What is Punjabi a caste or race



1. Procedure:

1.1. The complainant (hereinafter referred to as BF), an Indian citizen from the state of Punjab, a member of the Sikhs religious community and single, according to his information, arrived in Austria at the beginning of March 2017 in an irregular manner and supported by a tractor and applied for international protection on March 27, 2017 According to Section 2, Paragraph 1, Item 13 of the Asylum Act 2005 (hereinafter AsylG).

1.2. The BF was first questioned by the public security service on March 27, 2017 and - after the BF had repeatedly moved and failed to comply with his reporting obligations - on March 7, 2018 before the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (hereinafter BFA), in the presence of an interpreter for the Punjabi language, questioned in writing.

In his interviews, he essentially stated that he was single, came from the village of XXXX (also XXXX), Tehsil Batala, Gurdaspur District, State of Punjab, was a member of the Punjabi ethnic group and the Jat caste and belonged to the Sikh religious community . He speaks Punjabi and a little Hindi.

He went to school for twelve years and then helped out in his parents' farm. His parents, a sister, uncles, aunts and cousins ​​would still live in his home country. He is healthy. He neither stated nor documented family or other private ties in Austria, knowledge of German and regular, permitted employment. He gets support from Caritas and would want to work.

The BF drove to Delhi by bus on 05.02.2017 and traveled to Moscow by plane the following day with his Indian passport, which - like his birth certificate - his tug had withheld. He also traveled to Austria for 24 days by truck and on foot.

In summary, the BF stated that the reason for fleeing was that the Congress Party had won the elections in January 2017. Since he and his family had supported the Akali Dal party with canvassing, he was harassed and threatened with killing by the victorious village council after the election. His family is not threatened.

There was no physical attack on him.

The BF waived the prosecution of the "Country Findings on India".

In the proceedings before the BFA, the BF did not submit any evidence or evidence to support its arguments.

1.3. After the preliminary investigation, the BFA rejected the BF's application for international protection from March 27, 2017 in accordance with Section 3 Paragraph 1 in conjunction with Section 2 Paragraph 1 Item 13 AsylG (ruling point I.) in a ruling dated March 9, 2018, and recognized him the status of a person entitled to asylum as well as the status of a person entitled to subsidiary protection in relation to the country of origin India in accordance with Section 8 (1) in conjunction with Section 2 (1) no.13 AsylG (ruling point II.) and combined this decision in ruling point III. according to § 10 Abs. 1 Z 3 AsylG in connection with § 9 BFA-VG with a return decision according to § 52 Abs. 2 Z 2 FPG. He was not granted a residence permit for reasons worthy of consideration in accordance with Section 57 AsylG. It was established that the deportation of the BF to India was permissible according to § 46 FPG. According to § 55 Paragraphs 1 to 3 FPG, the deadline for voluntary departure of the BF is 14 days after the return decision becomes final (point IV.).

In the reasoning for the decision, the authority concerned made statements on the person of the BF and on the situation in his country of origin. He had not made credible that he was being persecuted in India in a manner relevant to asylum and there were no valid reasons against deporting the BF to India. In the event of his return, there is no danger that would justify granting subsidiary protection. The BF does not meet the requirements for the issuing of a residence title, the issuance of a return decision does not stand in the way of his right to respect for private or family life in view of the short duration of stay and the lack of family or private ties in Germany. In view of the negative decision on the application for international protection, the deportation of the BF to India is permissible.

The BFA assessed his evidential submission as unbelievable, as the BF had only made a highly vague and abstract submission, did not provide any details or details despite repeated requests and inquiries and his submission appeared implausible and constructed. Without any further explanation, he claimed that he was afraid for his life without being assaulted. His family in India would no longer be threatened either.

1.4. The BF filed a timely appeal against this decision with a letter from his chosen representative without a date to the Federal Administrative Court (hereinafter referred to as BVwG) because of "wrong decision in terms of content and inadequate conduct of proceedings".

In the grounds of the complaint, the brief submission of the BF was repeated and it was alleged that he had comprehensibly reimbursed this and answered questions about it and that his submission was in accordance with the country reports.

The BF is a hardworking, hard-working, innocent, friendly and willing person who wants to use his opportunities here in Austria. He works as a newspaper deliverer and can support himself.

Among other things, an application was made to schedule an oral [appeal] hearing.

Evidence or evidence regarding his identity or his submissions were also not submitted with the complaint.

1.5. The BFA submitted the administrative act and requested that the complaint be dismissed.

2. Taking of evidence:

In order to establish the relevant facts for the decision, evidence was collected during the preliminary investigation by:

* Inspection of the administrative act of the BFA available to the BVwG, including the minutes of the first survey on March 27, 2017 and the hearing before the BFA on March 7, 2018 as well as the undated complaint, filed on March 23, 2018

* Inspection of sources of documentation regarding the country of origin of the BF in the first authority procedure (apparently excerpt from the country information sheet of the state documentation, file pages 110 to 168)

The BF has not submitted any evidence or other evidence for his allegations to escape or his stated identity.

3. Result of the investigation (factual findings):

On the basis of the investigative procedure carried out, the BVwG assumes the following credible facts that are relevant for the decision:

3.1. About the BF:

The BF bears the name XXXX, born on XXXX, is an Indian citizen, is a member of the Sikhs, is single and has no children. He belongs to the Punjabi ethnic group and the Jat caste, comes from XXXX (also XXXX), Tehsil Batala, Gurdaspur District, Punjab State, attended school for twelve years and then helped in his parents' farm. His parents, a sister, uncles, aunts and cousins ​​still live at home. The BF speaks Punjabi and a little Hindi.

3.2. On the BF's reasons for fleeing:

3.2.1. The BF had no problems with the authorities in his country of origin, neither because of his religion nor his ethnic group.

3.2.2. The BF has not demonstrated that he was exposed to persecution by the opposing party because of political activity (stated as an election worker for a political party).

3.2.3. The BF has not demonstrated that if he returned to his country of origin he would be subject to persecution for the reasons mentioned above.

3.3. Domestic escape or protection alternative:

In the event that his submission is alleged to be truth, the BF has a reasonable alternative for escape or protection at his disposal.

Due to a lack of reporting and identification requirements, the police are not able to find a person who is moving in India if the criminal is not wanted nationwide. The search for people is made much more difficult by the lack of an obligatory India-wide reporting system and the lack of identification. All the less there is a real danger that a private person can find their enemy, who has moved across India. In any case, entry to India is possible for the BF, who, according to his own statements, has not been posted for arrest.

