GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
This section refers to some of the profiles of Somali 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. 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 on 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 they have 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 under Article 10 QD (Article 9(3) QD).
2.1.1 Federal and state officials
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis
Higher level federal and state officials in South-Central Somalia and Puntland: well-founded fear of persecution would in general be substantiated.
Lower level officials in South-Central Somalia and Puntland: not all individuals would face the level of risk required to establish well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
- nature of duties
- visibility of profile
- area of origin and operational capacity of Al-Shabaab
- etc.
Federal and state officials in Somaliland: well-founded fear of persecution could be substantiated in individual cases. Risk-impacting circumstances (e.g. visibility of profile, nature of duties, area of origin and operational capacity of Al-Shabaab) should be given due consideration.
Potential nexus: religion and/or (imputed) political opinion.
2.1.2 Members of the federal and state armed forces
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis
In South-Central Somalia, well-founded fear of persecution would in general be substantiated.
There is limited information with regards to targeting of this profile specifically in Puntland. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
- nature of duties,
- visibility of profile and proximity to high level federal or state officials or members of the armed forces,
- time of service,
- etc.
The increasing operational capacity of Al-Shabaab in Puntland in relation to the area of origin of the applicant should be carefully taken into consideration.
In Somaliland, well-founded fear of persecution could be substantiated in individual cases. Risk-impacting circumstances (e.g. visibility of profile, the rank, the time of service, nature of duties, area of origin and operational capacity of Al-Shabaab) should be given due consideration.
Potential nexus: religion and/or (imputed) political opinion.
* Exclusion considerations could be relevant to this profile.
2.1.3 Electoral delegates
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis: a well-founded fear of persecution would in general be substantiated in South-Central Somalia and Puntland.
Potential nexus: religion and/or (imputed) political opinion.
2.1.4 Civilians perceived as ‘spies’ by Al-Shabaab
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis
In South-Central Somalia and Puntland, well-founded fear of persecution would in general be substantiated.
In Somaliland, well-founded fear of persecution could be substantiated in individual cases. Risk-impacting circumstances (e.g. visibility of profile, area of origin and presence of Al-Shabaab) should be given due consideration.
Potential nexus: (imputed) political opinion and/or religion.
2.2.1 Persons fearing forced recruitment by Al-Shabaab
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis: not all individuals under this profile would face the level of risk required to establish well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
- age (young men are at higher risk)
- visibility of profile
- area of origin and control or influence of Al-Shabaab
- clan affiliation
- socio-economic situation of the family
- etc.
Potential nexus: while the risk of forced recruitment as such may not generally imply a nexus to a reason for persecution, the consequences of refusal, could, depending on individual circumstances, substantiate such a nexus, among other reasons, to (imputed) political opinion and/or religion.
2.2.2 Child recruitment by Al-Shabaab
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis: not all children would face the level of risk required to establish well-founded fear of persecution in the form of child recruitment. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
- gender
- age
- area of origin and the control or influence of Al-Shabaab
- clan affiliation and clan positioning towards Al-Shabaab
- socio-economic situation of the family
- family status (e.g. orphans)
- etc.
Potential nexus: the individual circumstances of the child need to be taken into account to determine whether a nexus to a reason for persecution can be substantiated. For example, in the case of children who refuse to join Al-Shabaab, persecution may be for reasons of (imputed) political opinion and/or religion.
2.2.3 Deserters from Al-Shabaab
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis: a well-founded fear of persecution by Al-Shabaab would in general be substantiated. Further risk of persecution by the state should be assessed on the basis of risk-impacting circumstances, such as rank/role in Al-Shabaab (e.g. being considered ‘high-risk’ by the state authorities), etc.
Potential nexus: religion and/or (imputed) political opinion.
* Exclusion considerations could be relevant to this profile.
2.3 Individuals refusing to pay ‘taxes’ to Al-Shabaab
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis: a well-founded fear of persecution would in general be substantiated where Al-Shabaab imposes taxes in the case of individuals refusing to pay such taxes to the group.
