A., an Afghan national who claimed to be of Hazara ethnicity and Shiite Muslim faith, lodged an application for international protection in Luxembourg on 19 May 2021 under the Law of 18 December 2015 on international protection. Prior to his arrival in Luxembourg, he had applied for asylum in Greece in May 2020 under a different identity and was later relocated to France as an unaccompanied minor. Shortly after that relocation, he left France without completing the asylum procedure and travelled onward to Luxembourg, where he submitted a new application for international protection using another identity and date of birth.

In support of his claim, the applicant alleged that he had been sexually assaulted by an imam in his village in Afghanistan, that the imam had threatened to kill him if he disclosed the abuse, and that when he attempted to report the rape, neither the community nor the police authorities believed him. He further claimed that, in despair, he set fire to the imam’s room, which spread to the mosque, and that as a result he feared retaliation by villagers, religious authorities, and the Taliban. He also relied on his Hazara ethnicity, Shiite faith, and alleged “westernisation”, notably visible tattoos, as additional grounds of risk in the event of return to Afghanistan.

By decision of 16 August 2023, the Minister for Immigration and Asylum rejected the application as unfounded, on grounds of lack of credibility and ordered the applicant to leave the territory. The Administrative Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s action for reformation on 22 September 2025. The applicant appealed that judgment before the Administrative Court on 22 October 2025, seeking recognition of refugee status or, in the alternative, subsidiary protection.

The Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s and the Minister’s assessment that the applicant’s account lacked credibility. It held that the incoherencies and contradictions regarding his identity and date of birth seriously undermined the credibility of his account. The court highlighted that such lack of credibility was reinforced by major inconsistencies between the applicant’s handwritten statement at the time of lodging his application and his subsequent interviews concerning his reasons to seek protection, and his lack of cooperation and precision when requested to clarify. The court noted that there was no evidence of any  vulnerability due to the trauma he suffered as a result of the alleged rape which could undermine such considerations.

With regard to the applicant’s Hazara ethnicity and Shiite faith, the court noted that these elements do not, in themselves, establish a well-founded fear of persecution in the absence of individualised risk factors. It found that the applicant had not demonstrated that he faced a risk distinct from that of the general Hazara population, nor that the situation in Afghanistan amounted to indiscriminate violence reaching the threshold required for subsidiary protection. The claim based on alleged westernisation and visible tattoos was likewise rejected as insufficiently substantiated. The court noted that the evidence provided did not show that anyone with a tattoo on their body is systematically at a real risk of being persecuted or suffering serious harm in Afghanistan.

In conclusion, the Administrative Court dismissed the appeal in its entirety confirming that the minister had lawfully rejected the application on grounds of lack of credibility and absence of individualised risk.