Is Singapore ever immune to natural disasters

dish

REASONS FOR DECISION:

I. Procedure:

1.1. The complainant, a national of India, traveled illegally into federal territory and filed the present application for international protection on XXXX.

1.2. In the first questioning carried out on XXXX by an organ of the public security service, the complainant submitted that he had fallen in love with the neighbour's wife. Her husband was in Singapore and not in India. He had met this woman several times at night and was then caught by a neighbor who called her husband and told him that the applicant was sleeping with his wife. The husband then called him and told him that he would come a week and kill him. The complainant thought that he would not be here within a week. When he was there, he filed a complaint against the applicant because his wife had told him that he had raped her. The complainant was then arrested and released again by the "village chiefs". The husband did not forgive the complainant. He came back from Singapore in October 2011.

1.3. On XXXX2, the complainant was questioned in writing before the Federal Asylum Office and he summarized the following:

With regard to his personal circumstances, the applicant stated that he was born in the village XXXX and that he was a citizen of India. He is a member of the Lohan Tarkan ethnic group, is a Sikh, single, has no children and has duties of care. His passport is with the tugboat. He had this issued to himself at the XXXX passport office seven years ago because he wanted to leave the country. He left India in April XXXX. It was his first departure from India. The question of whether it was correct that the complainant had a passport issued seven years ago and finally left about six months ago is answered by the complainant about six years ago because of work for a construction company in XXXX.

He entered Austria with the help of a tug on XXXX. He had to pay 950,000 Indian rupees to leave India. Half of the money came from friends, the other half came from his family. In India he lived in the village XXXX from birth until he left with his parents, two brothers and grandmother. His father ran a carpentry shop in the house, in which he worked with the complainant's brothers. The complainant had also helped his father and had been out and about with the team in his village as an athlete, volleyball player.

In Austria, the complainant had no family or relatives. Nor would he have any in England. There would only be friends there, one from his village and some from his school.

The complainant had no problems with the authorities or courts. He left XXXX by bus and from there by bus to XXXX. He described his reason for fleeing by saying that he himself had wanted to go to Europe for a long time and that he had a problem with a married woman with whom he was in love. This woman's husband lived in Singapore and learned that the applicant had a relationship with his wife and had returned to India. He had already threatened the complainant by telephone from Singapore that the complainant should end the relationship with his wife, otherwise he would return to India. However, the complainant did not believe that he would return to India. However, he had come back and threatened his own wife and was supposed to end her relationship with the complainant. The woman said that she had nothing to do with the complainant, whereupon the woman's husband reported that the complainant had molested his wife. The police then came and took the complainant away. The people from the village went to the mayor and the police took the complainant out together.

The man from the woman had instructed other people to beat him. They would have stabbed his hand (left wrist) with a knife. He wanted to settle the whole matter with the villagers, but the man was against it. He threatened him with killing, whereupon the applicant's family feared that he would be killed and his family, who had already wanted him to leave, organized his departure.

The relationship with this woman began three years ago. She was from the same village and the complainant had repeatedly visited her and met her. As soon as she called him, he went to her. They also went to XXXX. The woman and the complainant had no children and her husband returned from Singapore in October 2011. If he returned to India, the complainant feared that his friend's husband would have him killed because he had a lot of money. The friend's husband had been in Singapore for about eight years and came to the village on vacation once a year. The relationship with his girlfriend began about three years ago and met with her two to three times a week. In October 2011, at the time when the applicant's husband returned, the police came to see the applicant. After about a week when he was with the police, he was stabbed on the hand by four or five unknown perpetrators. The complainant was not aware of the persons. Subsequently, the complainant was only threatened by telephone. Otherwise there were no other incidents that the complainant had been beaten. The woman's husband threatened him over the phone by telling the complainant that no one, not even the mayor, could help him and that he would be killed. He did not want to go to the police when he wanted to sort everything out himself and wanted to live in peace. In India he had no good friends or relatives where he could go. At some point he would have had to go back and the problems would have started all over again.

1.4. With the contested decision of the Federal Asylum Office, Vienna branch, the complainant's application for international protection in accordance with Section 3 (1) in conjunction with § 2 para. 1 no. 13 AsylG regarding the granting of the status of the person entitled to asylum (point I.) and according to § 8 para. 1 in conjunction with Section 2 (1) no.13 of the Asylum Act with regard to the granting of the status of beneficiary of subsidiary protection in relation to the country of origin India (point II.) Rejected. At the same time, the complainant was expelled from Austria to India in accordance with Section 10 (1) AsylG.

In the reasoning, the complainant's reasons for fleeing were not believed. In addition, it was essentially stated that the complainant had described an exclusively vague and highly specific matter to the Federal Asylum Office. He claimed to have left his home country because of threats, as well as an interference with his personal integrity, without giving any details about the incident locations, incident times or the group of people involved. Only after further specific inquiries did the complainant state that his girlfriend's husband had returned from Singapore in October 2011 and that the police had come to see the complainant in October 2011. The complainant had very vaguely dated the alleged injury to his wrist approximately one week after he had been to the police. After a specific questioning, the complainant had ruled out further personal incidents up to his departure from India (April 2012) and merely raised a telephone threat from the husband. Since the complainant described extremely superficial facts to the Federal Asylum Office despite being asked and did not give any details within his submission, it can be assumed that his submission was an exclusively conceptual construction. That this is actually the case can already be seen in the fact that in the course of the above-mentioned interview, in which after specific problems with authorities and courts, he denied this, in the course of the description of the allegation of the escape, he claimed to have been arrested by the police in contradiction to this .

Furthermore, it cannot be understood in any way that the complainant, despite the alleged knife attack against himself by 4-5 men, did not make any contact with the security authorities. When asked specifically about this, the complainant stated that he had denied any contact with the security authorities and stated that he had wanted to clear up everything in the village himself. Since, according to his statements, the attackers alleged by the complainant were not people from his village, the behavior shown in this regard could not be traced. Also incomprehensible is the fact that the complainant, despite the incidents he alleged (October 2011), obviously did not find it necessary to change his place of residence and stayed for months at his home address in his home village until he left the country in April 2012. In fact, it would contradict every life experience that he stayed at his home address despite recurring telephone threats at a resident who is known by name (husband of the complainant's girlfriend) and who lived twelve houses away from his place of residence, although the complainant also stated that he already had experience abroad ( Construction site work in Dubai) and in possession of a passport. His behavior shown in this regard clearly shows that there was actually no need to change his place of residence at any time and, viewed in isolation, his argument would also lack any temporal connection between the alleged event (October 2011) and his actual departure (April 2012).