This fact favors the establishment in another part of the country (even) in the case of persecution or criminal prosecution without the person having to hide their identity and depending on the individual abilities such as language, knowledge and physical condition.

Since the BF - he is young, of working age, male, in good health and able to work, has twelve years of schooling and professional experience as a farmer - in any case has progress in India, it is also reasonable for him to avoid any prosecution through the use of a to avoid domestic escape or protection alternatives.

3.4. To integrate the BF in Austria:

The BF has been in Austria since March 2017. He has no right of residence in Austria outside of the right of asylum, and he never had any other right than temporary residence as an asylum seeker in Austria.

The BF has no family members or relatives in Austria relevant to Article 8 of the ECHR. Any friendly relations in Austria only arose at a point in time when the BF had to be aware of his uncertain legal status.

The BF does not attend any courses or schools in Austria and has not proven sufficient knowledge of German or a permitted employment.

The BF is criminally harmless in Austria. The existence of serious administrative violations is not known. The BF entered the federal territory irregularly.

There is no particular integration of the BF in Austria.

3.5. The situation in the BF's country of origin:

3.5.1. Based on the sources of information on the BF's country of origin, it is certain that there is the death penalty in this country. However, the results of the investigation did not reveal that the BF would be subject to a real risk in this regard and the BF did not claim either.

3.5.2. On the general situation in India (excerpt from the country information sheet of the state documentation of the BFA dated 04/02/2019, spelling mistake partially corrected):

[...] 2. Political situation

With over 1.3 billion people and a multi-religious and multi-ethnic society, India is the most populous democracy in the world (CIA Factbook January 23, 2019; see AA September 18, 2018). In the Indian federal system, the central government has significantly greater powers than the state governments. India has 29 states and six union territories (AA 11.2018a). In accordance with the constitution, the states and union territories have a high degree of autonomy and have primary responsibility for law and order (USDOS 04/20/2018). The capital New Delhi has a special legal status (AA 11.2018a).

The separation of powers between parliament and government corresponds to the British model (AA 09/18/2018, the principle of the separation of powers between the legislature, executive and judiciary is enforced (AA 11.2018a). The independence of the judiciary, which has three levels of authority, is constitutionally guaranteed (AA The Supreme Court in New Delhi is at the head of the judiciary and is followed by the High Courts at state level (GIZ 3.2018a). Freedom of the press is guaranteed by the constitution, but is subject to repeated challenges ( AA 9.2018a). India also has a vibrant civil society (AA 11.2018a).

India is a parliamentary democracy and has a multi-party system and a bicameral parliament (USDOS 04/20/2018). In addition, there are parliaments at the state level (AA 09/18/2018).

The President is the head of state and is elected by an electoral committee, while the Prime Minister is the head of government (USDOS 04/20/2018). The office of president primarily entails representative tasks, but in the event of a crisis the president has far-reaching powers. President Ram Nath Kovind has been Indian head of state since July 2017 (AA 11.2018a). However, the most important office within the executive is held by the Prime Minister (GIZ 3.2018a).

Elections to the House of Commons take place every five years according to simple majority voting ("first-past-the-post"), most recently in April / May 2014 with almost 830 million eligible voters (AA September 18, 2018). Three major party alliances faced each other: The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) under the leadership of the Congress Party, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) under the leadership of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP - Indian People's Party) and the so-called Third Front, which consists of eleven regional and left-wing parties, as well as the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which emerged from part of the India Against Corruption movement (GIZ 3.2018a; see FAZ 16.05.2014). Apart from minor disruptions, the elections were correct and free (AA September 18, 2018). As the clear winner with 336 of 543 seats, the party alliance "National Democratic Alliance" (NDA) with the "Bharatiya Janata Party" (BJP) as the strongest party (282 seats) replaced the Congress Party in government (AA 09/18/2018) . The BJP not only won them an absolute majority, it also left the previously ruling Indian National Congress (INC) far behind. The INC only had 46 seats and suffered the worst defeat since the founding of the state in 1947. How things will go with the INC with or without the Gandhi family remains to be seen. The wins in the elections in Punjab, Goa and Manipur as well as the relatively good performance in Gujarat are certainly a glimmer of hope that the days of the Congress party are not over yet (GIZ 13.2018a). The Anti-Corruption Party (AAP), which won 28 out of 70 seats in the 2013 election in Delhi, only won four seats nationwide in 2014 (GIZ 3.2018; see FAZ 16.05.2014). The BJP's top candidate, the previous Prime Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi, was elected Prime Minister and has since headed a 26-member cabinet (with an additional 37 ministers of state) (AA 09/18/2018).

In India, re-election will take place between April and May 2019. However, the exact schedule is still unclear. In the polls, the Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his BJP are ahead (DS 01.01.2019).

The new government, which has been in office since 2014, not only wants to continue the market economy course, but also to intensify it by removing bureaucratic obstacles and reducing protectionism. Foreign investors should become more active (GIZ 3.2018b).


3. Security situation

India is rich in tensions across ethnic groups, religions, castes and also life perspectives, which often erupt in local riots (GIZ 3.2018a). Terrorist attacks in previous years (December 2010 in Varanasi, July 2011 in Mumbai, September 2011 in New Delhi and Agra, April 2013 in Bangalore, May 2014 in Chennai and December 2014 in Bangalore) and in particular the attacks in Mumbai in November 2008 pressured the government. 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 (AA April 24, 2015). But there were also terrorist attacks with an Islamist background in the rest of the country. In March 2017, an "Islamic State" (IS) cell in the capital of the state of Madhya Pradesh placed a bomb on a passenger train. According to the police, the terror cell is also said to have planned an attack on a rally by Prime Minister Modi (BPB 12.12.2017).

The tensions in the north-east of the country continue, as does the dispute with the Naxalites (GIZ 3.2018a). The state's monopoly on the use of force is being called into question in some areas by the activities of the "Naxalites" (AA September 18, 2018).

The South Asia Terrorism Portal recorded a total of 898 fatalities from terrorism-related violence in 2016. In 2017 803 people were killed by terrorist violence and in 2018 935 people were killed by acts of terrorism. Twelve deaths from the use of terrorist violence were registered by January 13, 2019 [Note: the figures given include civilians, security forces and terrorists] (SATP January 13, 2019).

