BVwG hebt Somalia Aberkennungsbescheid auf
Federal Asylum Court overturns Somalian's withdrawal decision
Mr. L. comes from Somalia and in April 2015 lodged an asylum application. Consequently the Federal Asylum Court (FAC) granted him subsidiary protection after a hearing in April 2018.
In the current proceedings in January 2019 Mr. L. submitted an application for the renewal of subsidiary protection. In its decision from February 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; whereby a return to Somalia was possible for Mr. L.
Consequently in March 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. Even though there was an available family network, the family could not support Mr. L. to ensure his livelihood upon his return, as he had been supporting through his employment in Austria. 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. L.'s subsidiary protection.
Thereupon the FAC, in its decision from May 2019, extended the temporary residence permit for two more years. The court argued that that the FAO did not substantiate its findings regarding the changed and sustainably improved supply situation. A comparison of the country reports from 2017 and 2018 did not reveal any fundamentally changed factors. The country reports highlighted that the situation remained precarious. In addition, the FAO repeatedly pointed out, that Mr. L. 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.
Thereupon was the decision of the FAO overturned.