Federal Office for Migration and Refugees Federal Office for Migration and Refugees Location: 24539 Neumünster Date: 29/05/2013 Est-Z. 5556608-442 Please specify unbedlingt REPLY In the asylum procedure / the ONISHI, Hidenobu born on 25.07.1975 in Nishiwaki / Japan Resident of: OT Viöl Op de Geest 45 25889 Uelvesbüll represented by: The following decision was made: 1 The application for recognition as a person entitled to asylum is rejected as manifestly unfounded. 2 The conditions for the granting of refugee status are apparently not available. 3 Prohibitions on deportation according to § 60 paragraph 2 to 7 of the Residence Act are not available. 4 The applicant Creator is asked to leave the Federal Republic of Germany within one week of notification of this decision. If the applicant is unable to meet the deadline for leaving, he is deported to Japan. The applicant may also be deported to another country to which he is entitled to travel or is subject to its readmission. Reason: The applicant, Japanese national, entered on 23/06/2012 at an air route into the Federal Republic of Germany on 04.07.2012 and requested recognition as a person entitled to asylum. In support of the asylum application of the foreigners were in his personal hearing on 16.07.2012 at essentially that he had flown from Tokyo to Frankfurt on 23.06.2012. Japan had left him because he would be suppressed by the Japanese government. He had worked at the company Hitachi. There have been data breaches. This he had also notified the company management. However, we have answered him that no violations of the law would be. Early February 2012, his supervisor had held a meeting in which he, the operating physician and a staff officer were present. At this meeting it was recommended by the operating physician visit to the doctor, because he allegedly was manic depressive. He then also visited the doctor. This had advised him to take leave. He then consulted a third doctor. This told him that he was not manic depressive. Further, this doctor had told him that the company doctors are paid by the companies and often act in the interests of the company. He then filed a complaint with the public prosecutor in Tokyo. The ad was directed against his supervisor Mr. Yokisuka. A second display was directed against the entire board from Hitachi. The ads were not accepted. After the second advertisement was unsuccessful, he had an attorney. This was recommended to him a private law action to perform. He then turned to the media, initially in four national newspapers. However, these were not interested. End of March 2012, he was flown to New York. He thought that maybe the New York Times would be interested in it. When this attempt led to no result, he turned to a weekly magazine. But this attempt also was negative. He also wrote a lot on the internet. But there was no reaction, if no interest. On 13.04.2012 he had contacted the office "Privacy Mark". This office deals with privacy. He did not receive a response. This was the following, according to the report of the company, we see that there is no infringement. Also, the Ministry of Economy he turned himself. This was done three times. The answer was always the same, currently is researched. On 22.06.2012 he received his termination. Against the dismissal he had not complained, because this would have to be in Japan. However, if the media would not be interested in his case, he would lose. However, if he apply for asylum in Germany and the Japanese media would be interested in it, he would have to win a change, otherwise no one would notice that. This is also a reason why he had applied for asylum in Germany. It upsets me that there are no reactions. Upon returning to Japan, he was afraid that he would put up for Fandung. Until now, the Japanese government had ignored his person. When he went back something bad could still happen. Further terms of the facts is made to the documents on file. To the asylum application of foreigners sought pursuant to § 13 para 2 Asylum Procedure Act (the Asylum Procedure Act), both the determination of refugee status in accordance with § 60 Section 1 of the Residence Act (Residence), as well as the recognition of entitlement to asylum under Article 16a, Section 1 of the Basic Law (GG) because the application was not limited in this respect. 