A minor from Colombia, requested international protection in Iceland together with his father and sisters, and the Directorate of Immigration rejected their applications. The Immigration Appeals Board overturned the decisions on 25 April 2023 and ordered a re-examination. On 15 August 2023, the Directorate of Immigration again rejected the applications, and these decisions were upheld by the Immigration Appeals Board on 30 November 2023. On 7 October 2024, the applicant submitted a subsequent application and a request to suspend the legal effect of the board’s decision. On 15 October 2024, the applicant and his family were returned to Colombia. As he had left the country, his request was dismissed by the Immigration Appeals Board on 5 November 2024. The applicant returned to Iceland on 18 November 2024 as an unaccompanied minor and filed a subsequent application on 10 February 2025. On 7 April 2025, the Directorate of Immigration rejected the application, concluding that the change in his circumstances—as an unaccompanied minor—was not significant enough to alter the initial decision. On 21 April 2025, the applicant appealed to the Immigration Appeals Board, claiming that he had suffered severe physical and psychological abuse by his father, lacked maternal care, and had been forced to come to Iceland. The applicant also mentioned that since his arrival in Iceland he received support from an Icelandic family and from mental health professionals due to repeated trauma.

The Immigration Appeals Board found that the contested decision included an assessment of the applicant’s circumstances as an unaccompanied minor, and addressed the situation in Colombia, specifically the social welfare and child protection systems. The board noted that the country of origin information cited in the decision confirmed the existence of functioning social welfare and child protection systems in Colombia. It therefore concluded that, upon return, the applicant would be received by the relevant authorities and that Colombian child protection services would assume responsibility for his care and safety. Also, the board noted that, where appropriate, the Colombian child protection services could facilitate contact of the applicant with his mother and other relatives in the country.

The board observed that the applicant did not have close relatives residing in Iceland, while his family lived in his home country. It highlighted that his parents held legal custody, and no decision had been made by child protection authorities—either in Iceland or Colombia—to revoke that custody. Furthermore, the board emphasised that the applicant’s situation was under the oversight of Icelandic child protection authorities, who were responsible for safeguarding his interests while he remained in Iceland, and that Colombian child protection authorities had confirmed their readiness to take over his case.

The board affirmed that the applicant, who was represented by child protection authorities in Iceland as well as legal counsel, had the opportunity to present his views in interviews with Icelandic authorities and other institutions, and to submit supporting evidence. Therefore, it considered that the applicant’s case was sufficiently documented based on the available information. The board confirmed that the fact that the applicant submitted a subsequent application as an unaccompanied minor was not sufficient to alter the board’s assessment in its previous ruling from 30 November 2023.

The board noted that the applicant had already received a final administrative decision in his case, which confirmed that he was not at risk of persecution or inhuman and degrading treatment in Colombia. It also highlighted that a written assessment of the best interests of the child was carried out, including consideration of the applicant’s potential for family reunification, his safety, well-being, and social development, as well as considering the applicant’s own views, in line with his age and maturity. The board also confirmed the assessment according to which the applicant could seek assistance from authorities in his home country. Hence, the board upheld the contested decision by finding that the applicant did not meet the criteria for international protection or for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds.