The applicants, a married Syrian couple from Rif Damascus, entered Denmark in 2019 and applied for international protection. They claimed to fear persecution upon return to Syria because several of their sons had evaded compulsory military service, one of whom had joined the Free Syrian Army and was reportedly killed by a sniper. The applicants alleged that Syrian authorities had questioned them about their sons, that the male applicant had been detained several times and dismissed from his job, and that the female applicant’s family was known to oppose the regime. They further claimed to have participated in anti-regime demonstrations in Denmark.

The Danish Immigration Service rejected the application, finding inconsistencies in their statements. The applicants appealed the decision, and the Refugee Appeals Board decided on the case in September 2024.

The Board identified significant discrepancies in the applicants’ testimonies, including conflicting explanations concerning their son’s death, the male applicant’s arrests, and the reasons for his loss of employment. It found that these inconsistencies undermined the overall credibility of their account. The Board acknowledged that the couple’s sons had avoided military service and were residing abroad but found no evidence that any of them were personally sought or profiled by the Syrian authorities.

Referring to country of origin information (COI) reports, including the EASO COI Report: Syria Military Service (April 2021), the Board noted that family members of low-profile draft evaders were not, as such, at risk of persecution unless additional risk-increasing factors were present. It held that the applicants had not demonstrated that their sons’ draft evasion could lead to persecution of the parents, nor that the killing of one son or the family’s oppositional stance would result in attribution of political opinion to the applicants. Regarding the applicants’ participation in anti-regime demonstrations in Denmark, the Board noted that their involvement was limited and that there was no indication to assume that their activities had come to the attention of the Syrian authorities. As for the opposition profile of the female applicant’s family, the board found no basis of derivative persecution risk. Finally, the board held that general conditions in Rif Damascus, while unstable did not in themselves justify subsidiary protection under section 7(3) of the Aliens Act.

In conclusion, the Refugee Appeals Board confirmed the Immigration Service’s refusal to grant international protection.