This section refers to some of the profiles of Iraqi 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 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 would in general be substantiated 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 Persons perceived to be associated with ISIL
Risk analysis: Well-founded fear of persecution would in general be substantiated.
Potential nexus: (imputed) political opinion.
* Exclusion considerations could be relevant to this profile.
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.1 Persons perceived to be associated with ISIL
2.2 Sunni Arabs
Risk analysis: Being a Sunni Arab in itself would normally not lead to a well-founded fear of persecution. The individual assessment of whether or not there is a reasonable degree of likelihood for the applicant to face persecution should take into account risk-impacting circumstances, such as:
○ area of origin
○ tribe
○ etc.
In case of perceived affiliation with ISIL, see 2.1 Persons perceived to be associated with ISIL.
Potential nexus: (imputed) political opinion (e.g. ISIL affiliation, Baath party). In individual cases, religion.
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.2 Sunni Arabs
2.3 Political opposition activists and protesters
Risk analysis: The sole fact of participating in a protest in the past may not be sufficient to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
○ nature of activities and degree of involvement
○ leadership role
○ being known to the authorities (e.g. previous arrest)
○ etc.
Potential nexus: (imputed) political opinion.
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.3 Political opposition activists and protesters
2.4 Journalists, media workers and human rights activists
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 of activities (topic they report on)
○ political and/or sectarian background of the individual
○ gender
○ visibility
○ being known to the authorities
○ etc.
Potential nexus: (imputed) political opinion.
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.4 Journalists, media workers and human rights activists
2.5 Deserters from armed forces
Risk analysis: The risk is considered very low. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
○ forces the applicant belonged to
○ rank/position of the applicant
○ situation during which the desertion occurred (e.g. during disturbances or state of emergency)
○ etc.
Potential nexus: (imputed) political opinion.
* Exclusion considerations could be relevant to this profile.
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.5 Deserters from armed forces
2.6 Individuals approached for recruitment by armed groups
Risk analysis: The risk for an individual would only be substantiated in exceptional cases. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
○ gender
○ area of origin
○ ethnic/religious background (e.g. Kurds for the PKK, Sunni Arabs for ISIL)
○ age
○ presence/influence of armed groups
○ 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.
* Exclusion considerations could be relevant to this profile.
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.6 Individuals approached for recruitment by armed groups
2.7 Former Baath party members
Risk analysis: In general, the risk of persecution for a regular Baath party member is minimal and dependent on the specific individual circumstances. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
○ supporting in public the ideology of the Baath party
○ having had a high-ranking position in the party
○ being a former Saddam-era military or police officer
○ having served in the intelligence services during the Saddam regime
○ potential (perceived) affiliation with ISIL
○ etc.
See also 2.1 Persons perceived to be associated with ISIL and 2.2 Sunni Arabs.
Potential nexus: (imputed) political opinion.
* Exclusion considerations could be relevant to this profile.
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.7 Former Baath party members
2.8 Members of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), Popular Mobilisation Units (PMU), Peshmerga and local police
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 work and origin (proximity to areas where ISIL continues to operate)
○ visibility of the applicant
○ position within the organisation
○ period since leaving the forces
○ personal enmities
○ etc.
Potential nexus: (imputed) political opinion.
* Exclusion considerations could be relevant to this profile.
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.8 Members of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), Popular Mobilisation Units (PMU), Peshmerga and local police
2.9 Individuals perceived to oppose ISIL
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 work and origin (areas where ISIL continues to operate)
○ tribal affiliation and the tribe’s standing vis-à-vis ISIL
○ visibility of the applicant
○ position within the community
○ public expression of support for the government or condemnation of ISIL’s actions
○ personal enmities
○ etc.
Since ISIL’s operational capabilities have diminished significantly, the threat posed by ISIL to individuals under this profile has decreased compared to previous years.
Potential nexus: (imputed) political opinion and/or religion (e.g. when they are accused as takfir by ISIL).
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.9 Individuals perceived to oppose ISIL
2.10 (Perceived) collaborators of Western armed forces, organisations, or companies
Risk analysis: There are no recent reports of acts of targeting of this profile, which would amount to persecution. Therefore, in general, individuals under this profile are currently not considered to have a well-founded fear of persecution.
Potential nexus: (imputed) political opinion.
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.10 (Perceived) collaborators of Western armed forces, organisations, or companies
2.11 Humanitarian workers
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:
○ gender (see also 2.16.4 Women working in the public sphere)
○ nature of activities (e.g. providing assistance to women and children associated with ISIL, see also 2.1 Persons perceived to be associated with ISIL)
○ region of work/activity
○ etc.
Potential nexus: (imputed) political opinion and/or religion (e.g. when they are accused as takfir by ISIL).
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.11 Humanitarian workers
2.12 LGBTIQ persons
Risk analysis: Well-founded fear of persecution would in general be substantiated.
Potential nexus: membership of a particular social group.
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.12 LGBTIQ persons
2.13 Individuals perceived to transgress moral codes
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:
○ gender (the risk is higher for women)
○ conservative environment
○ perception of traditional gender roles by the family and society
○ etc.