Potential nexus: (imputed) political opinion and/or religion.
2.4 Humanitarian workers and human rights defenders
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis
In South-Central Somalia and Puntland, well-founded fear of persecution would in general be substantiated.
In Somaliland, 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:
- visibility of profile
- nature of activities
- area of origin and operational capacity of Al-Shabaab
- etc.
Potential nexus: religion and/or (imputed) political opinion.
2.5 Journalists
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis
Journalists seen as critical of an actor particularly active in a specific area or in control of a specific area: well-founded fear of persecution would in general be substantiated in that specific area.
Other journalists: not all individuals would face the level of risk required to establish well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
- gender (higher risk for women)
- the topic they report on
- visibility of activities and public profile
- reach of the actors they report on
- etc.
Potential nexus: (imputed) political opinion. In case of targeting by Al-Shabaab, persecution of this profile may also be for reasons of religion.
2.6.1 Individuals (perceived as) contravening Islamic laws in Al-Shabaab controlled areas
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis: a well-founded fear of persecution would in general be substantiated.
Potential nexus: religion.
2.6.2 Individuals (perceived as) contravening Islamic and customary tenets outside Al-Shabaab controlled areas
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis
Individuals (perceived as) apostates, converts, proselytisers or blasphemers: a well-founded fear of persecution would in general be substantiated.
Other individuals (perceived as) contravening Islamic and customary tenets in areas outside of the control of Al-Shabaab: not all individuals would face the level of risk required to establish well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
- nature and visibility of activities of the applicant
- belonging to a religious minority (e.g. Christians being at higher risk)
- area of origin in relation to presence or operational capacity of Al-Shabaab
- etc.
Potential nexus: religion and/or in some cases membership of a particular social group (e.g. individuals seen as transgressing moral norms).
2.7 Individuals involved in blood feuds/clan disputes
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis: not all individuals under this profile would face the level of risk required to establish well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
- gender (men have a significantly higher risk)
- being considered a priority target
- clan affiliation
- etc.
Potential nexus: the individual circumstances of the applicant need to be taken into account to determine whether a nexus to a reason for persecution can be substantiated. For example, in the case of lineage/clan members involved in a blood feud, persecution may be for reasons of membership of a particular social group. Furthermore, in case of inter-clan disputes, persecution may be for reasons of race.
* Exclusion considerations could be relevant to this profile.
2.8 Individuals accused of crimes in Somalia
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis: the individual assessment of whether there is a reasonable degree of likelihood for the applicant to face persecution should take into account individual circumstances, such as:
- the legal framework and the justice system applied
- the nature of the crime for which they may be accused and the envisaged punishment
- etc.
Potential nexus: In the case of individuals accused of ordinary crimes there would in general be no nexus. However, where a well-founded fear of persecution is established in relation to the envisaged punishment under Sharia law, persecution may be for reasons of religion. With regard to treason, espionage or crimes that endanger public safety, persecution may be for reasons of (imputed) political opinion.
* Exclusion considerations could be relevant to this profile.
2.9.1 Low status occupational minorities
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis: not all individuals under this profile would face the level of risk required to establish well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
- gender
- their area of origin and the local clan dynamics
- financial situation
- etc.
Potential nexus: race and/or membership of particular social group.
2.9.2 Ethnic minorities
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis: not all individuals under this profile would face the level of risk required to establish well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
- the specific minority group that the applicant belongs to
- gender
- area of origin and the local clan dynamics
- etc.
Potential nexus: race.
2.9.3 Groups specialised in religious services
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis: not all individuals under this profile would face the level of risk required to establish well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
- their area of origin in relation to the specific minority group they belong to and the local clan dynamics
- gender
- etc.
Potential nexus: race and/or membership of particular social group.
2.9.4 Clans which can be considered minority groups in local contexts
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis: not all individuals under this profile would face the level of risk required to establish well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
- their area of origin in relation to the specific minority group they belong to and the local clan dynamics
- their status as ‘noble’ or ‘commoner’
- gender
- etc.
