legal and social conditions for asylum seekers and refugees in ...

Manifestly unfounded applications
According to Section 6 of the Asylum Law, applications which have not been declared
inadmissible may be dismissed as being manifestly unfounded if they clearly lack any substance.
This is the case if, in the absence of any other indication of a risk of persecution in the country of
origin:
– it cannot clearly be concluded from the applicant’s allegations that he/she is in danger of being
persecuted in his/her country of origin; or
– on the basis of the applicant’s allegations, the claimed risk of persecution in his/her country of
origin is clearly not attributable to the reasons set forth in Article 1A(2) of the Geneva
Convention; or
– his/her allegations clearly do not correspond to reality; or
– despite having been requested to do so, he/she does not co-operate in the establishment of
the material facts of the case; or
– owing to the general political circumstances, legal system and application of the law in the
country of origin, there can generally be no well-founded fear of persecution for the reasons
set forth in Article 1A(2) of the Geneva Convention.
Airport procedure
Airport applicants may be held at the airport’s transit zone until the Federal Asylum Office has
rendered its decision under the admissibility/manifestly unfounded procedure. Such a decision
has to be made within five days.
According to Section 39(3) of the Asylum Law, no application may be dismissed on “safe third
country” grounds or because it is manifestly unfounded without the consent of UNHCR.
Accordingly, the UNHCR Office in Austria is notified of all applications submitted at the airport
and may visit and interview the applicants in the transit zone if necessary. In practice, interviews
by UNHCR representatives are rare, and UNHCR’s decisions are usually made on the basis of
the written file. UNHCR’s consent is not required when the rejection is made according to the
provisions of the Dublin Convention.
Appeal procedure
According to Section 32 of the Asylum Law, the decisions of the Federal Asylum Office by which
an application is rejected as being inadmissible – on “safe third country” grounds or based on the
Dublin Convention – or manifestly unfounded can be appealed to the Independent Federal
Asylum Review Board.
Following a decision of the Austrian Constitutional Supreme Court (“Verfassungsgerichtshof”) in
1998, the time limits to lodge the appeal and to render the decision – initially two and four days –
were extended to ten days in both cases, from 1 January 1999. Nevertheless, if necessary in
order establish the material facts of the case, the Asylum Review Board may extend the time limit
and make its decision after a further ten days. In practice, however, the procedure before the
Asylum Review Board often requires a longer period of time.
An appeal to the Asylum Review Board has suspensive effect, though only once the ten-day
period given to lodge the appeal has expired. As a result, a removal or deportation order may still
be enforced during these ten days notwithstanding the alien’s appeal to the Board. In such cases,
it is possible to file a separate appeal against the deportation measure based on Section 8 of the
Aliens Law (non-refoulement provision).
13
Austria