A Somali national requested international protection in Belgium on 16 March 2022. On 15 June 2023, the Commissioner General rejected his request. The applicant's statements were considered implausible, and his claim for refugee status to be unfounded. As for subsidiary protection, after consulting UNHCR International Protection Considerations regarding people fleeing Southern and Central Somalia, the EUAA Country Guidance Somalia (June 2022) and the EUAA Country of Origin Information Report: security situation Somalia (February 2023) the CGRS considered that the applicant could safely relocate in Mogadishu.

The applicant appealed the decision on 6 July 2023. He argued a breach of the power of appreciation regarding his claim, a breach of the obligation to reason the decision, and breach of the due diligence principle. He claimed he should be granted the benefit of the doubt regarding his claim for refugee status or else be granted subsidiary protection.

The CALL upheld the decision of the CGRS.

The court noted that the contested decision was correct in holding that the persecution alleged by the applicant could not be established. It held that the statements of the applicant regarding the main elements of his claim were fundamentally implausible and that in his appeal he did not bring forward any specific arguments or evidence to refute the reasoning of the CGRS, merely repeating and paraphrasing his initial statements.

Regarding the applicant's arguments that during the interview with the Immigration Office, he did not have sufficient time to go into detail, the court noted that when completing the questionnaire sent to the Aliens Office, the applicant is informed that he is expected to indicate briefly but precisely the main elements or facts which led to his flight. In that respect, the court noted that the request for a succinct answer in no way relieves the applicant of his duty to cooperate and the obligation to state the reasons for asylum as accurately and fully as possible from the start of the asylum procedure.

Regarding subsidiary protection, the court considered that whilst the CGRS had correctly reasoned that the applicant could find an internal protection alternative in Mogadishu, given the current security situation in Lower Shabelle this was no longer necessary as the applicant could be expected to return there. In reaching such a conclusion, the CALL considered the EUAA Country Guidance on Somalia (August 2023). It noted therein that Lower Shabelle was considered a region where 'mere presence' was insufficient to establish a real risk based on Article 15c of the recast Qualification Directive but a region where a lower level of personal circumstances is required to demonstrate real risk of serious harm upon return. The court rejected subsidiary protection status noting that from the date of publication until the date of proceedings the security situation in Lower Shabelle had not changed in such a way to conclude that the applicant would face a real risk of serious threat to his life or person as a result of indiscriminate violence solely because of his presence there.