First country of asylum


Country Report: First country of asylum Last updated: 30/11/20


Dutch Council for Refugees Visit Website

An asylum application can be declared inadmissible when the asylum seeker has been recognised as refugee in a third country and can still receive protection in that country, or can enjoy sufficient protection in that country, including protection from refoulement, and will be re-admitted to the territory of that particular third country.[1]


As stipulated in Paragraph C2/6.2 of the Aliens Circular, the IND assumes that the asylum seeker will be re-admitted in the third country in case:

v  The asylum seeker still has a valid permit for international protection in the third country;

v  The asylum seeker has a valid permit or visa and he or she can obtain international protection;

v  There is information from the third country from which it can be deduced that the asylum seeker already has been granted international protection or that he or she is eligible for international protection;

v  Statements of the asylum seeker that he or she has already been granted protection in a third country and this information has been confirmed by the third country.


In the situations mentioned above, the IND assumes that the asylum seeker will be re-admitted to the third country, unless the asylum seeker can substantiate (make it plausible) that he or she will not be re-admitted to the third country.


The mere fact that the asylum seeker has a valid visa for entering the third country is not sufficient to consider that the asylum seeker receives protection from that third country according to Article 30a(1)(b) of the Aliens Act. The Dutch Council for Refugees is not familiar with any case law on this issue.


As regards the case-law, there was a case concerning the situation of an Eritrean national who had obtained a so-called F-status in Switzerland. In its judgment of 20 February 2017, the Regional Court of Middleburg considered that the asylum seeker had obtained sufficient (international) protection with his status in Switzerland, even though it did not contain international protection.[2]  The Council of State has ruled however, that when this F-status is temporary, the state secretary has to further investigate whether there is a risk that Switzerland will withdraw the protection.[3]

[1]             Article 30a(1)(b) Aliens Act.

[2]             Regional Court Middelburg, Decision NL17.371, 20 February 2017. 

[3]             Council of State, Decision No. 201806359/1, 28 February 2019.


Table of contents

  • Statistics
  • Overview of the legal framework
  • Overview of the main changes since the previous report update
  • Asylum Procedure
  • Reception Conditions
  • Detention of Asylum Seekers
  • Content of International Protection
  • ANNEX I – Transposition of the CEAS in national legislation