Potential nexus: religion (e.g. inter-sect marriages, as well as in individual cases of persons targeted by Shia militias), membership of a particular social group.
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.13 Individuals perceived to transgress moral codes
2.14 Individuals considered to have committed blasphemy and/or apostasy
Risk analysis: Well-founded fear of persecution would in general be substantiated.
However, the risk assessment should take into account the religious or non-religious practices the applicant will engage in and whether those would expose him or her to a real risk, also taking into account his or her home region (the risk is generally lower in the KRI), family and ethnic background, gender, etc.
See also 2.15 Religious and ethnic minorities, and stateless persons.
Potential nexus: religion.
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.14 Individuals considered to have committed blasphemy and/or apostasy
2.15.1 Turkmen
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 (e.g. Shia Turkmen in areas where ISIL continues to operate)
○ perceived affiliation with ISIL (especially for Sunni Turkmen)
○ religion
○ gender
○ etc.
Potential nexus: race (ethnicity) and/or religion.
In some cases, especially for Sunni Turkmen (imputed), political opinion.
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.15.1 Turkmen
2.15.2 Yazidi
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 (e.g. Yazidi in areas where ISIL continues to operate)
○ (lack of) identity documents
○ gender
○ etc.
Potential nexus: religion, race and/or nationality.
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.15.2 Yazidi
2.15.3 Christians
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 (e.g. Christians in areas where ISIL continues to operate are at a higher risk, risk is lower in KRI)
○ gender
○ etc.
Potential nexus: religion.
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.15.3 Christians
2.15.4 Shabak
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:
○ the area of origin
○ etc.
Potential nexus: race and/or religion (in relation to persecution by ISIL).
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.15.4 Shabak
2.15.5 Kaka’i
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:
○ the area of origin (higher risk in areas where ISIL continues to operate, lower risk in KRI)
○ etc.
Potential nexus: race and/or religion.
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.15.5 Kaka'i
2.15.6 Sabean-Mandaeans
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 (the risk is lower in KRI)
○ language
○ gender
○ etc.
Potential nexus: religion and/or race (in particular in the KRI).
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.15.6 Sabean-Mandaeans
2.15.7 Baha’i
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:
○ (lack of) identity documents
○ statelessness
○ area of origin
○ etc.
Potential nexus: religion.
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.15.7 Baha'i
2.15.8 Bidoon
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:
○ (lack of) identity documents
○ statelessness
○ area of origin
○ etc.
Potential nexus: race and/or nationality (statelessness).
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.15.8 Bidoon
2.15.9 Fayli Kurds
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:
○ (lack of) identity documents
○ statelessness
○ area of origin (south of Iraq, areas where ISIL continues to operate)
○ etc.
Potential nexus: race, religion and nationality (statelessness)
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.15.9 Fayli Kurds
2.15.10 Palestinian
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 habitual residence
○ (perceived) links with former regime or (Sunni) militant groups
○ (lack of) identity documents
○ etc.
Potential nexus: nationality (statelessness), (imputed) political opinion (perceived support for Sunni militias or ISIL, see also Persons perceived to be associated with ISIL).
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.15.10 Palestinian
2.16 Women
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 in relation to violence. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
○ perception of traditional gender roles in the family
○ poor socio-economic situation
○ area of origin
○ influence of the tribe
○ etc.
Potential nexus: membership of a particular social group (e.g. women who have been victims of sexual abuse, women who have left their violent marriage).
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.16.1 Violence against women and girls: overview
2.16.2 Forced marriage and child marriage
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 and child marriage. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
○ young age
○ area of origin (particularly affecting rural areas)
○ perception of traditional gender roles in the family
○ poor socio-economic situation of the family
○ living in IDP situation
○ etc.
Potential nexus: membership of a particular social group (e.g. women who have refused to enter in a forced or child marriage).
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.16.2 Forced and child marriage
2.16.3 Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C)
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:
○ young age
○ area of origin (particularly affecting KRI)
○ ethnicity (particularly affecting Kurdish girls)
○ religion (most common among Sunnis)
○ perception of traditional gender roles in the family
○ level of education
○ local power/influence of the (potential) husband and his family or network
○ etc.
Potential nexus: membership of a particular social group.
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.16.3 Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C)
2.16.4 Women working in the public sphere
Risk analysis: Not all women would face the level of risk required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in relation to working in the public sphere. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
○ area of origin
○ conservative environment
○ visibility of the applicant (e.g. nature of the work, public statements perceived negatively by the actor of persecution)
○ perception of traditional gender roles by the family or network
○ etc.
Potential nexus: (imputed) political opinion and/or religion, membership of a particular social group (women who work in jobs perceived as not acceptable based on traditional gender roles).
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.16.4 Women working in the public sphere
2.16.5 Women perceived to have transgressed moral codes
See the profile 2.13. Individuals perceived to transgress moral codes.
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.13 Individuals perceived to transgress moral codes
2.16.6 Women perceived to be associated with ISIL
See the profile 2.1. Persons perceived to be associated with ISIL.