Considered in an overall view, the recognizing authority would therefore arrive at a result corresponding to the laws of thought and the experiences of life within the framework of the evidence assessment to be carried out by it, in which it would come to the conclusion based on the findings made and the official investigations, in particular on the basis of the complainant's submissions come that the relevant facts alleged by him and concerning the reason for flight would not correspond to the facts. His arguments are vague, not specific and, based on his description of the reason for fleeing, it is not possible to deduce a specific persecution directed against him.

Since the complainant is not threatened with persecution, he is a young adult man with family ties in the country of origin and does not suffer from any life-threatening illnesses that require treatment, the investigating authority assumes that there are no dangers in the country of origin that justify granting subsidiary protection would. With the help of the tug, he was able to finance his departure from India. Due to his age and state of health, it is possible for him, albeit at a lower level, to achieve the necessary income in India at least through simple work in order to create a livelihood. According to the findings made, it was therefore also possible and reasonable for the complainant to obtain the income necessary to finance his livelihood outside his home village if necessary.

Viewed in isolation, the reasonableness of a domestic flight alternative would also be given in accordance with the findings made. It is not evident that he could not secure at least a makeshift livelihood by doing odd jobs. However, the authorities do not ignore the fact that this option is fraught with considerable difficulties in view of the sometimes unsatisfactory economic situation in India, which in total cannot be viewed as an insurmountable hurdle, so that domestic flight alternatives can be reasonably expected.

1.5. With the procedural order dated XXXX, the complainant was officially assigned the XXXX as legal advisor in accordance with § 66 AsylG 2005.

1.6. In the complaint against this decision by letter dated XXXX, received by the Federal Asylum Office, Vienna Branch, on XXXX, the decision was contested. The main complaint was that the authority in question had the duty to ascertain the material facts by means of suitable questions. In the assessment of the evidence, the authority concerned merely made general assertions without initiating an adequate investigation. The reasons for fleeing were only discussed very superficially and one-sidedly, with the questioning being extremely brief and superficial. During his questioning, he had no opportunity to comment on inconsistencies and contradictions. The findings made by the authorities concerned are based on false facts or assumptions, when the complainant was subjected to asylum-related persecution and the Indian state was not functioning in accordance with the rule of law, the police and the authorities would act corrupt and take bribes.

Instead of examining the individual reasons for fleeing and the situation in the complainant's home country, the authorities merely make counter-presumptions with regard to the complainant's submissions, which would not be subject to any objective review. Rather, the authority in question tries to play down the complainant's intention to leave his home country in its arguments. It emerges from this that the allegation mentioned is merely speculation that cannot effectively counter the complainant's escape story. The contested decision contained an inconclusive assessment of the evidence and the investigative procedure of the authority in its entirety was to be regarded as inadequate. As a result, the legal assessment of the facts is wrong.

With regard to the domestic flight alternative, it was stated that these were also linked to the conditions of security and reasonableness. The protection must be granted by the state or by other actors who could offer appropriate protection. The protection must actually be permanent and the refugee must not be placed in a hopeless situation (for example his economic survival must be ensured). Furthermore, the refugee's personal circumstances (family ties, language, health, belonging to a certain ethnic group) should be taken into account. In the case of the complainant, however, this was not the case and it could not be ruled out that his persecutors could find him in another part of his home country. As a result, several excerpts from country reports on the human rights situation, Indian police and detention conditions were cited from an ACCORD request from XXXX.

The requests were made to order an addition to the investigation procedure due to the obvious inadequacy of the procedure in order to explain the reasons for the flight again with the help of a suitable interpreter, to establish that the complainant was a refugee within the meaning of Section 3 AsylG and the Convention on the Legal Status of Refugees and recognition of the status of beneficiary of subsidiary protection according to § 8 AsylG and to determine that the deportation of the to India is inadmissible and that the deportation to India according to § 10 Abs. 1 Z 2 AsylG is inadmissible and his individual situation and his reasons for flight are in his Check home country.

1.7. As a result, a negotiation was carried out on XXXX and essentially took the following course:

"[...]

R: What is your mother tongue?

BF: Punjabi

R to the interpreter: In which language do you translate for the complainant?

D: Punjabi

R asks the complainant whether he understands the interpreter well, this is answered in the affirmative.

R asks the complainant whether he is mentally and physically able to follow today's negotiation or whether there are any obstacles. Now the complainant is asked whether he is healthy or whether he has (illnesses) and / or ailments. These questions are answered by the complainant in such a way that there are no obstacles or chronic illnesses and diseases. The complainant is able to follow the negotiation in full.

BF: I am healthy and I understand everything.

It is explained to the complainant that he has to participate accordingly in the proceedings and that he has to answer the questions truthfully. Otherwise this would have a corresponding effect in the decision of the Federal Administrative Court.The complainant states that he will tell the truth.

R: Do you have any new evidence that you have not yet submitted to the BAA or the police?

BF: No.

R: Are you sticking to the information you provided before the first instance, are you maintaining them and are they true?

BF: I'm sticking to the statements I made. Yes, I told the truth both times.

Opening of the evidence procedure

Regarding the previous procedure:

The parties expressly waive the reading out of the contents of the file (submitted administrative file of the BAA and court file of the Federal Administrative Court), but this is explained by the R in turn and offered for inspection of the files.

The parties waive the right to inspect the files.

R declares these parts of the file to be the subject of the oral hearing and the content of the minutes on which this is based.

........

The complainant has no other means of attestation and otherwise refers to the means of attestation already submitted in the previous proceedings.

R: what's your name?

BF: My name is correct as it is on the cargo.

R: When were you born?

BF: XXXX

R: Where exactly did you live in India before you left your home country? Please enter your addresses chronologically.

BF: I lived in the village of XXXX, India.

R: Did you live at the address you provided in India until you left the country?

BF: Yes, I've always lived there. I grew up there too.

R: Did you leave your home country directly at the home address you provided?

BF: Yes, I left my home address directly from this address and drove to XXXX.

R: What means of transport did you use to leave XXXX?

BF: I left India by plane and flew to Moscow.

R: Did you leave India with your own passport?

BF: Yes, I had my own passport.

R: Did you have any problems with the authorities when you left?

BF: No, there weren't any problems.

R: Did you live alone at the address you provided?

BF: My parents and my siblings lived there.

R: How many siblings do you have?

BF: Two brothers. My parents and my grandmother also live with us.

R: How are your siblings and your parents?

BF: Everyone is fine.

R: How do you know?

BF: I called 4 days ago and had contact with them by phone.

R: What else did you tell you besides that you are fine?

BF: My grandmother is always sick, there is a big heat wave there at the moment.

