The case concerns the asylum application in the Netherlands of an applicant claiming to be stateless. The court found that the Dutch authorities erred when they assumed the applicant's name, date of birth and nationality, without sufficiently motivating this decision, despite the applicant's consistent statements on statelessness.
- Work Instruction IND 2018/19
In the contested decision, the Dutch authorities (the State Secretary for Justice and Security) granted the applicant an asylum permit. In doing so, the authorities assumed the applicant's name, his date of birth in 2000, and that he had Syrian nationality.
The applicant disagrees with the authorities' determination of his age and nationality. The applicant states that his name is another one and that he was born in 2004. This means that he was a minor when he filed his asylum application in 2021, and that the defendant incorrectly assumed that he was an adult at that time. The applicant further argues that he is from Syria, that he belongs to the Maktoumeen Kurds and that he is stateless. In the notice of appeal, the applicant argued that he was stateless. At the hearing, the applicant explained, when asked, that his intention in doing so was not to argue that the contested decision should have stated that he is stateless. After all, the determination of statelessness is subject to several conditions. The applicant clarified that he argued that the authorities wrongly assumed Syrian nationality in the contested decision and that they should have determined the applicant's nationality as unknown.
In the Statement of Defense and at the hearing, the authorities (the State Secretary for Justice and Security) provided additional reasons as to why the date of birth in 2000 was assumed. The authorities explained that there was doubt in the Netherlands about the age declared by the applicant. Investigations concluded that, based on physical characteristics and behaviour, the claimant was obviously an adult. An employee of the authorities then concluded that, based on external features and behaviour, there was doubt about the applicant's stated age. Because doubts existed in the Netherlands, the authorities requested data from Italy. That data showed that the claimant was registered in Italy with two dates of birth, namely 2000 and 2004. The defendant then relied on the date of birth in 2000 because the claimant was apparently unclear about his date of birth in Italy and because he was registered there as an adult. Regarding the authorities' assumption of Syrian nationality, they explained that this had nothing to do with the registrations in Italy, but was based on the applicant's own statement that he had Syrian nationality, which he made in the Netherlands. The authorities referred to the asylum application and to the report of the further hearing. The authorities further took the position that although the applicant mentioned in the corrections and supplements to the application hearing that he is stateless, this cannot be seen as actually going against the determination of Syrian nationality. Finally, the defendant pointed out that in his corrections and supplements to the notification hearing and the further hearing, in the notice of appeal and in the grounds of appeal, the applicant himself mentioned that he has Syrian nationality.
The court finds that the authorities' determination of the applicant’s age as described was made negligently and was insufficiently reasoned. First of all, the court cannot follow the authorities' reference to the conclusion of the investigations. The official report concluded that the applicant was obviously an adult. However, the officers did not observe any physical characteristics in the applicant that would indicate majority age and the record further shows that the investigators observed that the claimant was very nervous during the hearing, that his story was not clear, that it seemed as if he had rehearsed his story, and that he had difficulty persevering in this narrative. The court does not see how, based on these observations, the investigators could have concluded that the applicant was obviously an adult. Moreover, the court cannot follow the authorities's choice to assumer one date of birth (2000) when there are two registrations in Italy. This is because the authorities' policy states that if the foreigner is registered in one Member State with multiple ages, the authorities will have to find out which date of birth is used in that Member State. The authorities acted in violation of this policy because, according to the explanation given at the hearing, the authorities did not investigate which date of birth is followed by the Italian authorities. The court notes that the applicant is registered in Italy under a certain name with a date of birth in 2004 and under a certain name with a date of birth in 2000. The court fails to see why the authorities follow the applicant in his claimed name, but not in the corresponding date of birth in the Italian registration. The court further finds that the authorities have not given sufficient reasons to explain why the applicant's Syrian nationality was assumed. The court does not see anywhere in the record of the hearing of the investigation and in the reports of the application hearing and the further hearing that the applicant was explicitly asked what nationality he has, nor that the applicant stated of his own accord that he has Syrian nationality. While the asylum application and the report of the further hearing (and alsothe official report and the application hearing) 'schematically' show that the claimant has Syrian nationality, the court considers this insufficient, as it is unclear how this information appeared in those documents. Indeed, the applicant has consistently stated that he is an unregistered Kurd from Syria and that he is stateless. The court refers to the record, the report of the application hearing and the report of the further hearing. The applicant also pointed out in the corrections and supplements to the application hearing that he is not registered in Syria and that he is stateless. The court cannot follow the authorities' position that this cannot be seen as actually opposing the determination of Syrian nationality. After all, the corrections and additions are an important part of the assessment of the asylum narrative, and it is up to the authorities to explain how they are included in the assessment.
The conclusion of the authorities about the applicant's Syrian nationality was therefore negligently and inadequately justified. Based on the interviews, the applicant mentioned several times that he was not registered in Syria and that he was stateless. The court found the appeal well-founded and obliged the authorities to do a proper research and take a new decision within 10 weeks.