Adjudication of asylum claims (refugee status determination / asylum procedures) / Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA)

In view of the above, the Court notes that the risk of the applicant being expelled and, potentially, being exposed to a risk of treatment in breach of Article 3, has now, at least temporarily, been removed. Moreover, the Court finds that the complaints under Article 13 and on the procedural requirements of Article 3 in the present case are in essence inextricably connected to the proposed expulsion of the applicant (see Nasseri v the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24239/09, § 18, 13 October 2015, and J.W. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 16177/14, § 32, 27 June 2017). In these circumstances, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)). Moreover, it is satisfied that respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto, does not require a continuation of the application by virtue of Article 37 § 1 in fine. Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the list.

21 October 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Human rights law - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Afghanistan - Netherlands

The contested finding therefore lacks a conclusive reason why there is no persecution relevant to asylum, in the absence of a discussion of the dangers that threaten the complainant due to the attempted forced recruitment, which has been found to be credible. Likewise, in connection with the examination of the requirements for the granting of the status of subsidiary protection, there is no comprehensible reason for the statement that the complainant is not at risk from the Taliban in Mazar-e Sharif and that a return there is safe and reasonable while the UNHCR guidelines basically assume that there is no internal flight alternative in Afghanistan for people who are persecuted by the Taliban

20 February 2020 | Judicial Body: Austria: Constitutional Court of Austria (Verfassungsgerichtshof) | Topic(s): Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription - Non-state agents of persecution | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria

The Federal Administrative Court (FAC) failed to provide the necessary justification for a finding about the supposed availability of an IFA in Mazar-e Sharif, despite the EASO Country-Guidance on Afghanistan (2018) and respective findings regarding the situation of Afghans who were born in Iran and/or who lived there for a long time.

12 December 2019 | Judicial Body: Austria: Constitutional Court of Austria (Verfassungsgerichtshof) | Topic(s): Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria - Iran, Islamic Republic of

To invoke the ceased circumstances clause, the circumstances have to have changed since the status was last extended (here: attaining the age of majority). However, changes in circumstances since the protection status was initially granted may also be relevant.

17 October 2019 | Judicial Body: Austria: Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Complementary forms of protection - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria

24 May 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Topic(s): Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The applicant is an Afghan national and member of the ethnic group of Hazaras who was born and raised in Iran. He lodged an application for international protection in Austria in July 2015 which was rejected in first instance in September 2017.The Federal Administrative Court dismissed his appeal on 03/09/2018, arguing that even though the applicant cannot return to Sar-e Pol (where his family was originally from), there was an IFA available in Kabul or Mazar-e Sharif. It elaborated that the applicant had already gathered professional experience, had grown up in an Afghan family and was native speaker of one of the official languages and concluded that the applicant was familiar with the cultural circumstances in Afghanistan. The Austrian Supreme Administrative Court annulled this decision. It stated that the Federal Administrative Court's conclusion that the applicant was familiar with the cultural circumstances in Afghanistan was not evidence-based and emphasized that that the applicant had explicitly contested this. Furthermore the Supreme Administrative Court criticized that the Federal Administrative Court did not take into account and analyse the UNHCR-Afghanistan guidelines. A respective obligation derives from the respective Austrian case law as well as from European Union Law. The Court emphasized that according to UNHCR there was in general no IFA available in Kabul and that the availability of an IFA in other cities was questionable and needed to be assessed in a thorough manner on a case-to-case basis.

13 December 2018 | Judicial Body: Austria: Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) | Topic(s): Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria - Iran, Islamic Republic of

13 July 2016 | Judicial Body: Australia: Administrative Appeals Tribunal | Topic(s): Armed groups / Militias / Paramilitary forces / Resistance movements - Credibility assessment - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Returnees - Social group discrimination | Countries: Afghanistan - Australia

5 July 2016 | Judicial Body: Australia: Administrative Appeals Tribunal | Topic(s): Discrimination based on race, nationality, ethnicity - Freedom of religion - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Shia | Countries: Afghanistan - Australia