R: What school or vocational training do you have?

BF: Elementary school and 2 years college.

R: What field did you college for?

BF: It's kind of a college.

R: College for what?

BF: There are a few subjects that you can choose from. Punjabi and English are compulsory subjects.

R: What is the college for?

BF: That is in order to be able to continue studying later.

R: How did you make a living in India?

BF: I lived with my parents and my brother also worked.

R: What do your parents or your brother do?

BF: You are a blacksmith for iron, and so is my father.

R: If I understand you correctly, are both your father and your brother a blacksmith?

BF: Yes, it is.

R: At the BAA on XXXX you said what your father would do, that this was a carpenter and that your brothers would work in the carpenter's shop with your father. Today you say that he is a blacksmith and would work with iron, which is contrary to the job of a carpenter who works with wood. What do you think?

BF: Carpenter and blacksmith are the same in India.

R: How long did you attend school?

BF: I haven't gone to school since 2000.

R: How long did you attend school?

BF: I can't remember exactly, I was 18 years old when I left school. It's been a long time I can't remember

R: At the BAA you said that you attended school from 1991 to 2003, namely elementary school. Today you say that, on the one hand, you can no longer remember when you went to school or when you haven't even been to school since 2000.

BF: It could be like that, but it was a long time ago.

R: How did you make a living in India?

BF: My father supported me. I also helped out with my father sometimes.

R: What were you doing there?

BF: I helped him, I'm not a trained carpenter. I don't know anything about machines.

R: Why did you actually leave India?

BF: I was in love with a girl at the time. She was a married woman. Her husband lived as a guest worker in Singapore. Our workshop was very close to where my girlfriend lived. She called me many times that she would need one or the other. The friend didn't have a husband she could send out shopping. It went on in the time when I was in love with her and she was in love with me. That's how we met each other. A villager revealed this. Her husband called his wife and asked if she had a relationship with me. The man came to our home village by chance. He once threatened to kill me and once attacked me with a knife, injuring my left hand. I still have a scar from it. My parents said my life was in danger and that's why I left India.

R: Have you ever turned to the state authorities, the security authorities, the courts for help on your matter?

BF: Yes, I was with the police, but your husband said he would kill me.

R: At the BAA, when asked on XXXX whether you had ever turned to the state authorities, the security authorities or the courts for help, you said that you did not want to go to the police and that you wanted to sort everything out yourself and live in peace wanted to.

BF: No, I didn't say that.

R: What was the name of the woman you were in love with?

BF: XXXX

R: You said you were in love with the woman. How did you have a relationship with this woman?

BF: We had a normal relationship and we also had sexual intercourse with each other.

R: How did you know the woman?

BF: As I said before, the woman lived in the immediate vicinity of our workshop.

R: When did you start dating the woman?

BF: 2010, it could also be 2011.

R: How long have you been in a relationship with this woman?

BF: About 2 years, it was a long time ago.

R: How is your girlfriend?

BF: I'm out of contact.

R: Why not?

BF: I don't want to call there.

R: why not?

BF: Maybe her husband would find out about it again. He would then possibly cause problems for my family.

R: Who is your girlfriend's husband?

BF: XXXX

R: How long was XXXX in Singapore?

BF: I can't remember that.

R: How often have you seen your girlfriend?

BF: Always different, either once a week, sometimes twice, sometimes three times.

R: Where did you meet your girlfriend?

BF: I met in your apartment.

R: Did you always meet in your apartment?

BF: Yeah, maybe we've been out once or twice, otherwise not.

R: Where were you out there?

BF: Maybe we went out for coffee or tea. I can not remember exactly.

R: Where did you have the tea or coffee?

BF: In a teaspoon.

R: Where, in which place?

BF: In XXXX

R: How far is XXXX from your home village?

BF: approx. XXXX

R: When did your husband return from Singapore?

BF: When he found out about our relationship, he came back within a week.

R: When was that?

BF: Maybe that was the end of 2011 or the beginning of 2012

R: Then what happened after your husband came back?

BF: My girlfriend said to her husband that I would always harass her when she spoke against me.

R: What does "when she spoke against me" mean?

BF: She was afraid of her husband and that's why she testified against me.

R: What do you mean, she testified against you?

BF: She said that I pushed her and that she didn't want anything to do with me.

R: It still doesn't explain my question. What do you mean, she testified against me?

BF: I meant that she said this out of fear that maybe her husband would have kicked her out.

R: What happened after your friend's husband returned from Singapore?

BF: Afterwards he took some friends with him and attacked me on the way to the playground. As a result, I suffered an injury to my left hand.

R: What happened then?

BF: Then I quickly ran away from there and went home.

R: Did you have any problems after this incident?

BF: He threatened me that if he met me he would kill me.

R: How did the threat come about?

BF: Sometimes on the phone, sometimes through someone he sent to us.

R: At the BAA you said that after the incident when you were attacked by the men, there was only a telephone threat. You didn't mention anything about someone coming to you and threatening you. What do you think?

BF: It's the same when someone comes and kills me.

R: How did you react to this threat?

BF: My parents were afraid that he would carry out his threat.

R: Did you contact the police?

BF: We didn't have that much money to go to the police.

R: Did you have any problems with your girlfriend's husband before your girlfriend's husband returned to India?

BF: No, there were no problems.

R: At the BAA you said that the man threatened you over the phone when he was still living in Singapore. Today you say that there was no problem before the man returned to India.

BF: There were only problems when he came back from Singapore.

R: Have you ever tried to reconcile or find a solution or debate with this husband?

BF: No, he didn't want to talk.

R: What was your intention to pacify the whole thing?

BF: After he didn't want to talk about the matter, I decided to leave India.

R: Did you have an intention to pacify the whole thing and how do you think it should have happened?

BF: I thought about it, but there was no way.

R: Wasn't there a way or didn't you think of a way?

BF: It wasn't possible to talk to him.

R: Would you have thought of a possibility?

BF: I couldn't think of anything.

R: At the BAA you said on XXXX that you wanted to settle the whole matter with the villagers. Today you say that you could not think of any way to resolve this matter.

BF: It's been a long time, it was a difficult time for me, I can't remember everything.

R: How much did you pay to leave India?

BF: 950,000 Indian rupees

R: Where did you get so much money from?

BF: My parents didn't have that much money, but I borrowed money from friends or friends helped me.

R: Have you already paid the money back?

BF: In three years I paid half of it back. I don't have a job here, my parents pay for it.

R: Did you contact a lawyer on your matter in India?

BF: The lawyers cost a lot of money in India. If I had paid that much money to a lawyer, I wouldn't be safe in India.