1 The application for recognition as a person entitled to asylum under Article 16 paragraph 1 GG rejected as manifestly unfounded. In accordance with § 30 Section 1 of the Asylum Procedure Act, an asylum application is rejected as manifestly unfounded if the conditions for recognition as a person entitled to asylum and the requirements of § 60 para 1 of the Residence obviously not met. The requirements for recognition as a person entitled to asylum as well as the requirements of § 60 para 1 of the Residence are obviously not present when after full investigation of the facts may be relevant to the time of the decision on the correctness of the findings of fact reasonably no reasonable doubt and to a such facts to generally accepted legal opinion dismissing the petition outright imposes (Federal Constitutional Court, decision of 25.02.1981, vol 56, and from 02.05.1984, vol 67,43). The conditions for a rejection according as manifestly unfounded. Asylum Procedure Act § 30 paragraph 3 are not available. According to Article 16 a, paragraph 1 GG politically persecuted enjoy the right of asylum. Political persecution within the meaning of Article 16 a, paragraph 1 GG is basically only outgoing or at least attributable to him by the state prosecution. A Tracing is a political when they deliberately rights violations inflicts on individuals, building on its political persuasion, his basic religious decision or manipulable for him features that characterize its otherness that exclude him their intensity after from the overall peaceful order of the state (Basic Constitutional Court, decision of 10.07.1989, vol 80, 315). A reasoned fruit from political persecution in their home country is to be affirmed if the asylum seeker a reasonable appraisal of all the circumstances of his case political persecution with considerable probability, threatening, so that is not expected of him to remain in the home country or to return there (see Federal Administrative , Urteilie, 29.11.1977, BVerwGE 55, 82, from 17.01.1989, eZar 201 No. 19, and from 30.10.1990, BVerwGE 87, 52). Who left the country not prosecuted, has only a claim for asylum if it due to a significant Nachfluchttatbestandes political persecution threatened with substantial probability (fundamentally Federal Administrative Court, judgment of 15.03.1988, BVerwGE 79, 143). In a departure from previous persecution or imminent persecution of asylum law protection of Article 16a, Section 1 of the Basic Law can only be denied if a repeat with reasonable certainty can be excluded (see Federal Constitutional Court, decision of 02.07.1980, vol 54, 341). For proof of objective threat level is sufficient, as far relied on to support the application for asylum events outside of the host country, because of the typical proof of proper emergency procedures in the asylum principle the mere substantiation of these processes (Federal Administrative Court, judgment of 29.11.1977, BVerwGE 55.82). These conditions are clearly not met in this case. Out to be true under the claim of the applicant is no evidence that he or she is well-founded fruit of persecution outside his country of origin or be reckoned with political persecution upon return result. In the claim of the applicant is obviously private law disputes, which he had had with his employer. Of a political persecution can be no question. The applicant had all the facilities and also seeks to enforce its legal opinion. That he had had no success with it, does not establish an asylum claim. As he himself pointed out, he tried to awaken in the way of the application for asylum, the attention of the Japanese media to arrive, possibly by way of an action or to the desired success. While it may be true that the applicant has been suspended due to its critical behavior in the workplace discrimination. In considering all foreseeable circumstances, however, no sufficient grounds to suggest that such impairments for a return of the applicant would reach in his country of origin in the foreseeable future on the type and intensity of an asylum law considerable extent (see Federal Administrative Court, judgment wom 24.03.1987, Az 9 C 321.85). 2 There is obviously no claim to refugee status. Prerequisite for the determination of refugee status is acc. § 60 para 1 of the Residence first examining whether there is a political persecution. To this extent, the provisions of § 60 para 1 of the Residence of the conditions for recognition under Article 16a, Section 1 of the Basic Law. The scope of § 60 para 1 of the Residence is however more broadly. Thus, the conditions for the granting of refugee status can also be satisfied if an asylum claim under Article 16 a, paragraph 1 GG despite the threat of political persecution - for example due to entry via a safe third country (§ 26 a, paragraph 1, sentence 1 and 2 Asylum Procedure Act) or other security from persecution (§ 27Abs AsylVfG 1) -. eliminated. In addition, the system of persecution goes beyond by "non-state actors" (§ 60 para 1 sentence Residence 4c) on the scope of Article 16 of the Basic Law, which requires at least an indirect governmental or quasi-governmental persecution. As a further condition to the applicant must 1 Residence threaten to return to his country of origin with a substantial probability of persecution within the meaning of § 60 para. This benefit vorverfolgter applicant Article 4, Section 4 of Directive 2004/83/EC (QualfRL) apply (§ 60 Section 1 Sentence 5 Residence), which - unlike in the context of the examination of Article 16 a, paragraph 1 GG applicable standard of reasonable safety - following the applicant establishes that presumption. Has the applicant ever suffered political persecution, this is considered as a serious indication that his fear of persecution is well-founded. Refugee protection can only be denied to him afterwards, when valid arguments against a further prosecution speak (cf. Federal Administrative Court, judgment of 27/04/2010, BVerwGE 136.377). According to § 60 para 1 of the Residence may not be deported to a country, a foreigner in which his life or freedom is threatened because of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. A prosecution may acc. § 60 Section 1 Sentence 4 of the Residence out by the State, parties or organizations controlling the State or a substantial part of the territory (state-like actors), or by non-State actors, if state or state-like actors, including international organizations unable or are unwilling to provide protection against the threat of persecution nationwide to offer. This applies regardless of whether the country in a state ruling power is present or not. These conditions are clearly not met in this case. Regarding the finding that the requirements of § 60 para 1 of the Residence obviously not available, refer to the information under para. 1 of the decision made. 3 Prohibition of removal pursuant to § 60, paragraphs 2 to 7 of the Residence are also not available. In the examination of prohibitions on deportation under § 60 para 2 to 7 are initially Residence § 60 paragraph 2,3 and 7 set to check the Residence with regard to the country of origin of the applicant. These standards form the implementation of the provisions of Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 (QualfRL) for a stand-alone subsidiary protection, primarily of the proceeding to be tested (vgl.BVerwG, judgment of 24.06.2008 - 10 C 43.07, etc.). They are referred to as "European legal prohibitions on deportation" below. A foreigner may in accordance with § 60 para 2 of the Residence not be deported to his country of origin if it threatens there to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This filt pursuant to § 60 para 11 Residence i.V.m. Article 6 of Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 (QualfRL), even if the risk of non-state actors and assumes no sufficient government or equivalent protection is available. In addition, pursuant to § 60 para 11 Residence i.V.m. Article 4, Section 4 QualfRL to distinguish whether the alien was already exposed to the risk in the country of origin or corresponding maltreatment before it stood immediately or whether he left the country without such a threat. In this regard, nothing has been put forward by the applicant. He must according to § 60 paragraph 3 of the Residence not be deported to a country if it in that State the death penalty. Of a deportation according to § 60 paragraph 7, sentence 2 of the Residence also foreseen when the applicant as a civilian threaten substantial individual danger to life or limb under an existing in his country of origin international or internal armed conflict. Such a conflict does not exist in this case. After denial of deportation under European law bans the requirements of § 60 paragraph 5 and paragraph 7 are set to consider 1 Residence by national law. These also are not available. Deportation is inadmissible pursuant to § 60 para 5 of the Residence where this from from the application of the Convention 04 November 1950 for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) results. Protection from deportation under § 60 paragraph 5 of the Residence comes after the Court of Federal Administrative Court (to the extent applicable: judgment of 15.04.1997, BVerwGE 104, 265) only considered if the risks circumscribed by the state or a state-like organization threaten or are attributable to the State . Furthermore, should a deportation according to § 60 paragraph 7, sentence 1 of the Residence will be waived if the foreigner risk of a significant individual and specific danger to the life, limb or liberty. In this regard, nothing has been put forward by the applicant and is not visible. 4 The threat of deportation according to § 34 Section 1 of the Asylum Procedure Act in connection with To adopt § 59 Residence Act, the alien is neither well recognized as entitled to asylum still holds a residence permit. The departure of one week results from § 36 para 1 Asylum Procedure Act. 5 The attached right to appeal is part of this decision. In order Werner ドイツ亡命申請却下の英語自動翻訳資料 https://docs.google/document/d/16XFHlMATP3GsulCNcHzy1-MQhj9eQQLEEWR2ai7mE2o/edit?usp=sharing
Posted on: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 20:51:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015