CASE OF R.H. v. SWEDEN
Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Somalia)
Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Johan Hirschfeldt;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano
7. The applicant was born in 1988. 8. On 27 December 2011 the applicant applied for asylum and a residence permit in Sweden and claimed that she had arrived in Sweden on 11 December the same year. In an interview with the Migration Board (Migrationsverket), at which she was informed that a search in the European asylum fingerprint database EURODAC had revealed that she had applied for asylum in the Netherlands in December 2006, the applicant stated that she had arrived in Sweden in 2007 from the Netherlands and had remained illegally in Sweden since then. She had been afraid to contact the Swedish authorities since she did not want to be returned to the Netherlands as she would be sent onwards to Italy where she had no housing or opportunity to support herself. She wanted to remain in Sweden where cousins of hers were living. 9. As the applicant had applied for asylum in the Netherlands – under a different name and birth date – the Migration Board requested that that country take her back in accordance with the Dublin Regulation. The Dutch authorities refused, however, as she had previously applied for asylum in Italy, under a slightly different name than that given to the Board. The Italian authorities were then requested to take back the applicant. The Italian authorities did not reply to the request within the prescribed time-limit and were consequently, under Article 20(1)(c) of the Regulation, considered to have agreed to receive her. Accordingly, on 24 April 2012, the Migration Board dismissed the asylum application and decided to transfer the applicant to Italy. 10. However, the decision became time-barred before the transfer could be realised. On 30 November 2012 the applicant therefore applied for asylum and a residence permit in Sweden again. At an asylum interview in January 2013, which lasted for two and a half hours, she submitted essentially the following. In November 2004 her family had forced her to marry an older man against her will. At the time she had for about a year had a secret relationship with a boy from school. This relationship was revealed a few days after the forced marriage when the applicant and her boyfriend had tried to escape from Mogadishu together. They had been detected by her uncles when they had been sitting on the loading platform of a truck. Both she and her boyfriend had been beaten and thrown off the truck. She had sustained injuries to her hips and had been hospitalised for a few months. Thereafter she had lived at home until August 2005 when her father had considered that her health condition permitted her to move in with her husband. She had then contacted her boyfriend and they had fled together, first to Ethiopia and then to Sudan and eventually to Libya in order to take a boat to Italy. However, the boat had sunk and the boyfriend had died. Later, while in Sweden, she had learned that her father had died in 2010 and her mother in 2011. If returned to Somalia, the applicant claimed that she would have to return to the man whom she had been forced to marry, unless she were sentenced to death for fleeing the marriage and the country. These threats would be carried out by her uncles. The applicant further asserted that she lacked a male support network in Somalia and therefore risked being sexually assaulted. As a single woman, she would further not be able to rent accommodation or otherwise organise her life and would risk becoming a social outcast. She also invoked the generally dire humanitarian situation in Somalia and, in particular, claimed that she was unlikely to find the help still needed for her injured hips. 11. On 8 March 2013 the Migration Board rejected the applicant’s application for asylum and ordered her deportation to Somalia. At the outset, the Board found that she had failed to substantiate her identity, noting in particular that she had not submitted any identification papers and had previously applied for asylum in the Netherlands and Italy under different identities. However, it found it plausible that the applicant originated from Mogadishu. Noting that she had arrived in Sweden in 2007 but had not applied for asylum until the end of 2011 – and had thus not reported a need for protection during a period of more than four years – the Board called into question whether she had felt a real need for protection. Turning to the substantive allegations presented by the applicant in support of her application, the Board considered that they were marred with credibility issues. For example, in her initial asylum application in 2011, she had stated that she was unmarried. Only during the asylum investigation following her renewed application in November 2012 had she claimed that she had married in Somalia in November 2004. The Board found that the applicant had failed to provide a sufficient explanation for this, particularly given that this was a crucial part of her story. Furthermore, in 2011 she had only invoked the armed conflict in the country as grounds for asylum and had stated that she could not remember how she had sustained the hip injury since she had been very young at the time. She had then also said that she had stayed with a female friend in Mogadishu before leaving the country whereas she later claimed that she had lived with her parents and siblings. The Board concluded that the applicant had failed to make plausible that she had been subjected to any ill-treatment by her relatives in Somalia and consequently had failed to show that she would lack a male support network there. It noted that, according to the applicant, her brother and uncles still lived in Mogadishu. Moreover, the Board examined the general situation in Mogadishu and the particular situation of women, based on information gathered at a fact-finding mission to the city in June 2012 and further information obtained thereafter, and considered that the circumstances were not of such severity that the applicant would be unable to return there, taking into account the finding that she had a male network to protect her. In this connection, the Board also noted that the applicant had not lived in a refugee camp before leaving the country and had not claimed that she would risk doing so upon return. 12. The applicant appealed to the Migration Court (Migrations-domstolen), maintaining her claims and adding, inter alia, the following. The security situation in Mogadishu was still very unstable and the particular situation of women in Somalia was extremely severe. She further asserted that, as her situation in Italy had been difficult, it was understandable that she had decided to apply for asylum under another identity in the Netherlands, in order to avoid being sent back. This had also been the reason why she had decided to stay illegally in Sweden. Moreover, she stated that the Migration Board had misunderstood her; she had stayed with a female friend in Sweden, not in Somalia where she had lived with her family. Furthermore, in her view, she was not married since she had not consented to the marriage or been present at the marriage ceremony. She submitted an x-ray image of her hip prostheses to show that she had been assaulted and injured. 13. On 4 June 2013 the Migration Court rejected the appeal, agreeing with the Migration Board’s reasoning and findings. The court subscribed to all the misgivings concerning credibility expressed by the Board. It added that, whereas the applicant initially had claimed to have been forcibly married in 2004, in a later submission to the Board she had stated that this had been decided by her father and her uncles in 2010. Since the applicant was in general not credible, the court did not believe her statement that she lacked a male support network in Somalia. Moreover, it considered that the submitted x-ray image did not show that the applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment in her home country. 14. By a decision of 15 July 2013 the Migration Court of Appeal (Migrationsöverdomstolen) refused leave to appeal. 15. Subsequently, the applicant requested that the Migration Board re-examine her case, claiming that there were impediments to the enforcement of the deportation order. She stated that she had recently found out that her uncle, who had previously physically assaulted her, had now joined al-Shabaab, and that he had killed her sister and forced her brother to join al-Shabaab. Thus, if returned to Somalia, she would risk being stoned to death by her uncle. 16. On 7 September 2013 the Migration Board rejected the petition, finding that no new circumstances justifying a reconsideration had been presented. It held that the alleged threats stemming from the applicant’s uncles had already been examined by the Board and the Migration Court and that, given her lack of credibility, a mere statement from her about her uncle’s actions was not sufficient to assume that she would risk being stoned upon return. The applicant did not appeal against the Board’s decision.