R: Why didn't you live in another city or place in India?

BF: The husband told me that I could be found anywhere in India.

R: Are you convicted in India?

BF: No.

R: Have you ever had problems with Indian authorities?

BF: No.

R: What would you fear if you had to return to India?

BF: I'm scared of XXXX, my girlfriend's husband.

R: How do you make a living in Austria?

BF: I live with some friends. Occasionally I go to work.

R: What are you working on?

BF: Sometimes I deliver pizzas. I started a company, but that doesn't mean I have a job.

R: How much do you earn on average per month?

BF: approx. 500 to 600 euros.

R: What do you pay rent?

BF: I pay 300 euros for my food and my apartment.

R: For which company do you deliver the pizzas?

BF: Nothing is fixed, sometimes there and sometimes there.

R: For which company do you deliver the pizzas?

BF: Sometimes friends call me that they need someone to deliver pizza and then I leave.

R: What's the name of the company?

BF: I don't know the name.

R: Do you speak German? (BF doesn't understand the question)

After translation, the latter answers the question in the negative.

R: Do you understand German? (BF doesn't understand the question)

After translation, the latter answers the question in the negative.

R: Did you attend a German course (BF does not understand the question)

After translation, the latter answers the question in the negative.

R: Have you been convicted in Austria?

BF: I've had parking fines or administrative fines, but nothing else.

R: What administrative penalties?

BF: I had an accident once, mostly administrative fines because I parked without a parking ticket.

R: Did you pay the administrative fines?

BF: Yes, I paid for everything.

R: How many people do you live in a household with?

BF: We are 3 people with me.

R: Who are the other two people?

BF: Compatriots of mine too.

R: are you married?

BF: No.

R: Do you have children?

BF: No.

R: Do you live in a partnership?

BF: No.

R: How do you spend your free time?

BF: I do gymnastics and then I go for a walk in the park.

R: Are you involved in a club, a church, an organization or the like?

BF: No.

R: Do you have a group of friends in Austria?

BF: No.

R: What is your religion?

BF: Sikh

R: Do you suffer from an illness or have you been hospitalized for a serious illness?

BF: No.

The hearing is suspended at 10:45 a.m.

The trial will resume at 11:02 am.

The complainant will be given a summary of the current country findings on India and will be given the opportunity to submit a statement following the back translation.

India country findings

Human rights and human rights organizations:

The constitutional and legal order contain guarantees for basic human rights and freedoms. The implementation of these constitutional goals is not fully guaranteed.

(German Foreign Office, report on the asylum and deportation-relevant situation in the Republic of India, 03.03.2014, p. 4)

The human rights situation in India varies greatly from region to region. While civil and human rights are largely respected by the government, the situation in regions where there is internal conflict, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir and in the northeast, is sometimes very bad. The security forces, but also the non-state armed groups, be they separatist organizations or militias loyal to the government, are accused of massive human rights violations. The military and paramilitary units are charged with kidnapping, torture, rape, arbitrary arrest and extrajudicial executions.

(BICC - Bonn International Center for Conversion (Marc von Boemcken): Information Service - Security, Armaments and Development in Recipient Countries of German Armaments Exports: Country Portrait India, 12.2012)

Punjab

The political situation in Punjab is currently stable. The security situation is far more favorable than it was in the early 1990s. This means that terrorist activities are now very rare, no more common than in other parts of India. The threats that reigned during the Khalistan conflict are no longer noticeable in the everyday life of the population. In recent years there have been only isolated victims of terrorist activities. After the elections in spring 2012, the local party Shiromani Akali Dal won with the BJP in tow.

(Mag.Bruser, general report on the domestic flight alternative, from July 2011, p. 8; Junge Welt, results of Indian regional elections without influence on the government coalition, from 07.03.2012)

Justice:

The courts conduct criminal proceedings with judicial independence. A generally discriminatory criminal prosecution or sentencing practice cannot be determined, but the lower levels in particular are not free from corruption. In November 2011, the Chief Justice called for corrupt judges to actually publish names and facts and to prosecute them. Rule of law guarantees enshrined in the constitution (e.g. the right to a fair trial, Art. 21) are restricted by a number of security laws. These laws were tightened again after the Mumbai terrorist attacks in November 2008; Among other things, the presumption of innocence was suspended for certain criminal offenses.Particularly in unrest areas, the security forces have extensive powers to combat secessionist and terrorist groups, which are often used excessively. The often very long duration of the proceedings is very problematic, especially because the courts are overburdened. The standard duration of criminal proceedings (from the indictment to the judgment) is approximately four years; in some cases, proceedings take up to ten years. Witness protection is also inadequate. As a result, witnesses often do not testify freely in court because they have been bribed or threatened. Since the judges rotate every six months, it is customary to reschedule legally more demanding cases or cases with very complex issues for the successor.

(German Foreign Office, report on the asylum and deportation-relevant situation in the Republic of India, 03.03.2014, p.11)

Security agencies

The police act on the basis of the police laws of the individual states (AA 3/3/2014). The Indian Police Service is not a direct law enforcement or law enforcement agency. Rather, it acts as a training and recruiting agency for police officers in the states. With regard to the federal structures, the police are organized on a decentralized basis in the individual states. The individual units are organized on a decentralized basis, but in view of a national police law, numerous national criminal laws and the central recruiting office for executives described above, they have a number of things in common. In general, the police are entrusted with prosecuting, preventing and combating crime and maintaining public order, while at the same time exercising partial control over the various secret services (BICC 6.2014).

In addition to maintaining external security, the armed forces also have internal tasks, such as fighting against armed insurgents, supporting the police and paramilitary units, and deploying in the event of natural disasters (BICC 6/2014).

The Indian military is subordinate to civil administration and has shown little interest in a political role in the past. The supreme command is incumbent on the President. According to their self-image, the army is the "protector of the nation", but only in a military sense (BICC 6.2014).

The military can operate domestically if this is necessary to maintain internal security. Civilian control of the military apparatus, however, was never questioned. In addition, there are largely paramilitary units subordinate to the Ministry of the Interior, such as the Central Reserve Police Force, the Central Industrial Security Force, which is formed to protect important authorities and facilities, and the Border Security Force ) and the "Indo-Tibetan Border Police" stationed mainly on the Indo-Chinese border. The border special forces ("Special Frontier Force") are subordinate to the office of the Prime Minister, the railway protection forces ("Railway Protection Force") to the Ministry of Railways (AA 03/03/2014).

