A Congolese national lodged an application for international protection in Malta in 2020, and benefitted of a relocation program, she therefore applied for international protection in Luxembourg.
The applicant stated that she feared persecution because she had a homosexual relation with a married woman and the police has detained and raped her. The applicant also stated to have then crossed the Libyan border, where she was arrested but from where she escaped prison after some months of detention.
The Ministry for Immigration and Asylum declared the application unfounded for lack of credibility and discrepancies between the different interviews on events and facts of her story. In particular, the Ministry found that no provision of the Congolese Criminal Code prohibits homosexuality, and that the applicant social media accounts showed a contrary version of the alleged statements of the applicant.
The applicant appeal against the ministerial decision refusing international protection, arguing that according to updated COI of the Belgian CGRS on the LGBTI rights in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), homosexual persons are forced to live their sexual orientation in a hidden manner. The applicant relied on Article 37 of the Law of 18 December 2015 to claim the benefit of the doubt for an applicant for international protection if the narrative of the statements is generally credible. The applicant argued that the doubts and inconsistencies were related to a state of torment and weakness following the events experienced. The applicant claimed to have shared the password of social media accounts with someone else to facilitate her exodus to Europe to blur the trails. The applicant mentioned a previous judgement of the Administrative Tribunal of 17 September 2019 case number 41029 to argue that the Minister should process with a a substantive analysis of the conditions for granting international protection because her narrative should be considered to be consistent and credible.
The Administrative Court declared the appeal unfounded and rejected it, on grounds that according to the Law of 18 December 2015 the granting of refugee status or subsidiary protection is subject to serious conditions originating from non-private actors. In the present case, the applicant raised issues related to acts insufficient gravity within the meaning of the Law of 18 December 2015 and the facts were perpetuated by private actors. The Administrative Tribunal found that the applicant’s story, due to the contradictory versions of her statements, has an objective lack of credibility and plausibility.