Potential nexus: race and/or membership of particular social group.
2.9.5 Individuals in mixed marriages
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis: not all individuals under this profile would face the level of risk required to establish well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
- gender
- the clan of the partners (in particular whether one of the partners belongs to a minority clan)
- specific minority group that the applicant belongs to
- area of origin
- etc.
Potential nexus: race and/or membership of particular social group.
2.10 LGBTIQ persons
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis: a well-founded fear of persecution would in general be substantiated.
Potential nexus: membership of a particular social group.
2.11 Women and girls
2.11.1 Violence against women and girls: overview
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis: not all women and girls would face the level of risk required to establish well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
- age
- area of origin and actor in control of the area
- clan affiliation
- being from a displaced or nomadic community
- having a disability
- level of assistance by a support/clan network
- etc.
Potential nexus: different reasons under Article 10 QD, depending on the specific circumstances of the case, for example membership of particular social group.
2.11.2 Violence by Al-Shabaab
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis: not all women and girls would face the level of risk required to establish well-founded fear of persecution in relation to violence by Al-Shabaab. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
- age
- area of origin and presence/control of Al-Shabaab
- clan affiliation
- family/community perception
- etc.
Potential nexus: race (e.g. in the case of Bantu women), religion, and/or membership of a particular social group (e.g. women who have left Al-Shabaab marriages).
2.11.3 Child marriage and forced marriage
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis: not all women and girls would face the level of risk required to establish 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
- age
- socio-economic status of the family
- clan and family traditions
- etc.
Potential nexus: religion and/or membership of a particular social group (e.g. in relation to refusal to enter into a marriage).
2.11.4 Female genital mutilation or cutting (FGM/C)
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis: girls who have not been subjected to FGM: a well-founded fear of persecution would in general be substantiated.
Women who have not been subjected to FGM: not all such individuals would face the level of risk required to establish well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances particularly include:
- age
- marital status
- the views of her family on the practice
- etc.
The circumstances under which the applicant had managed to avoid being subjected to FGM should also be given due consideration.
Women and girls who have been subjected to FGM: not all such individuals would face the level of risk required to establish well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
- age
- family status
- type of FGM/C experienced
- family perceptions and traditions towards the practice
- etc.
Potential nexus: membership of a particular social group (e.g. women and girls who have not been subjected to FGM) and/or religion.
2.11.5 Women and girls in clan conflicts
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis: not all women and girls would face the level of risk required to establish well-founded fear of persecution in relation to clan conflicts. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
- belonging to a minority clan
- family/clan traditions
- etc.
Potential nexus: race and/or membership of a particular social group (especially in relation to some minority groups).
2.11.6 Single women and female heads of households
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis: not all women and girls under this profile would face the level of risk required to establish well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
- being in an IDP situation
- family status (e.g. single mother)
- family/society perceptions
- level of assistance by a support/clan network
- etc.
Women without support/clan network: a well-founded fear of persecution would in general be substantiated.
Potential nexus: membership of a particular social group (e.g. women with children born out of wedlock).
2.12 Children
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis: not all children would face the level of risk required to establish well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
- area of origin
- family status
- level of assistance by a support/clan network
- etc.
Children without support/clan network: a well-founded fear of persecution would in general be substantiated.
Potential nexus: the assessment should take into account the individual circumstances of the child. For example, children born out of wedlock may be subjected to persecution for reasons of membership of particular social group.
2.13 Persons with disabilities or severe medical issues
GUIDANCE NOTE
Last updated: June 2022
Risk analysis: the lack of personnel and adequate infrastructure to appropriately address the needs of individuals with (severe) medical issues fails to meet the requirement of Article 6 QD regarding the existence of an actor that inflicts persecution or serious harm, unless the individual is intentionally deprived of healthcare.
In the case of persons living with disabilities, 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
- negative perception by the family/community
- existence of support network
- etc.
Potential nexus: membership of a particular social group (e.g. persons with noticeable physical disability).