Differential treatment of specific nationalities in the procedure

Author

Dutch Council for Refugees Visit Website

No applications from specific nationalities are considered as manifestly well-founded. However, Dutch authorities publish country-specific policy recommendations for processing asylum cases of various specific nationalities. This country-specific policy includes for example which groups are considered to be at risk, in which areas an armed conflict is considered to reach the art. 15c QD standard, but also for which nationalities there is a Postponement of Decision and Departure in place (see below).

In general, applications from asylum seekers from “safe countries of origin” are considered manifestly unfounded and subject to an Accelerated Procedure (“Track 2”). However, in policy rules exceptions are being made with regard to certain groups, like LGBTQI+ asylum seekers or specific ethnicities. The safe countries of origin are listed in the section on Safe Country of Origin.

For all other nationalities there is no differentiated treatment in the procedure. There is one exception made for the written interview (paper-and-ink procedure) which is offered only to certain nationalities who have relatively high protection rates: Türkiye, Syria and Yemen. For more information see the section dedicated to the Written interview.

Public Country-specific policy

In 2022, the State Secretary published the country-specific policy for 35 nationalities; these are usually based on an official country report from the ministry of Foreign Affairs.^[1]  It is published in the Aliens Circular C7 ^[2] and currently includes the following countries:

• Afghanistan
• Angola
• Armenia
• Azerbaijan
• Belarus
• Bosnia-Herzegovina
• Burundi
• Cameroon
• China
• Colombia
• Democratic Republic Congo
• Egypt
• Eritrea
• Ethiopia
• Guinee
• Iraq
• Iran
• Ivory Coast
• Lebanon: situation for Palestinians
• Libya
• Mali
• Nepal
• Nigeria
• Ukraine
• Pakistan
• Palestinian Territories
• Russian Federation
• Somalia
• Sri Lanka
• Sudan
• Syria
• Türkiye
• Uganda
• Venezuela
• Yemen

The following paragraphs explain which categories and groups can be distinguished in a country-specific policy and provides some examples. For the complete and up-to-date public country-specific policy please see paragraph C7 of the Aliens Circular.^[3]

The standard country-specific policy consists of the following paragraphs:

1. Postponement of Decision
2. Article 1F Refugee Convention
3. Persecution under the Refugee Convention
4. Serious Harm under art 15 QD
5. Protection
6. Adequate reception for unaccompanied minors
7. Postponement of Departure
8. Particularities

Postponement of Decision and Departure

When the situation in a certain country is uncertain, Dutch authorities can proclaim a general Postponement of Decision and Departure for a certain nationality or certain groups within a country of origin. This means that the time limit for deciding is prolonged for six months. During these six months there will usually also be no forced returns executed. The Postponement of Decision and Departure can be prolonged with an additional 6 months. In 2023, there was a Postponement of Decision and Departure in place for Ukraine (prolonged for the third time for 3 additional months until the 28^th of November 2023, exactly 21 months since the first Postponement of Decision and Departure was in place) and Sudan (since 8 July 2023, and prolonged for 6 additional months on 8 January 2024). Due to the current situation in Gaza, the State Secretary announced a Postponement of Decision and Departure for the Palestinian Territories (Gaza and Westbank) on the 19^th of December 2023 ^[4]  The Dutch Council for Refugees has unsuccessfully called on the outgoing government to no longer postpone deciding on the asylum requests of Palestinian asylum seekers as they are entitled to protection according to international law and it is obvious that they are at risk in Gaza.[5]

Article 1F Refugee Convention

For some nationalities the Dutch authorities have included a description of categories in which ‘personal and knowing participation’ within the meaning of art. 1F Refugee Convention is assumed. These categories include lists of military positions within a certain military branch or during a certain regime or time. In 2023 the country-specific policy of Afghanistan and Iraq include an 1F-paragraph.^[6]

Refugee protection: Group Persecution and Groups at Risk

The country-specific policy first identifies groups that have well-founded fear of being persecuted under the Refugee Convention. A group can be identified as being at risk of group persecution. As a result, being a member of this groups is enough to qualify for refugee protection. In 2023 groups that have been identified as being at risk of group persecution are:

• Afghanistan: translators that have been working for international military or policy missions.^[7]
• China: Uyghurs
• China: Active followers of religious and spiritual movements identified as xie jiao by the Chinese authorities ^[8]
• Iraq: LGBT^[9]
• Iran: Christians who are active in ‘new churches’ or evangelize and/or members of house churches attending meetings.^[10]
• Russian Federation: LGBT individuals from Chechnya^[11]

A group can also be qualified as a Group at Risk.[12] This means that the Dutch authorities accept there is an elevated risk of persecution for members of this group in the country of origin. In theory, applicants being a member of a Group at Risk should have a lower burden of proof and it should be easier to qualify for international protection. In practice, the effect of being qualified as a Group at Risk on the protection rate varies greatly. A Group at Risk can consist of an ethnicity (for example Hazara in Afghanistan), a social group (for example LGBTQI+ in Egypt) or religious group (for example Christians in Libya and Pakistan). Some Groups at Risk have a very broad definition (for example ‘journalists’ in Libya and Burundi), others have a very narrow and specific definition (for example in Somalia one Group at Risk is defined as: “Leaders of clans who support the government or elections, or other prominent persons with a large public reach and who openly spoke out against Al-Shabaab”).

