Afghanistan

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) | Document type: Case Law | 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

29 June 2017 | Publisher: Norway: Landinfo - Country of Origin Information Centre | Document type: Country Reports

31 March 2017 | Publisher: Switzerland: State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) | Document type: Country Reports

September 2016 | Publisher: European Union: European Asylum Support Office (EASO) | Document type: Country Reports

11 April 2016 | Publisher: Germany: Federal Office for Migration and Asylum | Document type: Country News