The case concerned a woman from El Salvador, a secretary employed by the municipality who claims to have witnessed a violent incident perpetrated by gang members and claimed that there is a risk of becoming the victim of sexual and psychological violence by gang members.

The Council found that such problems are not sufficiently serious to amount to persecution, as apart from a single threat at her home on 25 November 2018, the applicant had not experienced any problems with gang members in El Salvador. By referring in the application to a passage from UNHCR's "Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from El Salvador" of March 2016, which allegedly shows that persons who have witnessed incidents committed by gang members can expect to suffer reprisals, the applicant does not detract from the foregoing. A mere reference to her profile is not sufficient to prove that the applicant is actually threatened and persecuted in her country of origin. That fear of persecution must be demonstrated in concreto. However, on the basis of country information, it cannot be assumed that every Salvadoran who returns runs a real risk of persecution merely because of the stay abroad. The applicant did not demonstrate that, as a result of the facts and events alleged by her, she should currently have any personal fear of persecution upon returning to El Salvador. The Council held that she does not make it plausible that she would encounter serious problems in the event of her return.

For the rest, the applicant limited her application to referring to general information on the situation of returned Salvadorans without indicating or explaining in concrete terms why she would be personally exposed to the risks described. 

The Council did not dispute that the applicant may face robbery, extortion or threats upon return, but pointed out that this is a pervasive and widespread phenomenon faced by many Salvadorans, regardless of their migration history. This risk of robbery, extortion or threats is no different from the risk to which other Salvadorans, with or without a migration past, are generally exposed. The mere possibility of encountering (or not encountering again) robbery, extortion or threats upon return is not sufficient to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. Moreover, a widespread practice of mugging, extortion or threats does not, in principle, as such, reach the required minimum level of seriousness to be regarded as an act of persecution within the meaning of Article 48/3, § 2 of the Aliens Act. Taking into account all of the applicant's individual circumstances, the Council concluded that the applicant has failed to establish that she would run the risk of serious problems upon returning to El Salvador because of the fact that she has stayed abroad and must return to her country of origin.

Finally, the applicant argued that women are the main victims of the (sexual and psychological) gang violence in El Salvador. She claimed that the CGRS did not investigated the risk that she and her two underage daughters would become the victims of sexual and psychological violence by gang members. However, her statements did not show that during the administrative procedure the applicant mentioned problems of that nature that she or her daughters would have experienced in El Salvador, nor that they had received such threats. The Council reiterated that a fear of persecution must be demonstrated in concrete terms.

The country of origin information attached by the applicant to her petition and to her supplementary memorandum of 15 December 2020 did not show that there was group persecution in El Salvador, where all women are victims of (sexual and psychological) gang violence. By merely quoting from that, without relating this information to her personal situation, and stating that she is a single woman with two underage daughters who has only female relatives living in El Salvador, the applicant failed to prove her claim.