Č.L., a national of Burundi requested international protection in Croatia, claiming risk of persecution due to ethnic discrimination from being born into a mixed marriage, and political activity as a driver for his uncle, an activist in the opposition MSD party. He alleged threats from Burundian officials, presented party documents, medical reports, and contextual reports. On 14 March 2025, the Ministry of the Interior rejected his application for international protection and ordered him to leave the European Economic Area within eight days. The Ministry found his testimony inconsistent and unsubstantiated, noting that he was not a member of any political party, had changed his account of his uncle’s activism, and had not proved persecution. It emphasised that many Burundians leave due to political and economic crisis, but not all face persecution. It cited country of origin information (COI) indicating progress in governance and human rights, voluntary refugee returns, and relative stability. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision before the Administrative Court in Zagreb, arguing that the Ministry of the Interior failed to assess his vulnerability and ignored relevant evidence and credible COI reports from international sources such as UNHCR, Human Rights Watch, and the US State Department. He invoked ECtHR judgment F.G. (Iran) v Sweden (No 43611/11) of 23 March 2016, requiring thorough assessment of general security and personal circumstances. He submitted additional documents at the hearing, including letters from MSD officials, articles on the party’s abolition and arrest warrants against its leaders, and contextual evidence of risks to people from mixed marriages. 

The Administrative Court held an oral hearing with the applicant, his attorney, the defendant’s attorney, and a French translator. It admitted some documents and rejected as unnecessary the testimony of the applicant’s wife and uncle via videoconference. In its reasoning, the court emphasised that the applicant’s account was inconsistent, and contradictory, and did not answer various questions posed during the hearing. It further noted that the applicant changed his account of political involvement, claimed mistranslation but signed records, and used notes during questioning. The court deemed his statements unreliable and found that he was not a member of any political party, and his role as a driver did not establish political persecution. No evidence showed that he was targeted by the authorities, and the court was not convinced by the applicant’s allegations of detention, torture, and release through the intervention of a high-ranking official of the ruling party in 2015. This conclusion of the court was reinforced by the fact that the applicant was not granted asylum after arriving in Kenya in 2015. Lastly, it noted that while Burundi had a history of ethnic conflict, mixed marriages were common and that the applicant did not prove current persecution based on ethnicity. The court ruled that the applicant had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution under Article 20 of the Act on International and Temporary Protection. 

The court relied on UNHCR, EU Council, and IOM reports showing progress in governance, voluntary returns, and relative peace. Armed Conflict Location & Event Data monitoring organisation (ACLED) data recorded 18 incidents nationwide between April 2024 and April 2025, only one in Bujumbura where the applicant lived, insufficient to establish serious harm. The court acknowledged Burundi’s deficits in rule of law but found no evidence of significant insecurity or individualised risk to the applicant. The court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated serious harm warranting subsidiary protection under Article 21 of the Act on International and Temporary Protection.  

The court therefore concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated persecution linked to a Convention ground under Article 20, nor a real risk of serious harm under Article 21. It dismissed the appeal in full and upheld the Ministry’s decision.