The applicant, Burundian national, applied for international protection and alleged to fear persecution based on his sexual orientation and on threats from the Imbonerakure. He alleged to have been caught in a bar with another male person and detained for 2 days, where he was allegedly subject of acts of torture.  His father was member of the political party CNDD-FDD and was allegedly furious for sexual orientation and forbid him to go to that bar. On 7 September 2018 he travelled legally to Belgium with his father to attend a marriage and resided in a friends place and later applied for international protection. The CGRS rejected the application and stated that the applicant’s allegations on his sexual orientation were not credible. The CGRS did not believe the facts as exposed by the applicant on how he was discovered to have a different sexual orientation and the risks he may encounter in his country of origin due to his alleged sexual orientation. The CGRS noted that despite multiple questions addressed to him during the interview, he was incapable of remembering at least one person to be attracted of or any concrete situation of such attraction or any memorable event. The applicant only referred to his relationship with C. but could not recall his address and other details. The CGRS held that the applicant’s statements were incomplete and not credible.

The applicant appealed against, and the CALL confirmed the negative decision. The CALL held that the CGRS extensively justified the reasons for which his allegations on his sexual orientation are not credible also the allegations on threats from the Imbonerauke were not convincing. Moreover, the applicant alleged that his residence in Belgium would make him subject to persecutions in Burundi when returned. The CALL clarified that the mere residence in Belgium is not sufficient to justify the fear of persecution on his return to his country of origin.

The CALL mentioned also previous case law, namely the case of 23 November 2017 where the CALL estimated that, in light of the situation in Burundi, the relations between Burundi and Belgium, and the information regarding Burundian refugees and Burundian nationals residing in Belgium, that in the current context, the sole circumstance that the applicant resided in Belgium and applied for international protection here, is sufficient to justify in his person a fear of persecution due to opinions that would be imposed to him. This judgement mentioned also that it was not mentioned in any decision that there were reasons to think that the applicant could escape the climate of suspicions and the risks in case of return to his country of origin.

The CALL held that in the present case it should be analysed if there are elements that allow the applicant to escape the climate of suspicion and the risks in case of return. The applicant in this case did not prove in a credible way to face any problem if returned to Burundi from any actors or reason. It was recalled that he left the country with his father without any problem and it was noted that his father was member of the political party in power and his father returned without any difficulties after the trip to Belgium.

On the situation of human rights in Burundi, the CALL did not find any reasons to establish a fear of persecution upon return and no indication of risk of treatment contrary to the Article3 ECHR.