My subsidiary protection was withdrawn. What should I do?
My subsidiary protection was withdrawn. What should I do?
„I have been in Austria for more than six years, have always had subsidiary protection, why was it suddenly withdrawn?"
„Since I came to Austria eight years ago, I have not engaged in criminal activity, have always worked up until now, and suddenly instead of getting the new subsidiary protection, I've received an invitation to an interview at the Federal Asylum Office (FAO)? Why?"
„My subsidiary protection was withdrawn by a decision of the FAO and I appealed in time. Am I still allowed to work?"
„…Am I still allowed to get family allowance/child support/governemnt primary care?“
What a few years ago rarely occured is taking place, all too ofte, today : subsidiary protection was withdrawn by the FAO.
Report
The subsidiary protection decision of Mr M. was due to expire in January 2019, so he, as was his custom, submitted an application for renewal in September 2018. Instead of having his subsidiary protection renewed, as was the case the last four years, an interview at the FAO took place and in September 2019 a withdrawal decision. The whole thing took one year!
Subsidiary protection can be withdrawn for several reasons. The lawyer can clarify the exact reason.
Why has subsidiary protection been withdrawn?
According to the law, there are several reasons for withdrawing subsidiary protection. The most common reasons are:
1. The conditions in the country of origin, that led to subsidiary protection a few years ago, have changed
Example 1: An Afghan applied for asylum in 2015 and received subsidiary protection from the Federal Asylum Court (FAC) in 2017 because the Taliban were active in his province and he could not find refuge anywhere else in Afghanistan. In its decision from June 2019, the Federal Asylum Office canceled subsidiarity protection, as Kabul, Mazar-e-Sharif and Herat were considered "safe" cities that can now offer protection.
Example 2: A Somali applied for asylum in 2014 and was granted subsidiary protection by the FAC because he had no family in Somalia, there was a drought and he would starve to death if he returned. In its decision from February 2019, the FAO canceled subsidiarity protection because it had been raining in Somalia for a few months, so there was no longer any drought and the asylum seeker no longer had to starve.
Example 3: A Nigerian applied for asylum in 2012 and was granted subsidiary protection by the FAO in 2014 because he had a serious illness that could not be treated in Nigeria. In 2017, however, he was cured and had not received treatment for over a year. In December 2018, the Federal Office revoked his subsidiary protection because he was no longer ill and could live with his family in Nigeria without further health risks.
2. The beneficiary of subsidiary protection provided false information that was substantial for recognization of protection in the first proceeding
Example: A Somali applied for asylum in 2013 and was awarded subsidiary protection by the FAO in 2016, partly because he stated that he had no family in Somalia. In February 2019, he had an interview with the FAO, stating that he had had regular contact with his family since 2013. The FAO consequently revoked his subsidiary protection in March 2019 because he did not disclose information about his family in the first proceeding.
3. The beneficiary of subsidiary protection has committed a criminal offense and posed a current threat to public security.
Example: A Congolese applied for asylum in 2015 and was subsequently granted subsidiary protection by the Federal Office in 2016. In 2017 and 2018, he was convicted twice. As a result, in November 2018, the Federal Office canceled subsidiarity protection, on the grounds that he had received two criminal convictions and presented a current threat to security.
If you have renewed your subsidiary protection in time, i.e., lodged an appeal, you are to be treated as if the subsidiary protection has already been renewed. Your entitlements remain.
My subsidiary protection has been withdrawn and now I am awaiting a decision from the Federal Asylum Court. What can I do now?
The law states that, if an application for renewal was submitted before the subsidiary protection expired, your residence is still legal until a decision from the Federal Asylum Court has been reached.
You are therefore to be treated as if your residence permit (subsidiary protection) has already been renewed.
That means your entitlements remain the same.
-Entitlement to work.
PLEASE NOTE: You are allowed to continue working at the company you were working for before the withdrawal. Should you temporarily have lost your job, you can only resume work at a new company once your subsidiary protection has been renewed.
-Entitlement to social benefits, i.e.. primary government care.
-Entitlement to family allowance (if you are not in primary government care)
-Entitlement to child money (if your are not in primary government care)
It has happened that social benefits, family allowance or child money have been suspended in the withdrawal proceedings. In this case it is important to seek out a lawyer, who can write the responsible authorities, as your entitlements remain till the conclusion of the proceeding.
The Federal Asylum Court rejected my appeal against the revocation of subsidiary protection. What can I do now?
Contact a lawyer immediately and let him consult you.
There is the possibility of lodgding an appeal to the High Courts.
Moreover a new asylum application or humanitarian residence permit can be submitted.
Usually the Federal Asylum Office will send you an inviation concerning residence requirements or an interview.
Principally the residence permit plus can be renewed without any problems, and is difficult to withdraw.
My subsidiary protection was revoked by the Federal Asylum Office, but at the same time , I was granted a residence permit (plus). What should I do now?
Contact a lawyer and get advice regarding your proceeding. A residence permit (plus) is a residence permit that is awarded for humanitarian reasons (long stay in Austria, integration). Generally, this can easily be renwed. Another advantage, as compared to subsidiary protection, is that it is very difficult to revoke.
Our recommendation: Schedule a consultation
What are my next steps if my subsidiary protection has been withdrawn?