In addition to structural deficits, a lack of trust in the reliability of the police arises from frequent reports of human rights violations such as torture and extrajudicial killings and threats that were allegedly perpetrated by the police (BICC 12/2013, see also: USDOS 02/27/2014). Abuses by the police are counted as serious human rights violations, which included extrajudicial killings, torture and rape (USDOS 02/27/2014). The police are confronted with understaffing in relation to the size of the population. Citizens are often exposed to special challenges, such as bribery to get the police to report a report (FIR- First Information Report), which is necessary to initiate the investigation of a crime (USDOS 02/27/2014 ).

The so-called border security forces secure the Indian-Pakistani border in Jammu and Kashmir as well as the borders with Bangladesh and Myanmar. They are also used to ensure internal security and to fight insurgents as well as in violent clashes between religious groups. The so-called border special forces are an elite unit that is deployed on sensitive sections of the border with China. Also for the actions of the secret services, the so-called intelligence bureau (domestic secret service) and the research and analysis wing

("Research and Analysis Wing" - foreign secret service), there are legal bases (AA 03/03/2014).

Tribal villagers and civil society activists got caught between Maoists and the police. They were at risk of being arbitrarily arrested, tortured by government forces, blackmailed and killed by Maoists (HRW January 21, 2014 cf. AI 5.2013).

Clashes between armed Maoists and security forces continued to take place in east and central India. Both sides regularly target civilians (AI 5.2013).

However, the Mumbai attacks have led to changes in the law. For example, a National Investigation Agency (NIA) was set up to counter terrorism, modeled on the US FBI. The "Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act" (UAPA) has also been tightened. The changes include, among other things, an expanded definition of terrorism and, in cases related to terrorism, the extension of pre-trial detention without charge from 90 to 180 days and simplified rules for proving the perpetrator of a defendant (which in fact come close to a reversal of the burden of proof) (AA 03/03/2014).

Police rape reports continued. Some rape victims were afraid to come forward and report the crime because of the threat of social stigma and possible retaliation; especially if the perpetrator was a police officer or another officer. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has the mandate to investigate rape cases involving police officers. Pursuant to Section 19 of the Human Rights Act, the NHRC may request information about members of the military and paramilitary forces, but it has no client to investigate cases in which these units are involved (USDOS 02/27/2014).

At the district level (states are divided into districts) there is a "double-checking" principle, with a senior police officer in charge of the district - District Superintendent of Police - reporting to his supervisor within the federal police. At the same time, a district superintendent is subject to the general control of a district magistrate. One problem with the Indian security forces system is that there is no external complaints office at the national level. In a judgment of September 22, 2006, the Supreme Court of India ordered that all states should set up a complaints center for the local police. By 2009, however, only 18 states had obeyed this ruling. Furthermore is

It is problematic that the police are responsible for their own internal disciplinary procedures (BAA February 24, 2010).

The police act on the basis of state police laws. The military can also be active domestically if this is necessary to maintain internal security. Civilian control of the military apparatus, however, was never questioned. In addition, there are largely paramilitary units subordinate to the Ministry of the Interior, such as the Central Reserve Police Force, the Central Industrial Security Force, which was formed to protect important authorities and institutions, and the Border Security Force ) and the "Indo-Tibetan Border Police" stationed mainly on the Indo-Chinese border. The border special forces ("Special Frontier Force") are subordinate to the office of the Prime Minister, the railway protection forces ("Railway Protection Force") to the Ministry of Railways. The so-called border security forces secure the Indian-Pakistani border in Jammu and Kashmir as well as the borders with Bangladesh and Myanmar. They are also used to ensure internal security and to fight insurgents as well as in violent clashes between religious groups. The so-called border special forces are an elite unit that is deployed on sensitive sections of the border with China. There are also legal bases for the actions of the secret services, the so-called intelligence bureau (domestic secret service) and the research and analysis wing ("Research and Analysis Wing"). The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) is used as the legal basis for the deployment of armed forces - especially land forces - in unrest areas and against terrorists. The AFSPA gives the armed forces extensive powers to use lethal force, make arrests without a warrant, and search without a warrant. In their actions, those involved in the armed forces enjoy broad immunity from prosecution. The AFSPA comes into play after state governments declare their states or only parts of them to be "unrest areas" on the basis of the Disturbed Areas Act. The state of Jammu and Kashmir and the northeastern states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura are currently recognized as unrest areas.

The increase in terrorist attacks in Indian cities in recent years (December 2010 in Varanasi, July 2011 Mumbai, September 2011 New Delhi and Agra, April 2013 in Bangalore) and in particular the devastating attacks in Mumbai in November 2008 have put the government under massive pressure to be tough on counter-terrorism. Only a few of the attacks in recent years have been completely cleared up and the reform projects announced in response to these incidents to improve the Indian security architecture have not been implemented consistently. However, the Mumbai attacks have led to changes in the law. For example, a National Investigation Agency (NIA) was set up to counter terrorism, modeled on the US FBI. The "Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act" (UAPA) has also been tightened. The changes include, among other things, an expanded definition of terrorism and, in cases relating to terrorism, the extension of pre-trial detention without charge from 90 to 180 days and simplified rules for proving the culprit of a defendant (which in fact come close to reversing the burden of proof).

(German Foreign Office, report on the asylum and deportation-relevant situation in the Republic of India, 03.03.2014, pp. 7 and 8)

Conditions of detention:

The conditions of detention in the prisons are mostly poor. According to the National Human Rights Commission, the country's average overcrowding is over 38% (with a capacity of 234,462, the actual number of inmates is 324,852 - 2006). The largest prison in South Asia, the Tihar City Prison in New Delhi, is more than 150% overcrowded with around 13,000 prisoners. Plans to reduce overcrowding by building new prisons have not yet been implemented. There are three classes of accommodation, with category A offering certain privileges (single cell, transistor radio, catering by relatives). Most of the prisoners (category C), however, have to be content with sparse living conditions. The rule here is that up to 50 inmates have to share an open-plan cell, no beds are available and blankets are missing in winter. Attention is paid to gender segregation. There is seldom a separation between petty criminals and serious criminals. Young people often do not experience a separate enforcement; 15 year olds are accommodated together with adults. After all, the prisoners are always properly supplied with food and water. Health care is often unsatisfactory. The National Human Rights Commission reports complaints from prisoners (such as harassment, lack of medical care, etc.). Reform proposals by the National Human Rights Commission aim, among other things, at changing the law on prisoners, which dates back to 1894.

(Austrian Embassy, ​​New Delhi, "Asylum Country Report - India", 8.2011, pp. 13 and 14; see: United States Department of State, Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2012, from April 19, 2013, p. 5)

Primary care:

Around a quarter of the population lives below the subsistence level estimated by the United Nations. Unless there are extraordinary natural disasters, however, a sufficient food supply for survival is fundamentally ensured even for the weakest parts of the population. There are no state reception facilities for returnees, social assistance or any other social network. Returnees depend on the support of their own family or friends.

