30/04/2024, 07:02 EUAA - View Case Law

Admin

Home About Latest Digest Relevant Publications Search Submit

Updates Sources Database New Case

Home / A and B v Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs of the Republic of Latvia
A and B v Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs of the Republic of Latvia

We use cookies on Case law's website to support technical Ok, I've read it
features that enhance your user experience.
For more information please consult our Cookie Policy .

https://caselaw.euaa.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=3614 1/4
30/04/2024, 07:02 EUAA - View Case Law

13/06/2023
LV: The District Administrative Court upheld the appeal of a
Russian national with Ukrainian roots who openly criticised
the Russian authorities but rejected the appeal of her
husband since he had not made his political opinions known
in public.

Show more info

Abstract  Country of Decision

The applicants, A and B, are a husband and wife from Russia who Latvia
applied to the State Border Guard for international protection on 10
May 2022. The applicants requested protection in Latvia because of  Court Name
their actively expressed criticism of the Russian state's policy and LV: District
participation in protests against its authority over the last ten years. Administrative Court
In the context of the war in Ukraine, applicant A has Ukrainian roots [Administratīvā rajona
and has become acquainted with many Ukrainians on social network tiesa]
sites such as Facebook.
# Case Number
No A42-01065-23/12
The applications for international protection were rejected by the
Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs. The office found that the  Date of Decision
applicants’ explanations were generally credible and did not contain 13/06/2023
any contradictions. However, it was noted that their departure from
Russia did not happen suddenly; rather, it was planned and Country of Origin
organised, as evidenced by the fact that after visiting a friend in Latvia Russia
in 2014, they decided they wanted to move from Russia and had
We use cookies onsteps
Caseto law's Keywords
taken specific do so,website to support
such as sending theirtechnical
daughter to live in
features that enhance your user experience.
Latvia and purchasing an apartment in Riga in 2015. Country of Origin
For more information please consult our Cookie Policy .
Information
The Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs acknowledged that the
https://caselaw.euaa.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=3614 2/4
30/04/2024, 07:02 EUAA - View Case Law
The Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs acknowledged that the
explanation provided by the applicants matched the country-of-origin EUAA COI Reports
information, which showed that the Russian government repressed
those who oppose it, including through administrative and criminal Family Reunification
prosecutions, and including those who oppose Russia’s aggression in
Political opinion
Ukraine. The applicants, however, had not run for office, joined a
political party or movement, or taken part in public debates. In
addition, they did not work in journalism, human rights, or the media Source
where they may have publicly voiced their political views and drawn Supreme Court Jurispru
attention to themselves from the Russian government. dence Database

The applicants filed an appeal before the District Administrative Court

which upheld the appeal of applicant A granting refugee protection
but rejected the appeal of applicant B in its entirety. The court
observed that applicant A strongly associated with the Ukrainian
people since her father was from Ukraine and communicated her
political opinions in a number of contexts, including at work and on
social media. Additionally, applicant A had used a pseudonym to post
political content on Facebook and Instagram. However, the court was
unable to prove that applicant B had publicly communicated his
political views, which would have justified his fear of political
persecution in Russia.

In addition, the court noted, that, since applicant A is granted refugee

protection in accordance with Article 54(1) and (3) of the Law on
Asylum, she has the right to family reunification, after which applicant
B will be entitled to obtain a permanent residence permit to continue
to reside in Latvia.

We use cookies on Case law's website to support technical

features that enhance your user experience.
For more information please consult our Cookie Policy .

https://caselaw.euaa.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=3614 3/4
30/04/2024, 07:02 EUAA - View Case Law

© EUAA 2024 | Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, Legal | EUAA web | Contact
save otherwise stated.

We use cookies on Case law's website to support technical

features that enhance your user experience.
For more information please consult our Cookie Policy .

https://caselaw.euaa.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=3614 4/4