|
Concepts:
|
‘Real chance’ of persecution; ‘Reasonable degree of likelihood’ of persecution; Arbitrary arrest, risk of; Being persecuted; Circumcision, risk of; Civil and political rights, risk of denial of; Fear, objective; Illegal entry; Membership of a particular social group; Persecution, well-founded fear of
|
|
Summary in Primary Language:
|
אזרח צ'אד הסתנן לישראל דרך לוב ומצריים וסמוך להגעתו לישראל פנה לנציבות האו"ם לפליטים, להכיר בו כפליט. נציבות האו"ם לפליטים...אזרח צ'אד הסתנן לישראל דרך לוב ומצריים וסמוך להגעתו לישראל פנה לנציבות האו"ם לפליטים, להכיר בו כפליט. נציבות האו"ם לפליטים המליצה לקבל את בקשת המערער ואילו בית המשפט המחוזי בירושלים אימץ את החלטת משרד הפנים וקבע כי חלק מהאירועים הקשים שפקדו את המערער הינם אירועים אקראיים שאין בהם כדי להראות על רדיפה אישית. בית המשפט העליון אישר את קביעת בית המשפט המחוזי וקבע כי האירועים עליהן נשען המערער אירעו ב2005 ומאז הוא יצא את צ'אד, חזר אליה מרצונו והתגורר באין מפריע במשך שנתיים בעיר אחרת בארצו. בית המשפט קבע כי המדינה אינה מחויבת להמלצות נציבות האו"ם ואלה בגדר המלצות בלבד. בית המשפט אף קבע כי אין בסיס לטענה לפיה המערער אינו יכול לקבל הגנה מהרשויות בארצו בשל מוצאו או דעותיו הפוליטיות שכן כבר פנה בעבר למשטרה בארצו. לסיכום קובע בית המשפט כי המערער לא הניח בסיס עובדתי מספיק להתקיימות עילה למתן מקלט מדיני לפי אמנת הפליטים והערעור נדחה..  read more
|
|
Additional Factual Information:
|
The Appellant claims that he and his family are being persecuted after his uncles joined the Hadjarai's rebel movement that...The Appellant claims that he and his family are being persecuted after his uncles joined the Hadjarai's rebel movement that fights the Chadian government controlled by the rival ethnic group, the Zaghawa. In 2005 his uncle was arrested due to his affiliation with the rebels' ethnic group and he was accused of being a member of the rebel movement. The Appellant's sister was brutally raped by soldiers who came to arrest the Appellant but did not find him. A year later as part of the conflict with the rebels, the Chadian government Bombed the Appellant's neighborhood and his father and some of his brothers were killed. Following these events the Appellant and his mother spent some time in a refugee camp on the border with Cameroon and then moved to another city in Chad, where they lived for two years. In 2008 the Appellant was hospitalized as a result of being hit by a stray bullet. After the Appellant was released from the hospital, solders broke in to his apartment at night and stole some of his belongings. Apparently this action was not aimed specifically against the Appellant but was a random action done often by Chadian soldiers. At that point the Appellant decided to flee his country. He then came to Libya and illegally entered Israel via Egypt. Soon after the Appellant entered the country, he approached the UNHCR and requested asylum.
The UNHCR recommended to accept the Appellant's request for asylum but the Minister of the Interior adopted the recommendations of the Refugee Status Determination (RSD) unit in the Ministry of Interior and rejected the Appellant's request for asylum. The Appellant then issued a petition on the Minister's decision that was denied by the Jerusalem District Court sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs. read more
|
|
Additional Legal Information:
|
The Court approved the District Court's decision and determined that the difficult events that occurred to the Appellant...The Court approved the District Court's decision and determined that the difficult events that occurred to the Appellant and his family were of a random nature, that do not amount to personal persecution. Furthermore because the events that the Appellant ask to base his claims on occurred in 2005 and because since then he spent two years in a different city in Chad, the Court concluded that there is no objective basis for concern that the Appellant will suffer persecution in Chad.
Moreover since the Appellant has approached the Chadian police in the past, he cannot say that the authorities in Chad does not protect him because of his origin or political affiliation. The Court also stated that the state of Israel is not obligated to the UNHCR recommendations.
Ultimately the Court concluded that the Appellant did not give sufficient factual basis to prove the fulfillment of the grounds for asylum listed in the Refugee Convention. read more
|