Temporary emergencies can easily be compensated for by feeding the poor in the temple, especially the Sikh temples, which also provide accommodation for smaller services.

(German Foreign Office, Report on the Asylum and Deportation-Relevant Situation in the Republic of India, 03.03.2014, p.

28)

The possibility of creating a livelihood outside of your closer home in India depends, as I regularly say, very much on your individual abilities, knowledge and physical condition and can be significantly increased with the support of relatives, friends or fellow believers.

Even for unqualified but healthy people it will usually be possible to make a living through odd jobs (in the worst case as dishwasher, garbage collector, warehouse worker, rickshaw driver, etc.). However, the income from such work is usually not enough to support a family (larger apartment, medical care, education for the children). (Brüser Christian (regional expert):

General report on domestic flight alternatives, July 31, 2011)

Medical supplies:

Basic health care is in principle granted by the state free of charge. But it is consistently inadequate. Since the demand for services from the state sector is very strong, many are turning to private providers for better or faster treatment. The private health care providers enjoy a better reputation because of the more advanced infrastructure and qualified staff. In all major cities there are medical facilities where survival measures can be carried out. With the restrictions mentioned, this also applies to the public area. A few private hospitals in the largest cities guarantee a standard that is comparable to that of western industrialized countries. In the economically strong Punjab and New Delhi in particular, health care is good in relation to other parts of the country. Almost all common drugs are available on the market. Medicines can be imported from abroad. India itself is the world's largest manufacturer of generic drugs, with drugs costing a fraction of the prices in Europe.

(German Foreign Office, report on the asylum and deportation-relevant situation in the Republic of India, 03.03.2014, p.

28)

Domestic escape alternatives / return:

Full freedom of movement is guaranteed. The majority of citizens do not have any IDs. Anyone who feels persecuted can settle in another part of the country. Even with criminal prosecution, it is usually possible to live undisturbed in rural areas in other parts of India without the person having to hide their identity. In the big cities, however, the police are better staffed and better equipped, so the possibility of being tracked down is greater there. In New Delhi, after several years of peaceful residence, separatists from the Punjab were tracked down and arrested. Well-known personalities ("high profile" people) cannot avoid persecution by moving to another part of the country, but less well-known people ("low profile" people) can.

(Austrian Embassy, ​​New Delhi, "Asylum Country Report - India", 8.2011, p. 25)

In September 2010 a start was made on issuing individual identity numbers to all 1.2 billion inhabitants. The identity numbers should make it possible for poor people to open bank accounts or to receive state social benefits. Registration is voluntary. It is currently not possible to assess which data can be used to track wanted persons. Around 300 million cards had been issued by January 2013. The goal is to cover 600 million, i.e. around half of India's population, by 2014. To get the card, fingerprints, iris scan and personal data are recorded.

(APA, "Every citizen should receive a personal number", from 09/30/2010; Mag. Brüser, supplement to the report from July 2011, from February 2012; e-mail information, ÖB-New Delhi, from 02/07/2013)

There is no registration law in India and therefore no central registration office.

(AustrianBMEIA, Reporting System - India, from 02.26.2014)

In the opinion of the German Foreign Office, a person is free to stay in another city when they return. Since there is no central reporting / registration or passport system in India, it is not possible for a police officer in Punjab to use registers or central files to determine the whereabouts of a person in an unknown location.

(German Foreign Office, information to the Administrative Court Dresden, from May 3, 2013)

According to the UK Home Office, Indian nationals can voluntarily return to any region of India at any time when they voluntarily leave the country (UK), emigrate, or voluntarily return to India. (United Kingdom, Home Office, Oerational Guidance Note - India, from May 2013, p. 35)

The government has largely state territorial power; however, the state monopoly on the use of force is increasingly being eroded, especially by the "Naxalites". Full freedom of movement within the country is guaranteed. There is no state reporting or registration system, so a large part of the population does not have an identity card. This favors the establishment in another part of the country in case of persecution. Even with criminal prosecution, it is not uncommon for a person to be able to live undisturbed in rural districts in other parts of the country without the person having to hide their identity. With the planned data network system for the central security authorities and the Union states, Crime and Criminal Tracking Network System (CCTNS), such an exchange of information should be guaranteed at all levels in the future. A connection of 15,000 police stations and 6,000 higher-level agencies was planned for 2012. However, the implementation of the ambitious project is far behind the original schedule.

(German Foreign Office, report on the asylum and deportation-relevant situation in the Republic of India, 03.03.2014, p.

22)

Sikhs have the opportunity to settle in other parts of the country, Sikh communities are scattered throughout the country. Sikhs can practice their religion in any part of the country without restriction.

(Austrian Embassy, ​​New Delhi, "Asylum Country Report - India", 8.2011, p. 28)

Sikhs are considered a mobile and entrepreneurial community. All over India, Sikhs can be found in various professions (drivers, mechanics, owners of restaurants, hotels or travel agencies etc.) and in the public service and in the army. Sikhs in need are provided with food and shelter at least in the Sikh temples (Gurudwara) that are widespread throughout India.

Sikhs from the Punjab could possibly easily settle in states such as Rajasthan, Haryana or Uttar Pradesh, as well as in the metropolises of Delhi or Bombay. Although the security situation is normal in other parts of India, there may be greater difficulties in getting used to the language. In Calcutta, for example, Bengali is the lingua franca, and Tamil in Madras.

(Mag.Bruser, General Report on the Domestic Flight Alternative, from July 2011, p. 15)

In the opinion of the German Foreign Office, a person is free to stay in another city when they return. Since there is no central reporting / registration or passport system in India, it is not possible for a police officer in Punjab to use registers or central files to determine the whereabouts of a person in an unknown location.

(German Foreign Office, information to the Administrative Court Dresden, from May 3, 2013)

An asylum application does not lead to any adverse consequences for deported Indian nationals. In recent years, Indian asylum seekers who have been deported to their home country have generally - apart from an intensive examination of the (replacement) travel documents and a questioning by the security authorities - not to fear any problems on the part of the state. However, people wanted by the police must expect arrest and surrender to the security authorities upon entry. No information is available on government or other reception facilities for returning unaccompanied minors.

(German Foreign Office, report on the asylum and deportation-relevant situation in the Republic of India, 03.03.2014, p.

28)

R: Would you like to comment on this?

BF: It's all right.

R asks the BF whether he understood the interpreter well; this is answered in the affirmative.

[...]"