Subsidiary Protection: Systemic Exposure and Vulnerable groups

Next, country policies include a section regarding the concept of serious harm under article 15 QD (subsidiary protection).  This section sets forward groups that might be eligible for subsidiary protection (as opposed to refugee protection). The groups identified are those at risk of systemic exposure to serious harm. As a result, being a member of this group is enough to qualify for subsidiary protection. In 2023, no groups were considered to be at risk of systemic exposure. Only in Somalia, the human rights situation in southern and central Somalia, where Al-Shabaab is in power or controls the area, is considered so severe that any returnee is considered to be at risk of serious harm. However, under certain conditions, it can be argued that an internal protection alternative exists, mainly in an area where Al-Shabaab is not in power.

A group can also qualify as a Vulnerable Group. This means that the Dutch authorities accept that there is an elevated risk of serious harm for members of this group in the country of origin. In theory, applicants being a member of a Vulnerable Group should have a lower burden of proof and it should be easier to qualify for subsidiary protection. In practice, the effect of being qualified as a Vulnerable group on the protection rate varies greatly. A Vulnerable Group can consist of an ethnicity (for example Yezidi in Iraq), a religious group (for example converted Christians in Afghanistan) or other groups (for example displaced (minor) women from Darfur, South Kordofan (including Abyei) and Blue Nile in Sudan). Some Groups at Risk are also considered a Vulnerable group: this is the case for the Country-specific Policy for Afghanistan, which includes the group of “non-(practising) Muslims, including converts (converts to Christianity), (alleged) apostates, Christians, Bahai and Sikhs/Hindus.”

Exceptional circumstances under article 15c QD

The Country-specific policy also includes the countries and areas for which the Dutch Authorities consider an armed conflict is considered to reach the art. 15c QD standard.^[13] In 2023, this was the case for the whole of Yemen. As a result, every applicant coming from the country will be granted subsidiary protection status (subject to possible application of the safe third country concept and other contra-indications such as exclusion clauses). In Congo DRC there is also considered to be exceptional situation that reaches the art. 15c QD standard in the provinces North-Kivu, South-Kivu and Ituri. However, an internal protection alternative is considered to be present in other areas of the country.^[14] The same accounts for Cameroon and the provinces North-West and South-West (NWSW).^[15]  Since 2023, the authorities consider that in Mali for there is an exceptional situation that reaches the art. 15c QD standard in the regions Gao, Ménaka and Mopti; however there is an internal protection alternative in Bamako.^[16]

Protection

Some country-specific policies contain a protection paragraph. This paragraph discusses the (im)possibility to receive protection from the authorities in that country or the (im)possibilities of an internal protection alternative. Sometimes the policies list the groups for which the Dutch authorities assume no protection from the authorities is possible (for example women who fear FGM in Sudan),^[17] or no protection alternative can be opposed (for example Ahmadi’s in Pakistan).^[18] This means that members of these groups cannot be asked to return to another part of their country of origin (as is usually expected when an internal protection alternative is opposed) nor can they be expected to request protection against persecution or serious harm from the authorities of their country of origin.

Adequate reception for unaccompanied minors

In the country-specific policy it is also mentioned whether there is adequate reception for unaccompanied minors. Either the country-specific policy includes that: “general reception facilities are not available and/or not adequate, and the authorities do not take care of the reception” (this is the case for example for applicants from Uganda and Syria), or it is included explicitly that there is adequate reception for unaccompanied minors (for example for applicants from Türkiye).

Syrian nationals

The country-specific policy for Syria contains no groups that fear Group Persecution or Systemic Exposure to serious harm. Also, no exceptional circumstances under art. 15C QD are accepted for any part of the country.  However, almost all applicants from Syria are eligible for a subsidiary protection status. The Dutch authorities assume that a foreign national from Syria runs a real risk of serious harm upon or after returning from abroad. Two exceptions are formulated: applicants that are active supporters of the regime and applicants that have already returned to Syria without experiencing problems.^[19]  In 2023 there were several rejections of asylum requests by Syrian nationals due to the fact that they had returned to Syria after their initial departure. This includes people who travelled from neighboring countries such as Lebanon, and for various reasons including family-visits and work-related travel. Various courts in first instance deemed these rejections unlawful, emphasising that the Dutch country policy assumes anyone returning to Syria will face a real risk of serious harm and that the actions of the Syrian authorities are too arbitrary to suggest that an earlier return without problems will guarantee a safe return to Syria in the future.^[20] The Council of State still has to decide on the matter and has asked questions to the parties in the appeal by the State Secretary.^[21]

Afghan nationals

For information re. the evacuation of Afghan nationals, see Legal access to the territory.

There is an elaborate country policy for Afghanistan including extensive lists with groups of risk and vulnerable groups.