Conflict regions are Jammu and Kashmir, the northeastern regions and the Maoist belt. Attacks by Maoist rebels on security forces and infrastructure continued in Jharkhand and Bihar. In Punjab there were repeated assassinations and bomb attacks by violent opponents of the government. In addition to the Islamist terrorists, the Naxalites (Maoist underground fighters) contribute to the destabilization of the country. From Chattisgarh they fight in many union states (from Bihar in the north to Andrah Pradesh in the south) with armed force against state institutions. In the north-east of the country, numerous separatist groups (United Liberation Front Assom, National Liberation Front Tripura, National Socialist Council Nagaland, Manipur People's Liberation Front etc.) are fighting against state power and demanding either independence or more autonomy.Hindu radicalism, which is directed against minorities such as Muslims and Christians, is seldom officially classified in the terror category, but rather referred to as "communal violence" (ÖB 12/2018).

The government acts with great severity and consistency against militant groups, who mostly advocate the independence of certain regions and / or adhere to radical views. If such groups renounce violence, negotiations about their demands are usually possible. Nonviolent independence groups are free to be politically active (AA 09/18/2018).

Pakistan and India

Pakistan neither recognizes the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to the Indian Union in 1947 nor the de facto division of the region between the two states since the first war in the same year. India, on the other hand, takes the position that Jammu and Kashmir as a whole are not part of India (AA 11.2018b). Since 1947 there have been three wars due to the disputed Kashmir area (BBC 01/23/2018).

After the peaceful struggle for independence against British colonial rule, the bloody division of British India, which was accompanied by mass exodus, severe outbreaks of violence and pogroms, showed how difficult it will be to keep the ethnically, religiously, linguistically and socio-economically extremely heterogeneous society together in a nation-state. The inter-religious violence continued even after the partition between India and Pakistan (BPB 12.12.2017).

India accuses Pakistan of at least tolerating infiltration of terrorists on Indian territory, if not promoting it. Major terrorist attacks in India in 2001 and 2008 and a terrorist attack on a military base in the Indian part of Kashmir in September 2016 had significantly exacerbated tensions in bilateral relations. According to a government statement, India responded to the attack, in which 18 Indian soldiers were killed, with a limited military operation ("surgical strike") in the Pakistani-controlled part of Kashmir, which, according to Indian sources, was directed against an impending terrorist infiltration. There are repeated exchanges of fire between Indian and Pakistani troops at the armistice line in Kashmir. India sees Pakistan as being responsible for the terrorist threats on its north-western border and is increasing the pressure on its neighbors to achieve effective Pakistani measures against terrorism (AA 11.2018b).

The dialogue process between the two sides, which gave hope from 2014-2015, came to a standstill in 2016. Relationships are currently stable at a very low level (AA 11.2018b). [...]

3.2. Punjab

According to the Indian Ministry of the Interior on the numbers of the census in 2011, 16 million of the 21 million Sikhs live in Punjab (MoHA undated).

Terrorism in Punjab almost came to a standstill in the late 1990s. Most of the high-profile members of the various militant groups have left the Punjab and operate from other Union states or Pakistan. They also receive financial support from Sikh groups in exile in western countries (ÖB 12.2018).

Pakistan's illegal arms and drug trafficking in Indian Punjab has tripled recently. In May 2007, the Indian secret service became aware of plans by the Pakistani secret service, Inter-Services-Intelligence (ISI), which, together with the Sikh group Babbar Khalasa International (BKI) and other militant Sikh groups, carried out attacks on cities in the Punjab ( Jalandhar, Ludhiana, Pathankot) intended. The security authorities in Punjab have so far been able to successfully neutralize the burgeoning revival of the militant Sikh movement (ÖB 12.2018). In Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab and Manipur, the authorities have special powers to search for and detain people without an arrest warrant (USDOS April 20, 2018; cf. BBC October 20, 2015). According to human rights reports, there are regular cases of human rights violations in Punjab, especially by the security authorities (extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests, torture in police custody, death as a result of torture, etc.) (ÖB 12.2018).

The State Commission on Human Rights in Punjab has intervened in a series of serious human rights violations by the security forces. In many cases, the authority was obliged to make compensation payments. The Human Rights Commission receives 200-300 complaints about human rights violations every day and is overwhelmed in its capacity. Often undercast or casteless are victims of police arbitrariness (ÖB 12.2018).

In addition to the aforementioned forms of violence, honor killings continue to be a problem, especially in the northern states of Haryana and Punjab (USDOS April 20, 2018).

Belonging to the Sikh religion is not a criterion for arbitrary police acts. The Sikhs, 60 percent of the Punjab's population, make up a significant proportion of the officials, judges, soldiers and security forces there. High-ranking positions are also open to them (ÖB 10.2017).

In India, freedom of movement and settlement is legally guaranteed and practically respected by the authorities; In some border areas, however, special residence permits are necessary. Sikhs from the Punjab have the opportunity to settle in other parts of the country, and Sikh communities are scattered across the country. Sikhs can practice their religion in any part of the country without restriction. Active members of banned militant Sikh groups such as Babbar Khalsa International must expect police persecution (ÖB 10.2017). [...]

4. Legal protection / justice

In India, many fundamental rights and freedoms are constitutionally enshrined, and the constitutionally guaranteed independent Indian judiciary remains much more important guarantee of rights. The often excessive duration of proceedings due to overburdened and understaffed courts as well as widespread corruption, especially in criminal proceedings, significantly limit legal security (AA September 18, 2018). A systematically discriminatory criminal prosecution or sentencing practice cannot be identified, but the lower levels in particular are not free from corruption. Prejudices, e.g. against members of lower castes or indigenous peoples, are likely to play a not insignificant role (AA September 18, 2018).

The judiciary is separate from the executive (FH 27.01.2018). The judicial system is divided into the Supreme Court, the supreme court with seat in Delhi; which, as a constitutional court, regulates disputes between central government and union states. It is also the body of appeal for certain categories of judgments, such as death sentences. The High Court or the Supreme Court exists in every Union state. It is a collegial court as an appeal body in civil as well as criminal matters and also oversees the service and personnel supervision of the lower courts of the state in order to shield the judiciary from the influence of the executive. Subordinate Civil and Criminal Courts are subordinate judicial instances in the districts of the respective Union states and divided according to civil and criminal law. Cases are decided by single judges. Judges at the District and Sessions Court decide on civil as well as criminal cases at the same time (as District Judge on civil law cases, as Sessions Judge on criminal cases). Below the District Judge there is the Subordinate Judge, below the Munsif for civil matters. The 1st Class Judicial Magistrate acts under the Sessions Judge and under this the 2nd Class Judicial Magistrate, each for less serious criminal matters (ÖB 12.2018).