II. The Federal Administrative Court has considered:

1. Findings:

1.1. About the complainant:

The complainant is a national of India from the state of Punjab and is a member of the Sikh religious community. Due to the lack of documents, his identity has not been established. The mother tongue is Punjabi. He also speaks a little Hindi. In his country of origin he completed elementary school and a two-year college, which entitles him to continue studying in India. The complainant's father owns a joinery in which the complainant supported his father in this activity.

The complainant is healthy and able to work. The complainant is single. His parents, brothers and grandmother live in India.

The complainant has no family members or relatives living in Austria and has no other noteworthy social ties in Austria. The complainant is criminally innocent.

It could not be ascertained that the complainant had certain knowledge of German and, if necessary, had already attended or successfully completed a German course.

No other relevant indications could be found for the assumption of sufficient integration of the complainant in Austria from a linguistic, professional or social point of view.

The applicant left his country of origin, India, from New Dheli in April 2012, using his own passport, by plane and traveled to Austria via countries unknown to him. The complainant finally entered the Austrian federal territory unlawfully supported by a smuggler, where he submitted an application for international protection on XXXX.

The complainant's submissions on the reasons for leaving the country of origin and on a possible risk in the event of return to the country of origin is not credible and is therefore not used as a basis for this decision as a relevant issue.

It is established that the complainant has neither a criminal record nor was ever imprisoned in his country of origin and that he had no problems with the authorities of his country of origin, either because of his religion or ethnic group, or any other problem.

A specific reason for leaving the country of origin could not be determined. It could also not be ascertained that the complainant is exposed to a significant risk of persecution in the event of his return to his country of origin.

1.2. On the situation in the country of origin:

With regard to the situation in India, based on the sources available during the negotiation, the preliminary conclusions relevant to the decision made there are made the final subject of this finding.

2. Evidence assessment:

2.1. In the absence of a safe national identity document or any other means of certification, the identity of the complainant is not certain. His nationality and origin, on the other hand, appear credible based on his knowledge of the language and locality.

2.2. As can already be seen from the initial questioning and the further interrogation in the proceedings before the authorities concerned, the complainant had sufficient time and opportunity to fully explain his reasons for fleeing and to present any evidence. In addition, the complainant was asked several times by the authority concerned to provide comprehensive and detailed information on the reasons for fleeing and to present any evidence, as well as being instructed about the consequences of incorrect information.

It should be noted that the initial interview and the further interrogation by the authority in question took place at a relatively short time interval, so that, based on general life experience, it can be assumed that the complaining party must in principle be in a position to provide comprehensive, content-related information the specific circumstances and the reason for leaving the country of origin, especially since a person who has left their country of origin out of fear of persecution, especially in their first interview after a specific questioning about fleeing, will hardly miss the opportunity offered to them - the circumstances and to explain the reasons for their flight in a comprehensive and consistent manner in order to be able to obtain the requested protection from persecution as quickly as possible. It also corresponds to the general life experience that a rational person who claims to have fled his place of origin for fear of persecution has significant events in connection with his escape that are imprinted in the consciousness of that person, even after a long period of time can still provide sufficient concrete, consistent and comprehensible information.

2.3. The statements of the asylum seeker are undoubtedly the core of the asylum procedure. In the view of the administrative court, it is up to the asylum seeker to make appropriate factual assertions that support his application and to make them credible.

In principle, the authority can only recognize a situation as credible if the asylum seeker provides essentially the same information during the procedure before the various instances, if this information appears probable and therefore plausible, and if information provided very late does not lead to the conclusion that it is should only serve to obtain asylum, but not correspond to reality. In general, reasons for fleeing could not be regarded as credible if the asylum seeker presents the facts which, in his opinion, constitute asylum in the course of the procedure differently or even contradictingly, if his statements are incompatible with the course of events and therefore appear improbable, or if he provides relevant facts raises this very late in the course of the asylum procedure (VwGH 06.03.1996, Zl. 95/20/0650).

On the basis of the oral hearing and the overall view of the complainant's information given above, the BVwG assumes that the complainant, despite the numerous opportunities, was unable to face a risk of persecution with a significant degree of probability in the event of his return to his country of origin to make believable. As a result, it was not possible to determine whether persecution was specifically directed against the applicant (asylum-related), nor were there any other indications in the proceedings that would have made a possible persecution in the country of origin appear likely.

Thus, at the core of the complainant's description of the complainant's allegation of escape, contradictions arise when, as the Federal Asylum Office rightly stated in its reasoning, in the minutes recorded with him on XXXX before the Federal Asylum Office, the express question was initially whether he was ever in his home country Had problems with the authorities or courts, denied and in the course of the further interrogation, in contrast, stated that he had been taken away by the police on the basis of a complaint from the husband of his girlfriend and that he was only released again after the intervention of all villagers. However, this again contradicts his statements at the hearing before the BVwG, when, after repeatedly questioning the events after the return of the girlfriend's husband, he left this completely unmentioned and limited himself to threats from him and his followers.

In this context, however, there are also inconsistencies when he stated in the minutes recorded with the complainant before the Federal Asylum Office that the friend's husband had instructed other people to beat him and stab him on the left wrist with a knife, while at the hearing before the BVwG he described the circumstance as if the applicant's girlfriend's husband had been directly involved in this bodily harm. It should also be mentioned that after this incident before the Federal Asylum Office, the complainant limited himself to subsequent threatening phone calls from the complainant's spouse, while at the hearing he tried to increase his escape arguments to the effect that he would also have been visited by people that would have been sent home. In response to the accusation that the complainant had said to the Federal Asylum Office that after the incident, when he was attacked by the men, there were only telephone threats and that someone had come to the complainant's family and threatened them, nothing mentioned, the latter merely stated, without clearing up the contradiction, "that it would be the same for someone to come and kill him".

However, inconsistencies also arise with regard to the point in time at which the threats on the part of the complainant's husband's girlfriend began when he stated that he had already received threatening phone calls to the Federal Asylum Office while his girlfriend's husband was still in Singapore. In the hearing before the BVwG, however, this circumstance was denied and, in response to these contradicting statements, the latter stated that there were only problems when the husband returned from Singapore.

