The case concerned an asylum applicant who claimed to be originally from Tibet and because there were doubts on the origins of the applicant, SEM ordered to its specialiased unit “Lingua” to proceed to a language and origins analysis. For this analysis, an external and independent expert issued an evaluation on the probability that the alleged placed where the applicant was socialised was effective and possible. The tests are based on a linguistical analyse and an evaluation of the knowledge the person has on the country in question. In view of conflicts of interest, the applicant does not have access to the entirety of the information in this evaluation, but it is offered the possibility to comment on a summary of essential points and it is informed of the studies and qualifications of the required expert. According to the well-established jurisprudence, Lingua analyses benefit of a high probative force once all the required exigencies on professional qualifications, objectivity and neutrality of the expert are met as well as the coherence of the content of the analysis and its plausibility.

In this case, the Lingua expertise was conducted by the expert AS19 who estimated in his conclusions that the applicant was probably not socialised in the alleged region of Tibet, but in a Tibetan community exiled outside China. Due to an inadvertence of SEM, the applicant had access to the Lingua assessment in its entirety and requested a second opinion from a specialist on Tibet. The counter-assessment found that the applicant is most probably from Tibet. The objections of the applicant were addressed against the working methods of the specialised unit of Lingua in general and of the AS19 expert in particular. The SEM rejected the asylum claim and ordered the return to China, and the applicant contested the decision and mainly the working methods of the Lingua unit.

The Federal Administrative Court (FAC) noted that the confidentiality issue is mentioned in the LADO guidelines and mentioned that the identity of the expert is not disclosed to the court due to private interest of the person seeking asylum, but the later must be disclosed the origin, duration and period of the expert experience with the country of origin, his or her career and competence.

The FAC stated that the Lingua analysis was comprehensive and conclusive because the expert based his conclusions the two investigated areas, national-cultural and linguistic areas, also based on the biography of the applicant. The expert showed coherently that the applicant possessed certain national and cultural knowledge and noted in the linguistic part of the analysis that the applicant spoke a mixture of dialects­, which can only be explained to a limited extent with the given biography, and it can be assumed that he is socialised in a mixed-language environment, where also central Tibetan dialects can be found­. This environment is usually found in exile, but not in Tibet, especially in small, non-mobile communities. The applicant way of speaking would include Lhasa-Tibetan forms, which would form ­the basis of the exile Tibetan community. The FAC thoroughly assessed the way the report was drafted, the various sources used and its conclusions.

The FAC concluded that the quality and pertinence of the analysis performed by Lingua and the expert AS19 are not to be contestable on the substance. The expert appeared to be technically apt for the work and took a serious approach, worked with diligence and his neutrality and independence were confirmed. The FAC noted that the working method of the specialised unit of Lingua, when compared to international practice, corresponds to the highest standards for this type of language and origins analysis and that the experts cooperating with this unit are subject to optimal exigencies with regard to impartiality, conformity with the rules and scientific knowledge. The FAC stated also that Lingua analysis have to be subject to an assessment of their pertinence in each particular case.

In view of the Lingua report and other evidence in the case, the FAC considered that the applicants' allegations of his origins from Tibet are not supported and dismissed the appeal.