The judiciary continues to be overburdened and lack modern systems to handle cases. The backlog at court leads to long delays or the withholding of case law. An analysis by the Ministry of Justice for 2015 to 2016 revealed a vacancy of 43 percent of the judges' positions in the higher courts (USDOS April 20, 2018). The standard duration of criminal proceedings (from the indictment to the judgment) is several years; in some cases, proceedings take up to ten years. Witness protection is also inadequate. As a result, witnesses in court often do not testify freely because they have been bribed or threatened (AA 09/18/2018).

Corruption is particularly widespread at the lower levels of the judiciary and most citizens struggle to enforce their rights in court. The system is backward and severely understaffed, leading to long pre-trial detention periods for large numbers of suspects. Many of them stay in prison longer than the actual sentence would be (FH 01/27/2018). Accordingly, the duration of pre-trial detention is usually excessively long. With the exception of offenses threatened by the death penalty, the judge should order a detention review and a release on bail after half of the impending maximum sentence has expired. However, with such an application, the person concerned accepts that the case will not be pursued for a long time. In the meantime, around 70 percent of all prisoners are remand prisoners, many because of minor offenses that lack the means to provide bail (AA 09/18/2018).

Rule of law guarantees enshrined in the constitution (e.g. the right to a fair trial) are restricted by a number of security laws. These laws were tightened after the Mumbai terrorist attacks in November 2008; Among other things, the presumption of innocence was suspended for certain criminal offenses (AA September 18, 2018).

Police arrest a suspect without an arrest warrant can only last 24 hours under general law. Charges should be brought within 60 days for offenses with a threat of punishment of up to ten years, and within 90 days for cases with a higher threat of punishment. These deadlines are regularly exceeded.

However, arrests are often made for preventive security reasons as well as under special internal security laws, e.g. the National Security Act, 1956 or the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act. , 1978). Arrested persons can be held in preventive detention for up to one year without charge under these laws. According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, people can also be held for several days for the hearing of witnesses if there is a risk of escape. The Federal Foreign Office is not aware of any cases of clan liability. (AA 09/18/2018).

It cannot be ruled out that unauthorized investigative methods are used, in particular to obtain a confession. This applies in particular to cases with a terrorist or political background or those with a particular public interest. There are cases where inmates are mistreated. An empirical report on the death penalty situation in India published in May 2016 by the renowned National Law University Delhi paints a bleak picture of the Indian criminal justice system. For example, 80 percent of all death row inmates stated that they had been tortured in custody. According to credible, confidential estimates by the ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross), systematic torture continues in the interrogation centers in Jammu and Kashmir (AA September 18, 2018).

Defendants are presumed innocent, except under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill, and have the right to freely choose their lawyer. The criminal law provides for public negotiations, except in proceedings in which the statements may concern state secrets or state security. There is free legal advice for defendants in need, but in practice access to competent advice is often limited (USDOS 04/20/2018). Courts are required to deliver judgments publicly, and there are effective avenues of appeal at almost all levels of the judiciary. Defendants have the right to refuse to testify and not to plead guilty (USDOS 04/20/2018).

Court summons in criminal matters are regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (CrPC, Chapter 4, §§ 61-69), in civil law matters in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908/2002. Each summons must be in writing, issued in duplicate, signed by the presiding judge and provided with a court seal. According to the CrPC, summons are in principle delivered to the person concerned personally by a police officer or a court officer. He has to confirm receipt. In the absence, the cargo can be handed over to an adult male member of the family, who will confirm receipt. If the consignment cannot be delivered, a copy of the consignment will be visibly attached to the summoned person's residence. The court then decides whether the summons was lawful or whether a new summons will be issued. A copy of the summons can also be sent by registered mail to the home or work address of the person concerned. If the court becomes aware that the person concerned has refused to accept the summons, the summons is still deemed to have been served. According to the Code of Civil Procedure, summons to the court can also take place via a courier service approved by the court (ÖB 12.2018).

In rural India there are also informal council meetings, the decisions of which sometimes lead to violence against people who break social rules - which particularly affects women and relatives from the lower castes (FH January 27, 2018).

5. Security agencies

The Indian Police Service is not a direct law enforcement or law enforcement agency (BICC 12.2018) and is subordinate to the states (AA 09/18/2018). 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. However, given a national police law, numerous national criminal laws and the central executive recruitment office, the individual units have a number of things in common. In general, the police are entrusted with law enforcement, crime prevention and control, and the maintenance of public order, while at the same time exercising partial control over the various secret services. Within the police there is a Criminal Investigation Department (CID), in which a special unit (Special Branch) is integrated. While the former is entrusted with national and interstate crimes, the task of the special unit is to gather information and monitor all subversive elements and persons. In almost every state, special police units have been set up to deal with women and children. Most of the law enforcement agencies are controlled by the Ministry of Home Affairs (BICC 12.2018).

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, extrajudicial killings and threats that were allegedly perpetrated by the police (BICC 12.2018). The police remain overworked, underpaid and exposed to political pressure, leading to corruption in some cases (USDOS 04/20/2018). Police reforms were delayed again in 2017 (HRW January 18, 2018).

The effectiveness of law enforcement and security forces varies widely across the country. While there are cases of police officers / officials who act with impunity at all levels, there have also been cases in which security officers were held accountable for their illegal actions (USDOS 04/20/2018).

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 12.2018). The military can be deployed domestically if this is necessary to maintain internal security (AA 09/18/2018; cf. BICC 12/2018). Paramilitary units are used as part of the armed forces, especially in internal conflicts, for example in Jammu and Kashmir as well as in the northeastern states. These missions often lead to significant human rights violations (BICC 12.2018).

The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) to maintain "law and order" is used as the legal basis for the deployment of armed forces - especially land forces - in unrest areas and against terrorists (USDOS April 20, 2018). 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 controversial Special Authorization Act for the Armed Forces (AFSPA) was repealed on April 23, 2018 for the state of Meghalaya after 27 years and limited to eight police districts in the state of Arunachal Pradesh. It remains in force unchanged in the following states that are considered to be unrest areas: Assam, and Nagaland as well as in parts of Manipur.There is a separate version for Jammu and Kashmir (AA September 18, 2018).

