A foreign national requested international protection in Lithuania, alleging that in his country of origin his family’s land had been illegally seized in 2019 by a local gang with political connections. After opposing this group, the applicant allegedly suffered repeated assaults and threats. He stated that corruption and impunity in his country of origin made legal redress impossible. On 30 April 2025, the Migration Department of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania (Migration Department) rejected the application for international protection, ordered his expulsion, and imposed a 1-year entry ban. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision before the Regional Administrative Court, arguing that the Migration Department had failed to collect and evaluate up-to-date country of origin information, relying instead on assumptions about an alleged improvement in the security situation after a change of government. He also maintained that the inconsistencies attributed to him were due to errors of interpretation and translation, and that he had submitted photographs of his injuries as corroborative evidence. On 19 June 2025, the Regional Administrative Court annulled the Migration Department’s decision and ordered a new examination of the application for international protection, finding that the authority had failed to obtain sufficiently up-to-date and reliable country of origin information (COI). The Migration Department lodged an appeal against this judgment before the Supreme Administrative Court, asserting that it had collected relevant information from the EUAA and the U.S. State Department.  

The court noted that the Migration Department had the statutory duty to gather precise and up-to-date information about the applicant’s country of origin, drawing on credible sources. The court held that the Migration Department had fulfilled its duty. The Migration Department had verified that widespread land grabbing and corruption had indeed existed but also found, based on sources such as Freedom House and Human Rights Watch, that after the 2024 change of government in the country of origin, the influence of violent groups had significantly decreased, reforms were under way, and new laws criminalising land embezzlement had been adopted. These findings corresponded to publicly available country of origin information and demonstrated that the risk to the applicant was no longer current. 

The court also held that the applicant’s account was inconsistent, confusing dates and details about the alleged attacks, failing to provide documentary proof of land ownership or of any police inaction. The court noted that the applicant belonged to the majority ethnic group in his country of origin, and not to a minority known to suffer land dispossession. The court further noted that the applicant had not attempted to use legal remedies available in his country of origin. Furthermore, the court stated that, even if the applicant had been attacked, there was no evidence of continuing danger or state inability to protect him. The court noted that the applicant’s relatives remained unharmed in the country of origin. Moreover, the court viewed the applicant’s claim that he owed money to lenders in his country of origin as an economic motive for migration and not a ground for international protection. 

On subsidiary protection, the court noted that the applicant’s health condition had been considered in conjunction with the medical system in his country of origin which, despite some shortcomings, was functional. According to the court, there was no armed conflict or personal threat that would justify granting subsidiary protection. The court recalled that general human rights deficiencies in a specific country did not automatically entitle an individual to international protection unless a specific, personal risk is shown. 

The court further reviewed the expulsion and entry-ban measures, and held that the 1-year entry ban was proportionate and lawful. The inclusion of his data in the SIS was justified by the need to maintain security within the European Union’s area of freedom, security, and justice. 

The Supreme Administrative Court annulled the Regional Administrative Court’s ruling, upheld the Migration Department’s appeal, and confirmed in full the original Migration Department’s decision.