Afghanistan

For asylum seekers from Afghanistan, it is very difficult to get a B permit: Most persecutions in Afghanistan are not conducted by governmental forces; and moreover, they are directed towards everyone, not only specific (ethnical/religious) groups. Accordingly, many people from Afghanistan get an F permit. Additionally, the BVGer assumes that Kabul (to a lesser extent), Herat and Mazar are “safe cities”. This means, whenever a client has any more or less close relation to one of these cities (e.g. lived/worked/studied there, has close family members there), the authorities consider it as reasonable for the person concerned to return to this place (so called “interne Fluchtalternative”). The BVGer decided in Autumn 2017 to restrict returns to Kabul: only if the living conditions of the person concerned in Kabul are exceptionably favourable, a return is acceptable.

Many Afghans fled to Iran before they came to Europe. Since there is no return agreement with Iran and, above all, Afghans do not have Iranian citizenship, a return to Iran is considered as not possible. Therefore, even if a person stayed in Iran for a longer time, the SEM generally does not decide to return Afghans to Iran (exceptions may apply, in particular if the person concerned had an established permit of residence in Iran).

In general, it is important for Afghan asylum seekers to mention why they were specifically targeted, meaning in addition to the general threat in the country. In particular, it also has to be mentioned why the government/police/military could not protect the person concerned (remember: whenever the state fails to protect someone appropriately from threats because of race/religion etc., this might also amount to refugee status recognition, as if the state itself was the source of persecution).

Even though Hazara people are particularly subject to attacks in Afghanistan, unfortunately the BVGer has not agreed so far that they are as a group the subject of increased persecution. Therefore, the mere fact that a person is Hazara, does not guarantee either a B or F permit.

 Accordingly, also if the client is Hazara, s/he needs to bring forward particular reasons for increased threats (in particular, if there is a connection to the three cities considered as safe).

Practical advice:

• While most people from Afghanistan get an F permit, it is very hard for them to make the refugee status plausible.

• Discuss with your client where in Afghanistan they come from and why they feel exposed to serious disadvantages. Keep in mind that the client has to be specifically targeted. General fear of military service or even the affiliation to the Hazara is not sufficient to obtain a B permit. The client has to make plausible why s/he specifically would be targeted.

• Working for the government or the western nations in Afghanistan may be a reason to obtain a B permit if it can be established that a particular threat by the Taliban resulted from that, i.e. if the person was identified by the Taliban.

• People who are not Muslims who were threatened by extremists or the Government based on this may also be eligible for B.

• Other job profiles that are particularly targeted by Taliban might also be eligible for B, e.g. journalists, academics, politicians, if it can be demonstrated that the Taliban actually targeted the applicant personally or if the applicant was publicly known for what s/he was doing.

• Persons who were forced to join the Taliban and escaped thereafter might be eligible for B as well (subject to sufficient evidence).

• In general, families, women and elderly/sick people are not returned to Afghanistan at all.

• In the past years, only a handful deportations to Afghanistan took place. Accordingly, many Afghans live here with a negative decision.

• For older negative decisions (i.e. before autumn 2017), a request for reconsideration may be considered based on the deterioration of the security situation in the country in the past few months, in connection with the new jurisprudence by the BVGer.

Many clients submit a threatening letter by the Taliban as evidence for persecution. Even though this may help to substantiate their claim, it is noteworthy that SEM generally considers such evidence as fake or without value, since it may easily be received against payment.

See also the EASO report on Afghanistan for details on the different targeted groups and the level of persecution by region.