The Indian paramilitary units deployed in the central Indian states affected by left-wing extremist groups (so-called Naxalites) are largely subordinate to the Ministry of the Interior (AA September 18, 2018). These include in particular the National Security Guard (NSG), a special force for personal protection made up of members of the army and the police, also known as the "Black Cat", the Rashtriya Rifles, a special force for protecting traffic and communication links in the event of civil unrest to fight armed rebellions, the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) - the Federal Reserve Police, a militarily equipped police force for special operations - the Border Security Force (BSF - Federal Border Guard) as the largest and best equipped militia for the protection of the borders with Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar. But it is also used to maintain internal order in other parts of the country. Furthermore, the Assam Rifles - responsible for border defense in the northeast - the Indo-Tibetan Border Force (ITBP) as the Indo-Tibetan border police as well as the coast guard, the Railway Protective Force to protect the national railways and the Central Industrial Security Force to protect the state-owned companies (ÖB 12.2018). Particularly in unrest areas, the security forces have extensive powers to combat secessionist and terrorist groups, which are often used excessively (AA September 18, 2018).

The Special Frontier Force is subordinate to the Prime Minister's Office. The so-called border special forces are an elite unit that is deployed on sensitive sections in the border area with China. They operate within the framework of the secret services, the so-called Intelligence Bureau and the Research and Analysis Wing (War Heros of India, September 16, 2018).

The law also allows authorities to detain detainees without charge for up to 180 days (including the 30 days in police custody). The Prevention of Unlawful Activities Act (UAPA) gives authorities the ability to detain people in cases of rioting or terrorism (USDOS 04/20/2018).

6. Torture and Inhuman Treatment

India signed the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in 1997. but not yet ratified (AA September 18, 2018). In addition, no changes to national legislation necessary for ratification have been introduced (BICC 12.2018). A bill on the Prevention of Torture, which is a domestic requirement for ratification of the UN Anti-Torture Convention, has not yet been passed by parliament (AA September 18, 2018).

Torture is banned in India (AA 09/18/2018), and the Indian state generally persecutes torturers and organizes campaigns to raise awareness among the security forces, but human rights violations by police officers and paramilitary units often go unpunished and do not even lead to investigations. Members of the lower castes and other socially disadvantaged sections of the population are particularly at risk (ÖB 12.2018). Statements obtained as a result of torture are not permitted for use in court (AA 09/18/2018). The law thus bans torture, but there are reports from NGOs that such practices are widespread, especially in conflict areas (USDOS 04/20/2018). Torture by police officers, the army and paramilitary units often goes unpunished because the victims do not know their rights, are intimidated or do not survive the torture (AA 09/18/2018). According to human rights experts, the government continued to attempt to arrest people and accuse them of violating the - repealed - Act on Combating Terrorism, Terrorist Acts and Destructive Acts. This law stated that confessions made in front of a police officer would be treated as admissible evidence in court (USDOS 04/20/2018).

7. Corruption

Corruption is widespread (USDOS 04/20/2018). India appears in the Corruption Perceptions Index of Transparency International (TI) for 2018 with a rating of 41 (out of 100) (0 very corrupt, 100 hardly corrupt) on the 78th place out of 180 countries (TI 2018) . In 2017 India was rated with 40 points (81st place out of 180 countries) (TI 2018). In 2016 India was also rated with 40 points. That corresponds to that

79th place out of 176 listed countries (TI 2017).

NGOs report that bribes are usually paid to expedite services such as police protection, school enrollment, access to water supply or grants (USDOS 04/20/2018). The lower areas of the judiciary are particularly affected by corruption and most citizens have difficulties obtaining justice through the courts (FH January 28, 2018). Corruption is present at all levels of government (USDOS 04/20/2018).

Although politicians and officials are regularly caught receiving bribes, there are numerous cases of corruption that go unnoticed and go unpunished (FH January 27, 2018). The law provides for penalties for corruption in the public service; in practice, civil servants with corrupt practices often get away with impunity (USDOS 04/20/2018). The Lok Pal and Lokayuktas Acts, signed by the President in 2014, established independent state bodies to which complaints about corrupt officials or politicians can be addressed and which are empowered to investigate the complaints and prosecute convictions in court. Although Modi and his government officials have signaled support for the law, there is little evidence that it is being implemented effectively. The right to information (RTI) created in 2005 is mainly used to increase transparency and to expose corrupt machinations. Since the law was passed, at least 65 "right to information activists" have been murdered and more than 400 have been attacked or harassed (FH January 27, 2018).

Corruption also sometimes hinders government programs to investigate alleged corruption in the government sector (USDOS 04/20/2018). In May 2015, the Lok Sabha (People's Chamber) adopted amendments to the Whistleblowers Protection Act from 2014. Members of the opposition criticized the fact that this would further weaken the already limited effects of the law (FH January 27, 2018).

According to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), every state in India has at least one office under the direction of a police chief, in which complaints can be submitted by mail, fax or in person. If desired, the complainant's identity can also be kept secret. The CBI registered 673 cases of corruption in the investigation period [note: 2016] (CBI undated; cf. USDOS April 20, 2018).

A survey conducted by Transparency International and LocalCircles found that using bribes is still the most efficient way of getting government agencies going. The number of people who admitted to taking a bribe from the authorities was 45 percent in 2017. There has been an 11 percent increase in bribery. Municipal companies, land registry departments and police departments are the government agencies most susceptible to corruption (IT October 11, 2018).

The report, titled India Corruption Survey 2018, found that 58 percent of citizens said their states did not have an anti-corruption helpline, while up to 33 percent said they did not have such a hotline in their states be clear (ICS 2018).

Individuals - or NGOs on behalf of individuals or groups - can bring so-called public interest litigation petitions to any Supreme Court or directly to the Supreme Court to seek legal redress for public violations of law. These complaints can be a violation of government duties by a government employee or a violation of constitutional provisions. NGOs very much appreciate these motions to hold government officials accountable to civil society organizations for corruption and partisanship (USDOS 04/20/2018).

According to reliable, confidential estimates by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), systematic torture continues in the interrogation centers in Jammu and Kashmir. For the period from January to August 2017, Amnesty International puts the number of deaths in prisons at 894 and in police custody at 74 (AA September 18, 2018). Despite the training for senior police officers, arbitrary arrests, torture and forced confessions by security forces remain widespread (ÖB 12.2018).

