A national of Afghanistan of Pashtun ethnicity requested international protection on 29 December 2025. He stated that his elder brother had served in the Afghan army and committed brutal acts against the Taliban. After the Taliban took control of several cities, his brother, fearing reprisals against himself and his family, allegedly proposed taking the applicant and another sibling with him abroad. By decision of 1 May 2026, the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) rejected his asylum application, ordered his removal from Switzerland and ordered the enforcement of that measure. The SEM considered A's alleged fear that he would be targeted by the Taliban if returned to Afghanistan to be unfounded. The SEM relied on the Federal Administrative Court's decision in  A. v SEM (D-5800/2016, 13 October 2017), which held that removal to Kabul could exceptionally be considered reasonable when particularly favourable circumstances existed. Considering that the applicant was a young man in good health, with no dependent family members, who had professional experience, whose family was in a good economic situation and continued to live in his village of origin, the SEM concluded that enforcement of his removal was reasonably reasonable. On 12 May 2026, the applicant lodged an appeal with the Federal Administrative Court against that decision. He challenged the validity of the change in practice introduced by the SEM in April 2025 concerning obstacles to the enforcement of removal to Afghanistan, arguing that it did not meet the requirements established by case law and legal doctrine.

The Federal Administrative Court found that the reasoning of the contested decision appeared brief and not extensively substantiated, since the first-instance authority essentially confined itself to referring to the court's case law and to “corresponding reports” relating to the in-depth analysis of the situation in Afghanistan carried out by its services in autumn 2024. However, it considered it comprehensible and sufficiently complete, since it relied on detailed analytical reports, which themselves referred to multiple external and internal sources of information, such as the SEM report Focus Afghanistan, Return from abroad (14 February 2025). The court also affirmed that administrative authorities cannot be expected to provide reasoning as detailed as that of an appellate authority, and that the use of standardised paragraphs is therefore permissible, provided that the authority's legal reasoning is relevant and appropriate and allows the applicant to understand its reasoning and effectively challenge the decision. As regards the applicant's challenge to the SEM's assessment of the security and socio-economic situation in Afghanistan and the possibility of return, the court ruled that the SEM had established the relevant facts accurately and completely and had duly ruled on all the legal issues it was required to determine, without violating the applicant's right to be heard or any other applicable procedural rule.

In order to update its assessment of the situation in Afghanistan following the SEM's change in practice, the court examined a large number of documents from different sources, including, among others, the EUAA Country Guidance: Afghanistan (May 2024) and the EUAA Country of Origin Information report Afghanistan: Country Focus (November 2024) and the EUAA Country of Origin Information report Afghanistan: Country Focus (January 2026). The court analysed the security situation, the socio-economic and humanitarian situation, and the human rights situation.

As regards the security situation, the court found that since the Taliban takeover in August 2021, armed violence and the number of civilian casualties had significantly decreased in the country. It recognised that the Taliban may carry out violent acts against former employees of the Afghan State and members of their families, women, children, tribal elders and opponents, but noted that it was not possible to establish a typical profile of persons likely to be targeted by them, given the absence of any identifiable pattern in the way the Taliban select their targets and the arbitrary manner in which they may act. The court affirmed that currently the greatest security threat stems from the activities of the Islamic State in Khorasan Province (ISKP), whose activities, however, have decreased significantly, and from other opposition groups like the National Resistance Front (NRF) and the Afghanistan Freedom Front (AFF). It observed that the number of security incidents recorded throughout the country had decreased significantly since summer 2021. At the same time, the court recognised significant risks to the population resulting from the presence of landmines, unexploded explosive devices and explosive remnants of war, causing hundreds of casualties each year, and from increasingly high crime rates, particularly in Kabul and other major cities. The court further mentioned the clashes between Afghanistan and Pakistan, where tensions against the backdrop of possible Taliban support for the Pakistani branch of the movement, known as Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), led to confrontations starting in mid-October 2025. It held that the conflict remained unresolved and that hostilities, mainly in border areas, continued sporadically, including as late as June 2026, affecting the provinces of Paktia, Paktika and Kunar. Following an overall assessment of the various sources consulted concerning the security situation in Afghanistan, and having regard in particular to the significant decrease in the number of violent incidents recorded across the country, the court concluded that the security situation had improved since the Taliban takeover. It ruled that the level of direct threat to physical integrity that individuals may face in their daily lives had significantly decreased, and that the security situation in Afghanistan did not currently constitute, per se, a decisive factor capable of rendering the enforcement of removal either unlawful or unreasonable.

