BVwG hebt Aberkennungsbescheid eines Somaliers auf
Federal Asylum Court overturns Somalian's withdrawal decision
Mr. A. comes from Somalia and in April 2014 lodged an asylum application. Consequently the Federal Asylum Court (FAC), in its decision from January 2018, granted Mr. A. subsidiary protection. .
In the current proceedings in November 2018, Mr. A. submitted an application for the renewal of subsidiary protection. In its decision from April 2019, the Federal Asylum Office (FAO) officially withdrew his subsidiary protection and found his deportation to Somalia permissible. The FAO grounded its withdrawal of subsidiary protection on the no longer precarious food supply conditions in Somalia; he was healthy, fit to work, and also had family members in Somalia; the activities of Al-Shabaab did not constitute a country wide, general, and immediate threat for individuals; Mogadishu offered a domestic flight alternative, whereby, in conclusion, a return to Somalia was possible for Mr. A.
Consequently in May 2019 he lodged an appeal to the FAC against the withdrawal of subsidiary protection on grounds that according to the FAO decision's country reports, there was still a high malnutrition rate and despite the no longer prevalent drought, the land needed a good rain season to ensurance stable supply of food. Moreover the security situation was still bad and wrongfully assessed by the authority. Furthermore, Mr. A. had no contact to his relatives in Somalia. According to European High Court case law, the withdrawal of subsidiary protections required a substantial, non-temporary, change of the situation. This was not the case according to current reports, whereby the FAO unlawfully withdrew Mr. A.'s subsidiary protection.
Thereupon the FAC, in its decision from Juliy 2019, extended Mr. A.'s temporary residence permit for two more years. The court argued that the security situation in Southern- central Somalia and Mogadishu had not improved; according to current country reports there was no protection against attacks; the influence of AMISOM was confined to city centers; and Al Shabaab still occupied parts of Somalia. The FAC also stated that the FAO did not substantiate its findings regarding the changed and sustainably improved food supply situation. A comparison of the country reports from 2017 and 2018 did not reveal any fundamentally changed factors.
Furthermore, the court found that, according to Mr. A.' statements in the previous and current proceeding, did not have a family network in Somalia that could support him. The FAO repeatedly pointed out, that Mr. A. was fit to work, whereby being able to secure his own livelihood in Somalia, which does not present an alteration of the the FAC's prerequisites for granting subsidiary protection in 2017. The ability to work was not called into question when the FAC made its decision. The FAO attempted to apply a legal interpretation that deviated from the FAC's decision from January 2018 concerning the granting of subsidiary protection. Therefore, the decision of the FAO was to be overturned.