Again and again there are arbitrary attacks by the state organs, especially the police, especially against prisoners in police custody. In some cases, arbitrary and unreported arrests have been reported, with the detainee being deprived of sufficient water and food. With a number of exceptions, illegal acts in this area will be punished. The courts seised have shown increased responsibility in recent years, especially since NGOs and the press report critically on the cases they have become aware of. Human rights organizations and the National Human Rights Commission also report on attacks by the military and paramilitary groups during their domestic operations (especially in Jammu and Kashmir and in Northeast India). These are also occasionally punished by (military) courts, but the process and the outcome of the process remain secret (ÖB 12.2018).


11. General human rights situation

India signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 (AA September 18, 2018). National legislation on human rights matters is broad. All important human rights are constitutionally guaranteed (ÖB 12.2018). However, the implementation of these guarantees is often not fully guaranteed (AA 09/18/2018). A number of security laws limit the rule of law guarantees, e.g. the right to a fair trial. These laws were tightened after the Mumbai terrorist attacks in November 2008; i.a. 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. There are credible reports of extrajudicial killings (AA 09/18/2018).

The main human rights problems are abuse by police and security forces, including extrajudicial executions, torture and rape. Corruption remains widespread and contributes to the ineffective fight against crime, in particular crimes against women, children and members of registered castes and tribes as well as social violence based on gender, religion, caste or tribal affiliation (USDOS 04/20/2018).

A generalized assessment of the human rights situation is hardly possible for India: Drastic violations of fundamental rights and deficits in the rule of law coexist with extensive civil liberties, progressive laws and committed initiatives by civil society. Above all, the reality of the lower social classes, who make up the majority of the population, is often characterized by violations of fundamental rights and discrimination (AA 09/18/2018). Many human rights violations in India remain rooted in social practices such as the caste system (AA September 18, 2018). Women, members of ethnic and religious minorities and lower castes are systematically discriminated against (BICC 12.2018). While civil and human rights are largely respected by the government, the situation in regions where there are internal conflicts is sometimes very bad. This is particularly true of Jammu and Kashmir and the northeast of the country. 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 forces are charged with kidnapping, torture, rape, arbitrary arrest and extrajudicial executions. The security forces have been accused of partiality, particularly with regard to the tensions between Hindus and Muslims, which led to thousands of deaths in 2002. The mood is fueled by Hindu nationalist parties, which are also represented in the government (BICC 12.2018).

Separatist rebels and terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir, the northeastern states and the "Maoist Belt" committed serious human rights violations, including the killings of civilians, police officers, the armed forces and government officials. Insurgents are responsible for numerous cases of kidnapping, torture, rape, extortion and the use of child soldiers (USDOS April 20, 2018). In some states, the law restricts religious conversion, restrictions on freedom of movement persist (USDOS 04/20/2018).


19. Freedom of movement

The law grants nationwide freedom of movement, international travel, migration and repatriation, and the government generally respects these rights (USDOS 04/20/2018). The state's monopoly on the use of force is being called into question in some areas by the activities of the "Naxalites". Apart from that, freedom of movement within the country is guaranteed (AA 09/18/2018).

The government relaxed restrictions on foreign travelers regarding travel to Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Mizoram, Manipur and parts of Jammu and Kashmir, except for foreigners from Pakistan, China and Burma. The Ministry of the Interior and the state governments require citizens to obtain special permits prior to travel to travel to certain restricted regions or restricted zones (USDOS 04/20/2018).

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 ongoing criminal prosecution, it is not uncommon for a person to live undisturbed in rural districts in another part of the country without the person having to hide their identity (AA 09/18/2018).

In the big cities, however, the police are better staffed and better equipped, so that the possibility of being tracked is greater there. Well-known personalities ("high profile" people) cannot escape persecution by moving to another part of the country, but less well-known people ("low profile" people) can (ÖB 12/2018).

19.1. Reporting

There is still no national registration or citizenship register in India. The government has been pursuing a national project for the registration of citizens for a number of years, and this will involve the issue of identity cards ("Aadhar Card"). Despite some preparatory work, the realization of this project is still a long way off. There is no reporting system in India (ÖB 12.2018; see AA September 18, 2018).


21. Basic service and economy

In India, around a quarter of the population lives below the United Nations' estimated subsistence level. Unless extraordinary natural disasters occur, a food supply that ensures the survival of the lowest strata of the population is largely guaranteed. There are no state reception facilities for returns. There is no social assistance, the returnees are dependent on the support of their own family or friends (ÖB 12.2018).

Economic growth was 7.1 percent in the 2016/2017 financial year and 6.75 percent in 2017/18, with an upward trend again. India is still one of the fastest growing economies in the world (AA 11.2018a).

According to estimates by the ILO, the employment rate in 2016 was 55.6 percent. The majority of people work in the private sector. There are still large differences in the gender distribution of the labor market. India has the second largest workforce in the world with 478.3 million people (2012). Every year, 12.8 million workers are added. In 2015 the unemployment rate was 3.4 percent (according to ILO 2016) (BAMF 03.09.2018).

According to estimates, only about 10 percent of all employees are in a contractually regulated employment relationship. The remaining 90 percent are assigned to the so-called "informal sector" - they are not insured against illness or accidents at work, nor are they entitled to social benefits or retirement benefits (AA 11.2018a). The vast majority of the Indian population lives in rural-farming structures and remains economically disadvantaged.The share of agriculture in Indian economic output has been falling continuously for years and is only around 16.4 percent (2017/18) of the overall economy, although almost 50 percent of the Indian workforce is active in this area (AA 11.2018a).

The government has set up around 1,000 Employment Exchanges across the country to facilitate the recruitment of suitable candidates. Job seekers register themselves with the employment agencies and are informed as soon as a suitable position is available (BAMF 09/03/2018; see PIB 07/23/2018). The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) runs until 2019. The aim of the current program is to improve rural infrastructure, increase land and water resources, and help the rural poor To offer a livelihood: Every household whose adult members are willing to do manual work that does not require any special qualifications is guaranteed at least 100 days of wage labor per budget year (SNRD 26.03.2018). Some states in India give job seekers financial support for a period of three years. For more information, contact your local recruitment agency. They also offer counseling where they provide information (BAMF 09/03/2018).

India faces enormous challenges in poverty reduction and in education and infrastructure development. The average annual per capita income is around

$ 1,970. India ranks 130th out of 188 countries on the UNDP Human Development Index (as of September 2016). While it is home to the most millionaires and billionaires in the world, India is well below the averages of sub-Saharan Africa on many social indicators. At the same time, hundreds of millions of people in India have escaped poverty over the past two decades (AA 11.2018a).

