Islamic Republic of Iran

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) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria - Iran, Islamic Republic of

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) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria - Iran, Islamic Republic of

1 November 2016 | Publisher: United Kingdom: Home Office | Document type: Country Reports

27 September 2016 | Publisher: United Kingdom: Home Office | Document type: Country Reports

July 2016 | Publisher: United Kingdom: Home Office | Document type: Country Reports

July 2016 | Publisher: United Kingdom: Home Office | Document type: Country Reports

July 2016 | Publisher: United Kingdom: Home Office | Document type: Country Reports

March 2016 | Publisher: United Kingdom: Home Office | Document type: Country Reports

March 2016 | Publisher: Consonant (formerly Asylum Aid) | Document type: Country Reports

January 2016 | Publisher: United Kingdom: Home Office | Document type: Country Reports