The applicant, Burundian national, applied for international protection on 12 November 2013 and was refused by the CGRS. The CALL has annulled the negative decision and referred the case back for re-examination. By decision of 31 July 2017, the CGRS stated that the applicant is excluded from international protection and the decision was confirmed by the CALL by decision of 26 Mai 2018. The applicant further requested authorisation to reside in Belgium, request rejected and against which the applicant appealed.

The CALL noted the motifs for which the applicant was excluded form international protection and ordered to leave the territory, namely that he was actively working for the National Intelligence Service (SNR) for more than 10 years. The SNR was designated by numerous international organisation and NGOs as being responsible for human rights violations, including murder, extra judiciary executions, acts of torture and other degrading and inhuman treatments and forced disappearances, arbitrary arrests and detention. The CGRS noted that the applicant was perfectly aware of the acts committed by SNR and he had a long professional career for the institution, being also promoted and in charge of higher missions, having the trust of higher hierarchy. The CGRS noted also that the applicant was vague and inconsistent in his statements regarding his activities within the organisation but concluded that there were serious reasons to believe that he committed a crime against humanity based on multiple concrete indices that he is personally responsible for acts of torture. In order to justify his request for residence permit, the applicant invoked the right to family life and his integration in Belgium.

The CGRS rejected his request for residence permit based on his exclusion from refugee protection, linking it to the finding that the applicant constituted a danger to public order and to the public security.

In his appeal, the applicant invoked inter alia that the CGRS had insufficiently reasoned on him constituting a real danger to the public order/security. The CALL allowed the appeal and stated that the CGRS, although disposing of a large margin of appreciation when taking a decision for issuing a residence permit, however it should have justified the refusal and not simply refer to the exclusion decision. The CGRS should have explained how the behaviour of the applicant represents a real danger for the public order and security.