The government operates a variety of housing finance programs. However, these are mostly aimed at people below the poverty line. Furthermore, the governments offer a large number of social benefits, which, however, are aimed at underprivileged groups such as the population below the poverty line. These programs are basically implemented by the local administrations (Panchayat) (BAMF 03.09.2018).

Employee pension insurance is compulsory and linked to work. The National Social Assistance Program only covers the population below the poverty line or the physically disadvantaged. The state pension system National Pension System (NPS) is a voluntary, contribution-based system, which enables the participants to create systematic reserves during their working life (BAMF 03.09.2018).

55.3 percent of the population (642.4 million) live in multi-dimensional poverty (HDI 2016). 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 family or friends. Temporary emergencies can be compensated for by feeding the poor in the temple, especially the Sikh temples, which also provide accommodation for smaller services (AA September 18, 2018).

In September 2018, the Supreme Court confirmed the constitutionality of the Aadhaar biometric identification project (HRW January 17, 2019). As part of a poverty reduction initiative, millions of Indian citizens have been issued an Aadhaar ID number since 2010. The system was originally introduced to counteract tax fraud. In the following years, however, the scope was expanded significantly: In some Indian states, pensions, grants and food distribution for poor people are handled by means of Aadhaar (ORF 09/27/2018). For the majority of the population, Aadhaar is the only access to a state-recognized ID card. Those who registered with Aadhaar were given a unique twelve-digit identification number after they had submitted their fingerprints and retinal scans (BBC 09/26/2018).

Human rights groups express concern that registration conditions for Aadhaar prevent poor and marginalized people from receiving essential, constitutionally guaranteed services such as food and health care (HRW 01/18/2018).

22. Medical care

Basic (minimal) health care is in principle granted by the state free of charge. But it is consistently inadequate. A lot of patience is required of the patient. because the demand for services from the state health sector is very high. The private health care providers enjoy a better reputation because of advanced infrastructure and more qualified staff, but a large part of the population cannot afford them. In all larger cities there are facilities in which survival measures can be carried out. With the restrictions mentioned, this also applies to the public area. Almost all common drugs are available on the market in India (mostly as generics of western products). For the (relatively small) part of the population who are in a formal employment relationship, the concept of social security consists of contributions to state coffers and a number of various lump sums to be paid by the employer. This covers payments for pensions, health insurance, maternity leave and severance payments for unemployment or incapacity for work (ÖB 12.2018).

State hospitals offer health care free of charge or at very low cost (BAMF September 3, 2018), but are consistently inadequate (AA September 18, 2018). There are also many other institutions that offer affordable treatments (BAMF 09/03/2018).

The state health insurance only covers Indian citizens below the poverty line. State health centers form the basis of public health. These are mostly one-man clinics that also offer small operations. These centers can generally be found in the vicinity of all villages. In total there are more than 25,500 such clinics in India, of which 15,700 are operated by just one doctor. Some centers have special focuses, including programs on child vaccinations, disease control, contraception, pregnancy and certain emergencies (BAMF 03.09.2018).

There are also community health centers and specialized clinics. These are equipped for all kinds of general health issues and form the basis of the health system in urban areas. They are run by the government and take in patients on the recommendation of the initial facilities. Each of these facilities is responsible for 120,000 people from urban areas and 80,000 patients from remote areas. Patients can be transferred from community health centers to general hospitals for further treatment. The centers therefore also have the function of an initial referral facility. You are obliged to provide care for newborn babies and children and to have blood reserves at all times. For the rest of the population, health insurance is subject to contributions through various private and state companies at different conditions (BAMF 03.09.2018).

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 healthcare providers enjoy a better reputation because of the more advanced infrastructure and qualified staff. There are medical facilities in all major cities where vital treatments can be carried out. With the restrictions mentioned, this also applies to the public area (AA September 18, 2018). 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, health care is good compared to other parts of the country (AA September 18, 2018).

The state health insurance only covers Indian citizens below the poverty line. For the rest of the population, health insurance is subject to contributions through various private and state companies on different terms. Well-known insurers are General Insurance, Bharti AAA, HDFC ERGO, Bajaj, Religare, Apollo Munich, New India Assurance, Max Bupa etc. (BAMF 03.09.2018).

Private health care is comparably expensive, and patients have to pay a large part of the costs themselves. A valid personal ID is required to access the services (Adhaar card, Voter ID, PAN) (BAMF 03.09.2018).

Almost all common drugs are available on the market in India (AA 09/18/2018). Drug stores are numerous in India and are also available in remote cities. (BAMF 09/03/2018). Medicines can be imported from abroad. India is the world's largest producer of generic medicines, and drugs cost a fraction of the prices in Europe (AA 09/18/2018). The costs for the most necessary medicines are controlled by the state so that they are widely available (BAMF 03.09.2018).

23. Return

The mere fact that a person has applied for asylum does not lead to adverse consequences after deportation. Recently, returned rejected Indian asylum seekers have not been reported to have been disadvantaged after their return. However, persons wanted by the police must expect arrest and handover to the security authorities upon entry (AA 09/18/2018). [...]

4. Evidence assessment:

The assessment of the evidence is based on the following decisive considerations:

The course of the proceedings is based on the procedural files of the BFA and the BVwG relating to the case at hand.

4.1. About the BF:

4.1.1. The findings on the identity of the BF result from his information before the BFA and in the complaint.

Insofar as determinations regarding the identity of the BF (name and date of birth) have been made in the present case, these shall only apply to the identification of the BF's person in the asylum procedure. The BF provided identical information in this regard, but his identity could not be conclusively clarified due to the lack of submission of unobjectionable identity documents or other relevant means of certification.

The findings on nationality and origin, in particular on his ethnic group and religion as well as on the living conditions of the BF, are based on the credible information provided by the BF in the proceedings before the BFA and in the complaint as well as on the knowledge and use of the languages ​​Punjabi and Hindi and knowledge of the geographical realities of India.

4.2. On the BF's reasons for fleeing:

The findings on the BF's reasons for leaving his home country are based on the statements made by him before the BFA and in the complaint.

As an event that triggered the escape, the BF put forward in summary that the Congress Party had won the elections in January 2017. Since he and his family had supported the Akali Dal party with canvassing, he was harassed and threatened with killing by the victorious village council after the election. His family is not threatened.

It should be noted that these reasons for persecution have neither been proven nor substantiated. Therefore, in order to assess whether the reasons for persecution are to be regarded as plausible, the BF's personal credibility and the arguments on the reasons for fleeing must be taken into account.

