The applicant’s application for statelessness status was denied due to the lack of sufficient proof to determine a difficulty in establishing a nationality, paired with a substantial lack of cooperation of the applicant with the authorities. The Court ruled that the applicant, declaring being of Somalian origin but eventually confirmed of unknown origin, did not provide coherent and sufficient evidence to support his application.
- Art. 78, par. (3) of the modified law of 29 August 2008 on the free movement of people and on immigration
- Art. 6.4. of the EU Directive 2008/115/CE of 16 December 2008
- Art. 1 of the 1954 Convention
- Art. 1, part (2), of the 1954 Convention
According to the court, the applicant provided contradictory evidence on his origins, as when applying for international protection in 2012 (denied in 2014) and in 2015 (denied in 2016 by the administrative tribunal and again in 2017 by the administrative court) he stated he was Somalian. However, when the court sent him to the Somalian Embassy in Belgium to be identified, the embassy confirmed he was not a Somalian national. After that, he was sent to all Somalian and Tanzanian embassy in Belgium to verify his identity based on the fact that he spoke Swahili. In 2019, the applicant applied for statelessness status since the Somalian Embassy in Belgium confirmed that he was not registered as a Somalian national. In 2020, the applicant undertook additional steps with the embassies of Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Zambia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Malawi and northern Mozambique, as those are countries in which Swahili is also spoken. However, neither the authorities of the Republic of Burundi nor those of Zambia would have agreed to receive him to issue him a certificate proving his requests. This could be considered as an implicit refusal to recognise him as one of their nationals.
After the linguistics examination, it seemed that he could be of Somalian origins, but of unknown nationality, so the court did not have sufficient proof to confirm if he is stateless, thus they confirmed the previous decision and as such deny him international protection.
The applicant applied for statelessness status since he is not registered in the Somalian population registry, which allegedly confirms he is not a national of the country.
The court confirmed that the applicant's argument is weak and it is not a solid proof confirming he lost his nationality or that he cannot obtain it.
The court does not have sufficient ground to establish the nationality of the applicant, as he 'has always confirmed to be born in Somalia', but according to his file 'his Somalian identity and origin is contested'. It also occurs that he 'used false or misleading information linked to his identity, by providing a false Somalian birth certificate and a false Somalian certificate of residence [..]. The same was confirmed by the Somalian Embassy in Brussels'. The language tests also confirmed that he is not of Somalian origin and that he 'is older than the age he indicated', he has 'limited knowledge of the geography of the territory', and the 'story of his kidnapping and escape from the militia of Al Shabaab is not credible'. The fact that his nationality remains unknown, it is 'to be considered his fault' and his 'lack of cooperation is impeding the court and the relevant authorities to proceed with his identification'. The applicant also 'cannot provide serious and strong proofs of his statelessness'.
The court rejected the appeal.