As regards the country's socio-economic and humanitarian situation, the court recognised the presence of a major humanitarian crisis in the country, characterised by the large-scale return of Afghan nationals from Iran and Pakistan, significant cuts in international financial assistance since spring 2025, and a high number of internally displaced persons, mainly as a result of natural disasters. It noted that the significant number of returnees was placing significant pressure on basic services available to the population. The court observed that significant cuts in international assistance had resulted in the closure of hundreds of medical facilities, restrictions on essential services aimed at addressing child malnutrition, the suspension of support services for vulnerable groups, the discontinuation of financial assistance programmes benefiting thousands of families, and the abandonment of repairs to dozens of water supply networks. The court also referenced the high-intensity earthquakes in August and November 2025, which affected a large number of people. It also noted that Afghanistan was currently experiencing a food crisis. The court observed that by the end of 2025, the humanitarian situation had deteriorated and affected women and girls in particular. In addition, the healthcare system had serious deficiencies, with medical infrastructure having deteriorated since the Taliban takeover. The court noted that the majority of households continued to face difficulties in meeting their basic needs and that there had been a sharp rise in unemployment. It held that the overall socio-economic situation had deteriorated significantly for almost all population groups in Afghanistan since the change of regime.

Regarding the human rights situation, the court considered that various organisations reported a significant deterioration since the Taliban takeover, particularly affecting women and religious and ethnic minority groups, particularly Shi'a Muslims, as well as former members of the government and national security forces, civil society activists, human rights defenders and journalists. Persons who are perceived as “Westernised” may also face a risk. The court noted that the Taliban carry out arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, acts of torture and other forms of ill-treatment, as well as extrajudicial executions.

In the present case, the court held that enforcement of removal did not violate the principle of non-refoulement, since the applicant was denied refugee status by a final decision. It then assessed whether there was a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR. The court referenced the ECtHR judgment in D.M. v Sweden (32694/23, 26 March 2026), which held that the removal of an Afghan national would be contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR due to a combination of risk factors, including the security situation in his home area, his Hazara ethnicity, his conversion to Christianity, his critical attitude towards Islam and Afghan society, his adaptation to a Western lifestyle, and the length of his residence in Sweden compared to his lack of life experience in Afghanistan. In the case at hand, the court found that neither the applicant's statements nor the documents in the case file disclosed any serious and convincing indications from which it could be inferred that, if returned to Afghanistan, he would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the ECHR. The court observed that he had never had contact with the Taliban or experienced problems with them and was able to leave Afghanistan without difficulty. It noted that the applicant claimed that his uncle had received summonses concerning him and his two brothers, but the court held that the applicant was unable to provide sufficiently concrete and tangible information about them or any reasonably convincing explanation as to why those summonses had been sent to his maternal uncle. The court considered that his claim that he would be subjected to retaliation by the Taliban because of his elder brother amounted to mere speculation unsupported by any concrete and serious evidence. It also noted that his family members continued to reside in Afghanistan and had not experienced any problems with the Taliban, and saw no reason why the situation should be different for the applicant himself if he were returned to Afghanistan. The court emphasised that the applicant was born and raised in his country of origin and had been in Switzerland for only seven months, and therefore could not be assumed to have become Westernised. For this reason, it concluded that he did not have a particularly exposed individual profile that would be likely to bring him to the attention of the Taliban. Finally, in line with its case law, the court held that the general situation in Afghanistan was not such as to render the enforcement of every removal, per se, unlawful, independently of an individual and concrete assessment. Accordingly, it ruled that the enforcement of removal in the present case was lawful.

