A Syrian national requested international protection in Austria on 18 January 2023, claiming that he feared persecution in his country of origin because he was a former police officer and had left the police service without permission. He further stated that his house had been bombed and that he lived with his family in a refugee camp near the Turkish border. On 24 January 2024, the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (BFA) rejected granting refugee status and subsidiary protection, did not grant him a residence permit based on special provisions, issued a return decision against him, found his deportation to Syria permissible, and set a time limit for voluntary departure. The applicant lodged an appeal before the Federal Administrative Court. The court, after holding an oral hearing dismissed the applicant's appeal regarding refugee status, but granted subsidiary protection and a temporary residence permit. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision before the Supreme Administrative Court alleging a procedural violation and stated that the Federal Administrative Court based its decision on factual circumstances unrelated to his case. 

SAC recalled that a violation of the file occurs when an authority establishes decisive facts in contradiction to the content of the case file. SAC held that this was the case: while the applicant’s identity details matched those in the BFA decision, the Federal Administrative Court’s reasoning referred instead to a different person, describing a 48-year-old from Deir ez-Zor who had served in the military in Aleppo from 1995 to 1998, stayed in Saudi Arabia between 2008 and 2010, and worked as a journalist in 2011–2012, without mentioning family circumstances. 

In contrast, the applicant was 42 years old, married, with five children, had lived continuously in Syria (in Idlib and Al-Hasakah governorates), and had worked as a non-commissioned officer in the police service until 2013. The Court found that the lower court’s reliance on factual findings that did not correspond to the applicant’s situation constituted a procedural violation. 

The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the appeal and annulled the decision of the Federal Administrative Court for a violation of procedural provisions.