In addition, the reasons why the complainant did not subsequently contact the police are inconclusive when he stated in front of the Federal Asylum Office that he had kept his distance from the help of the state authorities and did not go to the police because he wanted to clear up everything in the village and settle it in peace, while at the hearing before the BVwG he stated that he had not turned to the police as a reason that he had not had enough money to go to the police. In this context, it should be mentioned that the complainant, after extensive questioning in the hearing before the BVwG, which measures he had taken to rectify the situation, did not want to have anything mentioned to settle the matter himself. In response to a corresponding reproach, the complainant rather stated that the events had been a long time ago and that it would have been a difficult time for him, of which he could not remember all things. However, this can only be regarded as a protective assertion, as the complainant was not even able to provide consistent information in the most personal area, for example when he entered into a relationship with his girlfriend in front of the Federal Asylum Office on XXXX about three years ago, i.e. in the year XXXX while in the negotiation before the BVwG he limited this point in time to the year XXXX or the year XXXX. At the hearing, the complainant was also no longer able to state how long the friend's husband had been in Singapore, while he stated in front of the Federal Asylum Office that he had been there for eight years and came to visit once a year would.

In addition, the assertion made that the complainant would not have been given sufficient time to submit his statements cannot be accepted as the complainant himself stated in the minutes recorded with him on XXXX that he did not want to state anything more about his escape allegations . As a result, the complainant in the hearing before the BVwG was neither able to clear up the contradictions held against him nor to draw a more detailed and clear picture of what he claimed to have happened. Rather, the complainant gives the BVwG the impression that he did not report on an event that he actually experienced himself. Taking into account his school education, which entitles him to begin university studies, the adult complainant can be expected to provide a more precise or, at the core of the escape submission, a consistent description of incidents.

2.4. Even if one were to follow the complainant's statements about his individual reasons for fleeing, it ultimately emerges that he has an alternative domestic escape or protection alternative outside of his alleged place of residence in India. That this is fundamentally possible in India can be seen from the country findings presented above. In India, the complainant has the opportunity to avoid the local threats he alleges from moving to other parts of the country. The complainant was unable to counter the possibility offered by the Federal Asylum Office to settle in another part of the country with conclusive arguments.

It is clear from the sources of knowledge introduced in the process that full freedom of movement is guaranteed in India. The sources paint a clear picture in this regard, according to which, in principle, locally limited conflicts orActs of persecution can be evaded by moving to another part of the country. There is no government reporting or registration system for Indian citizens. The majority of citizens do not have any IDs. The Indian Constitution guarantees Indian nationals the right to freedom of movement in the national territory and the right to settle and reside in any part of the country. Even in the case of criminal prosecution, it is usually possible for them to live undisturbed in rural districts in other parts of India without this person having to hide their identity.

In addition, if the complainant feels persecuted, the country reports indicate that he can settle in another part of India. As above under 1.1. stated, the complainant is a young, healthy man who can be expected to do so. The complainant has completed a school education which entitles him to study at an Indian university and speaks one national language as his mother tongue. In addition, the complainant has relevant work experience when he helped his father in the company's own carpentry shop and it can therefore be assumed that he will be able to create a sufficient livelihood everywhere in India, at least with occasional work. In this specific case, too, there is therefore the possibility of moving to another part of the country, in particular because the acts of persecution mentioned by the complainant are limited to a regional area at best. Neither in the course of his questioning before the Federal Asylum Office nor in the hearing before the BVwG could the complainant give any plausible reason why he in particular should not be safe from persecution in another part of India. It is not clear - also in view of the size and population density of India - how one should find the complainant in India.

In summary, the complainant has in any case not succeeded in making a persecution in the entire national territory of India credible, because he could at least settle outside of his closer home even if the reasons he had put forward for fleeing were true, and an alternative domestic escape and protection alternative was therefore open to him.

2.5. The determination of the illegal entry is based on his information and the failure to present travel documents. The findings about the complainant's living situation in Austria and his family members in the country of origin are based on the comprehensible information provided by the complainant in the proceedings and the statements made in the hearing before the BVwG.

2.6. His criminal integrity results from the inspection of the criminal record.

3. Legal assessment:

The procedure of the administrative courts with the exception of the Federal Finance Court is regulated by the VwGVG, Federal Law Gazette I 2013/33 in the version of Federal Law Gazette I 2013/122 (§ 1 leg.cit.). Pursuant to Section 58 (2) VwGVG, conflicting provisions that were already announced at the time this federal law came into force remain in force.

According to § 17 VwGVG, unless otherwise provided in this federal act, the provisions of the AVG apply to the procedure for complaints pursuant to Art. 130 Para. 1 B-VG, with the exception of §§ 1 to 5 and Part IV, the provisions of the Federal Tax Code - BAO, Federal Law Gazette No. 194/1961, the Agricultural Procedure Act - AgrVG, Federal Law Gazette No. 173/1950, and the Service Law Procedure Act 1984 - DVG, Federal Law Gazette No. 29/1984, and otherwise those procedural provisions in federal or state laws that the authority has applied or should have applied in the proceedings preceding the proceedings before the administrative court.

According to § 6 BVwGG, the Federal Administrative Court decides by single judges, unless the decision by senates is provided for in federal or state laws. Such a regulation is not made in the relevant standards (VwGVG, BFA-VG, AsylG) and therefore individual judges are responsible.

On part of the verdict A)

Regarding the appeal against point I. of the contested decision:

3.1.1. Pursuant to Section 3 (1) AsylG 2005, an alien who has submitted an application for international protection in Austria, unless this application has already been rejected in accordance with Sections 4, 4a or 5, is granted the status of person entitled to asylum if it is credible that he is threatened with persecution in the country of origin within the meaning of Art. 1 Section A Z. 2 Geneva Refugee Convention (GFK). According to Section 3 (3) AsylG 2005, the asylum application with regard to the granting of the status of asylum seeker is to be rejected if the alien has an option to flee within the country (Section 11 AsylG 2005) or if he has set a reason for exclusion from asylum (Section 6 AsylG 2005).

Refugee within the meaning of Art. 1 Section A Z. 2 GFK (in the version of Art. 1 Paragraph 2 of the Protocol on the Legal Status of Refugees, Federal Law Gazette 78/1974) - whose provisions in accordance with Section 74 AsylG 2005 remain unaffected - is whoever is “from” well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a certain social group or political conviction, is located outside his home country and is unable or unwilling to protect himself with regard to this fear of this country; or who is stateless, is outside the country of his habitual residence and is unable or unwilling to return to this country in view of this fear. "

The central aspect of this concept of refugee in the GRC is the well-founded fear of persecution. A fear can only be well founded if it is objectively understandable in the light of the asylum seeker's special situation and taking into account the circumstances in the persecuting state (see VwGH December 22, 1999, 99/01/0334; December 21, 2000, 2000/01/0131 ; 01/25/2001, 2001/20/0011). It does not depend on whether a certain person is actually afraid in a specific situation, but whether a person gifted with reason would be afraid in this situation (for reasons of convention) (cf. VwGH December 19, 2007, 2006/20/0771).