The court then assessed whether the removal could be considered reasonable and would not place the applicant in concrete danger, for example in situations of war, civil war, generalised violence or medical necessity, pursuant to Article 83(4) of the Federal Act on Foreign Nationals and Integration (FNIA). It cited its judgment in A v SEM (D-4705/2016, 14 June 2021), which held that, as a general rule, the enforcement of removal to Afghanistan was not reasonable because of the concrete danger resulting from the situation there. Specifically, removal to Herat was not reasonable, except in cases where particularly favourable circumstances were cumulatively satisfied. Namely, this concerned young men in good health who had a social network in the country capable of supporting them and facilitating their reintegration, who appeared able to obtain adequate accommodation and meet their basic subsistence needs, and who had reasonable prospects of social and economic reintegration. In 2019 and 2017, the court had already adopted similar approaches regarding the enforcement of removal to Mazar-i-Sharif and Kabul. The court found that persons returned to Afghanistan continue, as a general rule, to face a risk of being exposed to a situation of personal danger upon return to the country and, therefore, enforcement of removal must continue to be regarded as, in principle, not reasonable. However, it affirmed that the significant improvement in the overall security situation throughout the country means that, when particularly favourable individual circumstances exist in a specific case, enforcement of removal may exceptionally be considered reasonable, without any particular geographical restriction. The court reiterated that such particularly favourable circumstances exist in the case of adult men who are alone in Switzerland, are in good health, have been socialised in Afghanistan, and have a social or family network in the country capable of supporting them and facilitating their reintegration, and which would enable them to obtain adequate accommodation and meet their basic subsistence needs. Additionally, the court affirmed that, in each individual case, the following criteria, among others, must be weighed: obligations to support other family members after return to Afghanistan, family members abroad who are able to provide financial support, education and professional experience, and ethnic background where the person would return to a region in which their ethnic group is not predominant.

In the present case, the applicant was a young adult with no dependent family members, born in Kabul and originating from a village near the Afghan capital, belonging to the predominant ethnic group in Afghanistan (Pashtun), from which the vast majority of the Taliban also originate. The court noted that, while he claimed that he had never attended school, no credibility could be attached to that assertion, as his replies in this regard were very vague and inconsistent. It then observed that he had professional experience both in Afghanistan and abroad, and that he could rely on a family network in Kabul and the surrounding area, consisting of his father, mother, five sisters and two younger brothers, and a maternal uncle who had taken care of him since childhood. The court noted that the applicant declared that his family enjoyed a good economic situation and that he was in good health, that his health problems had been treated and the treatment had been completed, and that he did not submit any medical certificate capable of casting doubt on that assessment. The court concluded that the applicant's access to adequate accommodation and basic means of subsistence in Kabul must be regarded as guaranteed, and that he would be able to reintegrate socially and economically in Afghanistan, provided that he made the efforts that could reasonably be expected of him. The court recalled that the asylum authorities are entitled, when enforcing removal, to expect a certain degree of effort from persons whose age and state of health should enable them, upon return, as was the case here, to overcome the initial difficulties involved in finding accommodation and employment sufficient to secure a minimum standard of living. Hence, it ruled that the enforcement of his removal to his country of origin must, in view of the particularly favourable circumstances prevailing in his individual case, be considered reasonable within the meaning of Article 83(4) of the FNIA.

In light of the foregoing, the court held that the contested decision did not violate federal law, was based on an accurate and complete establishment of the relevant facts and was not otherwise inappropriate. It therefore dismissed the appeal as unfounded on all grounds.