The applicant, a Haitian national, submitted an application for international protection before the OFPRA, arguing that he qualified for protection on account of the general situation in Haiti and of his personal circumstances, in particular his health issues. The applicant stated that when gangs became aware that he was about to move to France with his wife, they demanded USD 60,000 from him and shot him, causing him to lose two fingers. He added that the security situation of indiscriminate violence in Haiti in general, and in the place where he would need to settle upon return, due to his family residing there, should be regarded as meeting the threshold triggering the application of Article 15(c) of the recast Qualification Directive (QD). The applicant also argued that he was especially facing a serious and individual threat to his life or person in light of his vulnerability, including the fact that he was blind from one eye, missed two fingers and suffered from schizophrenia, for which his treatment was unavailable in Haiti. On 7 July 2023, the OFPRA rejected his application. The applicant appealed against this decision on 15 July 2023.
In his appeal, the applicant reiterated his initial claims. The NGO "ELENA France" supported these claims, arguing that the court should first consider granting Haitian nationals refugee status on the grounds of membership of a particular social group or political opinion, alternatively subsidiary protection because the security situation in Haiti was such as to trigger the application of Article 15(c) of the recast QD. The NGO added that the involvement of armed gangs in the situation reinforced the risk of exposure to torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. The OFPRA rejected the argument that the security situation in Haiti was such as to expose civilians to a real and individual threat to their life or person due to their mere presence in the area. The authorities further argued that the applicant did not establish the existence of personal circumstances, which could make him particularly vulnerable to inhumane or degrading treatment.
The court noted that the applicant did not put forward any claims that he would qualify for refugee status under the 1951 Refugee Convention. It went on to say that, in the absence of the applicant at the hearing, his declarations before the OFPRA were insufficient to establish the circumstances of the case. However, the CNDA added that it should nonetheless assess the security situation in Haiti. Based on available country-of-origin information, the CNDA found that the worsening of the economic and political crises in Haiti since 2018 led criminal groups to look for new resources and try to establish their control over greater parts of the territory and population, and that the assassination of the President in July 2021 further led to the creation of new armed gangs. Then, the court highlighted that, since the second half of 2022, these criminals had increasingly targeted civilians, as well as institutions, notably by occupying up to 80% of the capital city, Port-au-Prince, and other cities such as the one where the applicant's family resides. The court also observed that, in the course of 2023, the use of violence, including collective rape and destruction of infrastructure on a wide scale, had carried the number of victims to unprecedented levels, and that the humanitarian situation was equally worrisome, with the United Nations Integrated Office in Haiti (BINUH) describing it as a "major emergency", even after the provision of food assistance. Noting that the police was itself affected by these phenomena, and that the authorities were unable to address the gangs issues in the country, the CNDA considered that the confrontations between the police and the gangs should be characterised as an internal armed conflict. Therefore, the court concluded that the entire territory was facing indiscriminate violence, with its level in Port-au-Price and in the West and Artibonite departments being such that the applicant, by his mere presence there, faced a serious and individual threat to his life or person, thus triggering the application of Article 15(c) of the recast Qualification Directive.
The court annulled the OFPRA’s decision and granted the applicant subsidiary protection.