The applicant, a Somali national from Mogadishu, submitted an application for international protection in September 2020 claiming personal threats and violence by members of Al Shabaab. The Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Person (CGRS) rejected the application, due to the contradictory statements during the two personal interviews regarding the details of his arrest. Moreover, CGRS refused to grant subsidiary protection and concluded that despite a security situation in Mogadishu that remained problematic, the applicant did not invoke personal circumstances that increased the risk of harm posed by the indiscriminate violence in Mogadishu and that the applicant does not face a real risk of a serious threat to his life.

The Council for Alien Law Litigation (CALL) agreed with CGRS's decision, and highlighted that a simple reading of the notes of the personal interviews and the contested decision rightly pointed out that the applicant did not make unequivocal statements with regard to the place of his arrest, the number of persons who stopped him and what he actually did with his cell phone. The applicant did not put forward any concrete or useful arguments that could refute the other motives in the contested decision or put them in a different light. The reasoning in the contested decision was pertinent, correct and supported by the CALL which refused to grant asylum to the applicant.

Regarding subsidiary protection, CALL confirmed that there was an armed conflict in Somalia that took place in certain regions. Thus, when assessing a person's need for protection, it was noted that the focus should be on the region where the applicant lives (or the region of destination) and on assessing whether this person is at risk in this region, in this case, the region of Mogadishu. CALL considered that Mogadishu and its immediate surroundings were among those areas where "mere presence" would not be sufficient to create a real risk of serious harm within the meaning of Article 48/4, § 2, c) of the Aliens Act. 

In the present case, the indiscriminate violence was of a high level, so that a lower level of individual elements was required to assume that specific vulnerabilities reveal that the applicant's situation, in combination with the nature and extent of the violence, would lead to a serious and individual threat to his life or person. The CGRS accepted that the applicant's nationality and identity was credible, that he originated from Mogadishu and lived there until his departure from the city in early 2019. The applicant's family situation was also not disputed. Moreover, the applicant suffered various medical problems, such as reduced mobility which affected the care for his two children and the three children of his brother and sister.

Consequently, the applicant revealed specific vulnerabilities which, in combination with the nature and extent of the violence, gave rise to a serious and individual threat to the life or person of the applicant. 

Thus, CALL granted subsidiary protection to the applicant.