The Court of Appeal's judgment on invalid rejection of asylum application set aside
Supreme Court order and judgment 17 September 2020, HR-2020-1799-A, (case no. 20-007344SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against judgment.
The State represented by the Immigration Appeals Board (The Office of the Attorney General represented by Ane Sydnes Egeland) v. A (Counsel John Christian Elden), Norwegian Organisation for Asylum Seekers (NOAS) (Counsel Jan Fougner) (third-party intervener)
Justices: Møse, Matheson, Bull, Østensen Berglund, Steinsvik
The Court of Appeal had declared the Immigration Appeals Board's rejection of an Iranian woman's asylum application invalid. When assessing the condition "well-founded fear of being prosecuted" in section 28 subsection 1 of the Immigration Act, decisive emphasis had been placed on the situation at a possible forced return. The Supreme Court unanimously found that neither the Refugee Convention nor the Immigration Act indicates that the applicant's situation if returned by force must be emphasised when deciding whether to grant asylum. System considerations indicate that the implications of a forced return for the applicant must be assessed at the time of implementation of a possible expulsion. The Court of Appeal's judgment was set aside.