1. Contact a lawyer and schedule an appointment.
2. Collect the integration documents and bring them to the appointment.
-German Certificates,
-Letters from Austrian friends
-Pay slips or future work contract of a company
-Confirmation letters from organizations
- Photos of activities in Austria
3. If you have not already lodged an appeal you can hire the lawyer to do so.
4. Continue to pursue integration measures:
-Register for a German course
-Join an organization, NGO, etc
-Make friends with Austrians
- Work (also voluntarily)
The more integrated you are the better.
So far we have had positive experiences.
Previous experiences in withdrawal proceedings:
1. Mr. I. comes from Somalia and lodged an asylum application in April 2015. Consequently the Federal Administrative Court (FAC), in its decision from August 2017, granted him subsidiary protection.
In May 2018, Mr. I. applied for extension of his subsidiary protection. In its decision from September 2018, the Federal Asylum Office (FAO) withdrew his subsidiary protection and found that his deportation to Somalia was permissible. The FAO argued that due to the improved supply situation (no existing drought) in Somalia, he was healthy and would be able to work and work in Somalia or Mogadishu, Mr. I. could return to Somalia ,
Consequently he lodged an appeal to the FAC on the grounds that, according to the country reports in the authority's decision, Somalia still had a high malnutrition rate and, despite the no longer prevalent drought, the country needed a good rainy season to ensure a stable supply situation. In addition, the authority wrongly believed that Mr. I could make a living in Mogadishu, since the job opportunities in Mogadishu were particularly limited for returnees. According to the ECJ case law, the withdrawal of subsidiary protection required a significant, non-temporary change in the general situation. According to the report, this was not the case, so the FAO unlawfully revoked Mr. I's subsidiary protection.
Thereupon, in August 2019, the FAC extended the residence permit for two more years. The court argued that the security situation in South and Central Somalia as well as in Mogadishu could not be expected to have improved significantly, since according to current country reports there was hardly any protection against attacks, the influence of AMISOM was often limited to city centers, and Al Shabaab continued to control parts of Somalia. In addition, the FAC stated 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 facts. The country reports highlighted that the situation remained precarious.
2) Mr. S. comes from Afghanistan and in 2012 lodged an asylum application. Subsequently the Federal Asylum Court (FAC), in its decision from July 2015, granted Mr. S. subsidiary protection and issued him a temporary residence permit.
In the current proceeding Mr. S. applied for the renewal of his subsidiary protection In its decision from September 2018, the Federal Asylum Office (FAO) withdrew the subsidiary protection and found that his deportation to Afghanistan was permissible. The FAO argued that, as opposed to the decision of the FAC from July 2018, the situation had substantially and sustainbly improved, his family had considerable resources, as they could afford multiple visits to Pakistan. Moreover, there were three safe cities-Kabul, Mazar-e-Sharif, Herat, available to him, the economic situation for returnees had improved, in short a return to Afghanistan was therey possible for Mr.S.
Consequently he lodged an appeal to the FAC against the withdrawal of the subsidiary protection on grounds of the deteriorating conditions in his home province, due to his financial support his family could afford the visits to Pakistan as his son was in grave danger, and according to current reports it was not possible to find work in Kabul without the support of family there. Moreover, according to the updated UNHCR guidelines from August 2018, Kabul did not constitute a place of refuge.
In effect the FAC, in its decision from August 2019, renewed the temporary residence permit. The FAC argued that, Mr. S. did not have have a social network outside of his home province, which was also found in his last decision. In addition, the FAC believes that Mr. S. could not count on the support of his family in Nangarshar upon his return, as he had to provide financial support for the treatment of his son in Pakistan. In conclusion, the FAC found that the subsidiary protection was to be renewed.
3.) Mr. A is come from Somalia and in 2015 lodged an asylum application. Thereupon in it decision from February 2017, the Federal Asylum Court (FAC) granted Mr. A. subsidiary protection.
In the current proceedings in Decemeber 2018, Mr. A. submitted an application for the renewal of subsidiary protection. In its decision from January 2019, the Federal Asylum Office (FAO), withdrew his subsidiary protection and found that his deportation to Somalia was permissible. The FAO argued that due to improved food supply conditions (no existing drought) in Somali, he being healthy and able to work in Somalia, i.e., Mogadishu, a return for Mr. A. to Somalia was possible.
Consequently in February 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 authority was wrong in assuming that Mr. A. could secure a livelihood in Mogadishu, as the employment opportunities in Mogadishu were very limited for returnees. 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 August 2019, extended the temporary residence permit for two more years. The court argued that the security situation in South and Central Somalia as well as in Mogadishu could not be expected to have improved significantly, since according to current country reports there was hardly any protection against attacks, the influence of AMISOM was often limited to city centers, and Al Shabaab continued to control parts of Somalia. In addition, the FAC stated 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.
Receive legal counsel
In short, a lawyer can also assist you in your proceeding, so that you are well-informed in any stage of the proceeding. Up until now we have witnessed many positive decisions decision from the Federal Asylum Court.
Call me at 0650 7283562 or write me at office@anwaltklammer.com
to schedule an appointment for EURO 150. At the appointment we can inform you about what the best approach in your case should be.
Subsidiary protection, gone, lost, withdrawn, revoked, why was my subsidiary protection withdrawn, what should I do? No idea, solution, big problem, renewed, renewal, extended, extension, Federal Asylum Office, BFA, Federal Asylum Court, BVWG, grounds, reasons, answer