*See relevant common analysis sections for information
concerning the last update of specific profiles
This section refers to some of the profiles of Nigerian applicants, encountered in the caseload of EU Member States. It provides general conclusions on the profiles and guidance regarding additional circumstances to take into account in the individual assessment. Please note that some profiles are further split in sub-profiles, with different conclusions with regard to the risk analysis and/or nexus to a reason for persecution. The corresponding number of the profile and a link to the respective section in the common analysis are always provided for ease of reference.
The conclusions regarding each profile should be viewed without prejudice to the credibility assessment of the applicant’s claims.
When reading the table below, the following should be borne in mind:
An individual applicant could fall under more than one profile included in this guidance note. The protection needs associated with all such circumstances should be fully examined.
The risk analysis paragraphs focus on the level of risk and some of the relevant risk-impacting circumstances. Further guidance with regard to the qualification of the acts as persecution is available within the respective sections of the common analysis.
The table below summarises the conclusions with regard to different profiles and sub-profiles and aims at providing a practical tool to case officers. While examples are provided with regard to sub-profiles at differentiated risk and circumstances which may increase or decrease the risk, these examples are non-exhaustive and to be taken into account in light of all circumstances in the individual case.
Persons who belonged to a certain profile in the past or family members of an individual falling under a certain profile may have protection needs similarly to those outlined for the respective profile. This is not explicitly mentioned in the table below, however, it should be taken into account in the individual assessment.
The potential nexus paragraphs indicate a possible connection to the reasons for persecution according to Article 10 QD. The common analysis sections provide further guidance whether a nexus to a reason for persecution is highly likely or may be substantiated depending on the individual circumstances in the case.
For some profiles, the connection may also be between the absence of protection against persecution and one or more of the reasons underArticle 10 QD(Article 9(3) QD).
Risk analysis: Not all individuals under this profile would face the level of risk required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
level and nature of involvement
visibility of the applicant (e.g. high profile, prior arrest, media appearance)
participation in gatherings or manifestations
etc.
Potential nexus: (imputed) political opinion.
* Exclusion considerations could be relevant to this profile.
Risk analysis: Criminal prosecution in itself does not amount to persecution. Not all individuals under this profile would face the level of risk required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
level of involvement with the militant organisation
activities of the applicant
etc.
Former members of the militant groups participating in the DDR programme generally do not have a well-founded fear of persecution related to their past involvement.
Potential nexus: (imputed) political opinion.
* Exclusion considerations could be relevant to this profile.
Risk analysis: Not all individuals under this profile would face the level of risk required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
Risk analysis: Not all individuals under this profile would face the level of risk required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
Risk analysis: Not all individuals under this profile would face the level of risk required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
place of work
nature of activities (e.g. those working with LGBTIQ communities may be at a particular risk)
visibility of activities and public profile
gender
etc.
Potential nexus: (imputed) political opinion. In case of targeting by Boko Haram, persecution may also be for reasons of religion.
Risk analysis: Not all individuals under these profiles would face the level of risk required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
area of origin
gender
in the case of the Shia minority – engagement with IMN
etc.
Potential nexus: religion. In the case of the Shia minority, persecution may also be for reasons of (imputed) political opinion.
Risk analysis: Not all individuals under this profile would face the level of risk required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
area of origin
gender
age (children and elderly women are generally at a higher risk)
relevant events in the local community (e.g. death of a child, miscarriage of a pregnant woman)
visible disabilities
‘unusual’ behaviour or attributes (e.g. being intersex)
family status (e.g. widow, orphan)
infertility
etc.
Potential nexus: religion and/or membership of a particular social group
Risk analysis: Not all individuals under this profile would face the level of risk required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
perception of the local community
perception of the family
etc.
Potential nexus: membership of a particular social group. In case of individuals with albinism being accused of witchcraft, see Individuals accused of witchcraft.
Risk analysis: Not all individuals under this profile would face the level of risk required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
past membership to a cult
(perceived) intention of the applicant to reveal the secrets of the cult
Risk analysis: Not all individuals under this profile would face the level of risk required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
amount of ‘debt’ to traffickers
whether the applicant has testified against the traffickers
level of power/capability of the traffickers
the traffickers’ knowledge about the victims’ family and background
age
family status (e.g. orphan, single woman)
socio-economic background and financial means
level of education
availability of support network (family or other) or the family’s involvement in the trafficking
perception of local community
etc.
Potential nexus: membership of a particular social group.
The different forms of violence against women and girls in Nigeria are often significantly interlinked. Therefore, the following subsections should be read in conjunction with each other.
2.16.1 Violence against women and girls: overview
Risk analysis: Not all women and girls would face the level of risk required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
area of origin
age
being an IDP living in a camp
family status
socio-economic status
level of education
support network (family or other)
etc.
Potential nexus: different reasons under Article 10 QD, depending on the specific circumstances of the case, for example, membership of particular social group.
2.16.2 Violence against women and girls by Boko Haram and treatment post-violence
Risk analysis: Not all women and girls would face the level of risk required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in relation to violence by Boko Haram. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
area of origin (mainly where Boko Haram operates)
age
family status (e.g. single mother)
having been subjected to abuse
family/society perceptions, support network (family or other)
etc.
Potential nexus: (imputed) political opinion, religion, membership of particular social group.
Risk analysis: Not all women and girls would face the level of risk required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in relation to FGM/C. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
ethnic group
family traditions
views of the parents/mother on the practice
age
level of education of the parents/mother
prevalence of the practice in the area of origin (including urban/rural dimension)
etc.
Potential nexus: membership of particular social group.
Risk analysis: Not all women and girls would face the level of risk required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in relation to forced marriage or child marriage. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
prevalence of the practice in the area of origin
ethnic group
religion
age
level of education of the individual and the family
socio-economic status of the family
family traditions
etc.
Potential nexus: religion and/or membership of particular social group.
Risk analysis: Not all individuals under this profile would face the level of risk required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
nature and visibility of the mental or physical disability
perception by the family and by the surrounding society
etc.
Potential nexus: membership of a particular social group (in the case of persons living with noticeable mental or physical disabilities).
Prosecution for an ordinary crime would generally not amount to persecution.
Prosecution for acts which are not considered criminal according to international standards (e.g. adultery, ‘sodomy’) would amount to persecution.
Death penalty, irrespective of the nature of the crime, is considered to amount to persecution.
Violations of the due process of law and/or disproportionate or discriminatory punishments could also amount to severe violations of basic human rights.
Not all individuals under this profile would face the level of risk required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
the area of origin of the applicant and the prevalent legal system
the act of which the applicant is or may be accused
the envisaged punishment
etc.
Potential nexus:
In the case of individuals accused of ordinary crimes, there is in general no nexus.
In the case of criminalisation of acts which are not considered criminal according to international standards, persecution may be for reasons of religion or membership of a particular social group.
With regard to some crimes punishable by the death penalty under the Criminal and Penal Code of Nigeria, persecution may be for reasons of political opinion.
* Exclusion considerations could be relevant to this profile.