Groups of risk include:

1. family members associated by the Taliban with the interpreters.
2. persons who are or have been active in journalism and media or in the field of human rights and their family members associated with them by the Taliban.
3. representatives and employees of the judiciary, police, army and ministries under the previous regime and their relatives associated with them by the Taliban.
4. women who work or have worked in areas within the public arena other than those referred to under b and c (particularly non-governmental organisations, in education and health care).
5. civilians associated with – or considered supportive of – the former Afghan authorities, Afghan civil society and the international community in Afghanistan, including international forces, and as a result are at increased risk of targeted violence, in particular by the Taliban and ISKP. This also includes employees of Dutch or other international development projects, fixers of journalists and people who have worked for the Dutch government or other Western countries (other than interpreters) in Afghanistan. This also applies to relatives associated with them by the Taliban.
6. persons who have (in the past) publicly criticized the Taliban.
7. Hazaras.
8. persons who come from a living area where they belong to a (marginalized) ethnic minority, who experience serious problems there.
9. persons who come from a living area where they belong to a (marginalized) religious minority, who experience serious problems there.
10. non-(practising) Muslims, including converts (converts to Christianity), (alleged) apostates, Christians, Bahai and Sikhs/Hindus.
11. LGBT people.
12. victims of Bacha Bazi abuse.^[22]

Vulnerable groups:

1. aliens who come from an area where they belong to a (marginalised) ethnic minority, who experience serious problems there.
2. aliens who come from an area where they belong to a (marginalised) religious minority, who experience serious problems there.
3. non-(practising) Muslims, including converts (converts to Christianity), (alleged) apostates, Christians, Bahai and Sikhs/Hindus.

With regard to female applicants there are two categories which are considered as in need of protection: single women and westernised women. Single women obtain a subsidiary protection status, except when the applicant has been able to maintain herself independently in Afghanistan in the past. For westernised women the following is included in the country specific policy: as a rule, a Western lifestyle developed in the Netherlands cannot, in itself, lead to refugee status or subsidiary protection. Adaptation to Afghanistan’s customs may be required. There are two exceptions to this: if the Western behaviour is an expression of a religious or political conviction, or if a woman has personal characteristics that are extremely difficult or virtually impossible to change and because of these characteristics she fears persecution or inhumane treatment in Afghanistan. Because of the worrying security and human rights situation in Afghanistan, the IND stated in IND Information Message 2022/71 of 21 July 2022[23] that many Afghans will receive the benefit of the doubt, leading to a high chance of the applications being accepted. This Information Message also states that due to the very worrying situation of women in Afghanistan (alleged) westernised women will “sooner receive the benefit of the doubt.”

^{[1] The official country report takes into account all types of information, also EUAA country guidance information. However, the EUAA guidance is not always followed in the actual country specific policy.}

^{[2] Please see the following link: https://bit.ly/3SxpgOo.}

^{[3] Please see the following link: https://bit.ly/3SxpgOo.}

^{[4] KST 19637, nr. 3181,  Letter to the Dutch Parliament, “Besluit- en vertrekmoratorium Palestijnse Gebieden”, 19 December 2023, available in Dutch: https://bit.ly/4aUs1lj, no. 701, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3SS0GrC.}

^{[5] Dutch Council for Refugees, Oproep: IND behandel asielverzoeken van Palestijnen uit Gaza, 23 November 2023, avaialble in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3uJ5Yh6. Dutch Council for Refugees, VluchtelingenWerk: erken Palestijnen die onder UNRWA vallen als vluchteling, 9 February 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3SS15dC.}

^{[6] See paragraph C7/2.2 (Afghanistan)  and C7/16.2 (Iraq) Aliens Circular.}

^{[7] See C7/2.3.1 Aliens Circular.}

^{[8] See C7/9.3.1 Aliens Circular.}

^{[9] See C7/16.3.1 Aliens Circular.}

^{[10] See C7/17.3.1 Aliens Circular.}

^{[11] See C7/28.3.1 Aliens Circular.}

^{[12] See section C7 Aliens Circular for a list of all the Groups at Risk per country.}

^{[13] In court cases, there is often discussion about whether the level of conflict in a certain country or area reaches the standard for art. 15C, this was for example the case for Libya. When the highest court in the Netherlands decides there is a 15c policy in a country, it is usually included in the country policy.}

^{[14] See paragraph C7/11.4.1 and C7/11.5.2 Aliens Circular.}

^{[15] See paragraph C7/20 Aliens Circular.}

^{[16] See paragraph C7/23 Aliens Circular and Strct. 2023, No. 3235, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3vHsqHq.}

^{[17] See paragraph C7/32.5.1 Aliens Circular.}

^{[18] See paragraph C7/27.5.2 Aliens Circular.}

^{[19] See paragraph C7/33.4.4 Aliens Circular.}

^{[20] For example: Regional Court Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:16418, 11 July 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4bHLWo5.}

^{[21] Council of State, no. 202300173/1/V2 and 202305713/1/V2, the case is at hearing the 18th of January 2024.}

^{[22] This is a traditional practice that entails sexual abuse of children, in particular boys.}

^{[23] IND, Information Message 2022/71, Beslissen op Afghaanse asielaanvragen, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3Cx3L9d.}