution due to his father’s allegations that he was homosexual.
Complaint to the Court
On the merits, the Immigration Appeals Board agreed with the decisions adopted by the Directorate of Immigration. As to the first applicant, the Board held that it was unlikely that the Iranian branch of his family would report him to the religious police or that he would risk persecution due to his father’s allegations that he was homosexual.
Complaint to the Court
The applicants complained that their removal to Iran would be contrary to Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention. Moreover they submitted under Article 3, in conjunction with Article 13, that the domestic authorities had failed to engage in a rigorous scrutiny of all the facts on which their decisions were based.
Articles 2 and 3 (in respect of the issue relating to homosexuality)
The Court stated "as to the ... reasons relied on by the applicants in support of their request for asylum, namely ... the allegation of homosexuality ... the Court sees no grounds to deviate from the conclusions drawn by the domestic authorities".
The Court declared this and the other aspects of the application inadmissible.
Comments
Post a Comment