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.1 Persons perceived to be associated with ISIL
2.16.7 Single women and female heads of households
Risk analysis: Not all single women and female heads of households would face the level of risk required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
○ personal status
○ area of origin and residence (e.g. IDP camps)
○ perception of traditional gender roles in the family or community
○ economic situation
○ education
○ etc.
Potential nexus: membership of a particular social group (e.g. divorced women or widows).
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.16.7 Single women and female heads of households
2.17 Children
2.17.1 Violence against children: overview
Risk analysis: Not all children would face the level of risk required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in relation to violence. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
○ gender (boys and girls may face different risks)
○ perceived affiliation with ISIL (See the profile Persons perceived to be associated with ISIL)
○ age
○ perception of traditional gender roles in the family
○ poor socio-economic situation of the child and the family
○ etc.
Potential nexus: (imputed) political opinion (e.g. in case of perceived link to armed groups), religion (e.g. when persecution is by extremist groups), and/or membership of a particular social group (e.g. children victims of sexual abuse).
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.17.1 Violence against children: overview
2.17.2 Child marriage
See 2.16.2 Forced marriage and child marriage under the Profile 2.16. Women.
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.16.2 Forced and child marriage
2.17.3 FGM/C
See 2.16.3 Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) under the Profile 2.16. Women.
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.16.3 Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C)
2.17.4 Child labour and child trafficking
Risk analysis: Not all children would face the level of risk required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in relation to child labour and/or child trafficking. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
○ age
○ gender
○ poor socio-economic status of the child and his/her family
○ being in an IDP situation
○ etc.
Potential nexus: The individual circumstances of the child need to be taken into account to determine whether or not nexus to a reason for persecution can be substantiated.
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.17.4 Child labour and child trafficking
2.17.5 Child recruitment
Risk analysis: Well-founded fear of persecution would only be substantiated in exceptional cases. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
○ gender
○ area of origin, ethnic/religious background (e.g. Kurds for the PKK, Sunni Arabs for ISIL)
○ age (being an adolescent)
○ being an IDP
○ the presence/influence of armed groups
○ etc.
Potential nexus: The individual circumstances of the child need to be taken into account to determine whether or not nexus to a reason for persecution can be substantiated.
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.17.5 Child recruitment
2.17.6 Education of children and girls in particular
Risk analysis: Not all children would face the level of risk required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in relation to deliberate restrictions on access to education. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
○ (lack of) identification documents
○ ethno-religious background
○ gender (girls are at a higher risk)
○ disabilities
○ age
○ perception of traditional gender roles in the family
○ poor socio-economic situation of the child and the family
○ area of origin
○ etc.
Potential nexus: The individual circumstances of the child should be taken into account. For example, in the case of denied identity documentation due to belonging to a minority group, nationality and/or race may apply.
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.17.6 Education of children and girls in particular
2.17.7 Children born under ISIL who lack civil documentation
Risk analysis: Not all children would face the level of risk required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in relation to deliberate restrictions on access to documentation. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
○ single or widow mother
○ foreign, dead or missing father
○ etc.
Potential nexus: membership of a particular social group
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.17.7 Children born under ISIL who lack civil documentation
2.17.8 Children without a care-taker
Risk analysis: Not all children would face the level of risk required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in relation to absence of a care-taker. Risk-impacting circumstances could include:
○ (lack of) identification documents
○ whether their parentage is known
○ being born out of illicit sexual relations
○ area of origin
○ religion
○ ethnicity
○ etc.
Potential nexus: membership of a particular social group (e.g. abandoned children or children of unknown parentage).
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.17.8 Children without a care-taker
2.18 Persons living with disabilities and persons with severe medical issues
Risk analysis: The lack of personnel and adequate infrastructure to appropriately address the needs of people with (severe) medical issues would not meet the requirement that an actor of persecution or serious harm is identified in accordance with Article 6 QD, unless there is intentional conduct on the part of a third party, in particular the intentional deprivation of the applicant of appropriate healthcare.
In the case of persons living with mental and physical 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:
○ age
○ nature and visibility of the mental or physical disability
○ negative perception by the family
○ etc.
Potential nexus: membership of a particular social group (e.g. persons living with noticeable mental disabilities).
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.18 Persons living with disabilities and persons with severe medical issues
2.19 Persons involved in and affected by blood feuds in the context of tribal conflict
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:
○ intensity of the blood feud
○ possibility of conflict resolution
○ ethnicity and religion of the tribes
○ social status of the tribes
○ area of origin (area where the rule of law is weak, urban or rural area)
○ etc.
Potential nexus: race (descent, referring to members of a tribe).
* Exclusion considerations could be relevant to this profile.
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.19 Persons involved in and affected by blood feuds in the context of tribal conflict
2.20 Individuals accused of ordinary crimes
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 of the applicant and the prevalent justice mechanisms
○ the nature of the crime for which the applicant is prosecuted
○ the envisaged punishment
○ the applicant’s gender
○ etc.
Potential nexus: In general, no nexus to a Convention reason for persecution. This is without prejudice to the assessment in cases where the prosecution is motivated by, initiated, or conducted on a discriminatory basis related to a Convention ground.
* Exclusion considerations could be relevant to this profile.
>>> Read more in the common analysis on 2.20 Individuals accused of ordinary crimes