This is the first case decided by the Refugee Appeals Board pursuant to section 19 a of the Aliens Act which came into force on 1 March 2019.

The case concerned a Somali citizen from Mogadishu who had received asylum based on the general situation prevailing in Somalia at the time. In 2012, the Immigration Service granted him a temporary residence permit pursuant to Paragraph 7 (2) of the Aliens Act, stating that it could not be denied that he would be at risk of harm as a result of his conflict with Al-Shabaab. The Danish Immigration Service also drew attention to the practice at that time according to which removal to southern and central Somalia was found to constitute a violation of Denmark’s international obligations, including Article 3 of the ECHR.

The Refugee Appeals Board found that the basis for the complainant's residence permit pursuant to section 7, subsection 2, was no longer present and that the complainant could not be granted a residence permit on the basis of the general conditions in Mogadishu. The conditions for revoking the complainant's residence permit pursuant to section 19, subsection 1, no. 1, was thus fulfilled. Furthermore, it looked at the applicant's right to family and privacy, as he had relatives in Somalia and had been living in Denmark for 8 years. He speaks and writes in Danish, completed 9 classes and the theoretical part of a plumbing training, but could not complete the practical part of the training because he could not find an apprenticeship. Since 2019 he had been employed on a permanent basis by a transport company as a driver. The Board thus considered that he had a substantial connection both with Denmark and Somalia, and the withdrawal of the residence permit would constitute an interference of some intensity with his right to privacy.

However, the Refugee Appeals Board held that even if the person has a "significant connection to Denmark", and the withdrawal will be "an interference of some intensity in his right to privacy", the withdrawal is legitimate and serves a recognised purpose, it weighs more heavily on the basis of an overall assessment and is capable of justifying the interference. Thus, the withdrawal is not contrary to Denmark’s international obligations.

The Refugee Appeals Board upheld the Danish Immigration Service's decision on withdrawal.