The assessment of the personal credibility of the BF has to take into account whether he told the truth about his reasons for flight outside of the immediate lecture; The observance of the obligations to cooperate in accordance with § 18 Paragraph 3 AsylG and the other involvement of the BF in the procedure must also be taken into account.

The BF's personal credibility is already impaired by the fact that since his stay in Austria for almost two years in the present asylum procedure, he has not submitted any documents confirming his identity.

It is up to the BF to describe the circumstances of his escape in a reasonably comprehensible and precise manner. From the information provided by the BF, however, no linear action can be identified that would be objectively suitable for realizing an asylum-related reason for persecution. As can be seen from the initial interview and the hearing before the BFA, the BF had sufficient time and opportunity to explain his reasons for fleeing comprehensively and in detail and to present any evidence, although he did not make use of this option. The BF was also asked several times by the BFA to provide a comprehensive and detailed description of the reasons for his flight and to submit the relevant documents, as well as being instructed about the consequences of incorrect information.

It should be noted that, based on general life experience, it can be assumed that the BF must in principle be able to provide comprehensive and consistent information on the specific circumstances and the reason for leaving the country of origin, especially a person who is from Fear of persecution has left her country of origin, especially in her first interview after a specific questioning about her flight, the opportunity offered her to explain the circumstances and reasons for her flight in a comprehensive and coherent manner in order to obtain the requested protection from persecution to be able to receive it as quickly as possible. It is also common experience in life that a rational person who claims to have fled their country of origin out of fear of persecution has significant events in connection with their flight that are memorized in that person's consciousness, even after a long period of time can still provide sufficient concrete, consistent and comprehensible information.

In its assessment of the evidence, the BFA clearly demonstrated the extent to which the BF's statements were to be assessed as implausible. As the BFA set out in the contested decision, the BF also made vague and unspecific information throughout - especially since it was completely unfounded - and was not in a position to provide concrete details of the processes or details that can be assumed to be known in actual incidents to be able to report.

It does not seem plausible that the BF would be persecuted in a manner relevant to asylum, but that his family could still largely live at home without problems.

The submission in the complaint was in no way suitable to support the BF's previous submissions, especially since the BF's statements were not substantiated in any way.

Finally, even if his submissions are assumed to be true, the behavior of the BF to leave his entire previous life behind and to flee into the unknown (to another continent with a different culture and foreign language) without making a sustained attempt Finding an alternative solution linked to staying in one's home country - for example by staying in one of India's numerous megacities, in which one's anonymity would be preserved - is strange and unrealistic.

The authorities' duty to investigate is offset by the BF's duty to cooperate. The Administrative Court (VwGH) has consistently recognized that it is necessary for the substantiation of the information to be credible that the BF specifically and coherently describes the reasons for the threatened treatment or persecution, and that these reasons can be objectified, whereby for Fulfillment of the constituent element of "being believable" of the asylum seeker's own statement is of essential importance. This is linked to the applicant's duty to proactively explain everything that speaks in favor of the application of the requirements and the granting of asylum and to cite specific circumstances in this regard that provide objective evidence that these requirements are met. In this respect, the applicant has an increased obligation to cooperate (VwGH 11.11.1991, 91/12/0143, VwGH 13.04.1988, 86/01/0268). The applicant must therefore make credible the existence of a current threat to the relevant legal interests that has at least been approved by state authorities, whereby this current threat situation must be demonstrated by means of specific information relating to the person of the alien supported by appropriate means of certification (including VwGH 26.06.2997, 95 / 18/1291, VwGH 07/17/1997, 97/18/0336, VwGH 04/05/1995, 93/180289). The duty to cooperate relates at least to those circumstances that are within his sphere of influence and of which the authority cannot obtain knowledge ex officio.

The administrative procedure in the asylum procedure includes, in addition to the general obligation of the AVG (§ 13a leg.cit.) proposes a number of other safeguarding measures, on the one hand to take into account the obligation according to § 37 AVG on the one hand, and on the other hand to clarify the questions of evidence that are often difficult in such proceedings. Therefore, the authority making the decision is also dependent on the use of general empirical records. The formation of such sets of experience is not only possible in favor of the asylum seeker, but they can also speak against an asylum claim.

It corresponds to the constant judicature of the VwGH if reasons that led to leaving the home country or country of origin are generally not regarded as credible if the asylum seeker differs in the course of the proceedings - written interrogations - in the facts that he believes to be an offense of asylum or even contradicts if his information is incompatible with the course of events or with actual circumstances or events and therefore appears improbable, or if he does not present relevant facts until very late in the asylum procedure (VwGH 06.03.1996, 95/20 / 0650).

The authority is not obliged to check the inadequate information, which can already be classified as objectively unbelievable, through further surveys. Overall, mere allegations were to be assumed with regard to the reasons for fleeing, so that a closer examination of this information in the BF's home country was unnecessary.

The BF is apparently trying to use the institute of asylum, which is so important for people who are really persecuted, for its own purposes and - by circumventing the otherwise applicable residence law provisions - to obtain a right of residence in Austria.

Since further reasons for fleeing were neither alleged nor emerged ex officio, and it was also to be assumed that the specific escape story was not true or not relevant to asylum, persecution could not be made credible.

4.3. The situation in the BF's country of origin:

The country determinations on which this finding is based (see point 3.5. Above) are based on reports from various recognized governmental and non-governmental institutions and persons, some of which are locally active, and which, in their statements, give a consistent and coherent overall picture of the situation in India. In view of the seriousness of the cited sources of knowledge and the plausibility of the largely consistent statements, there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the information. Insofar as the findings are based on reports of an older date, it must be stated that since then the circumstances mentioned therein have not changed significantly in a case-relevant manner, taking into account the more recent reports available to the BVwG ex officio for the assessment of the current situation.

In this case, it can be denied that there has been a decisive change in the situation in India in general and relevant to the case at hand since the contested decision by the BFA was issued. The situation in India has remained essentially unchanged in this regard for years, as the judging court assured itself by constantly observing the current source situation (e.g. by looking into the current country information sheet of the state documentation).

After being questioned, the BF refrained from commenting on the country reports offered by the BFA for delivery.

In his complaint, he did not substantively contest the reports cited in the decision, but on the contrary used some of them as an argument for his submission.

5. Legal assessment:

5.1. Applicable law:

The procedural provisions of the AVG, the BFA-VG, the VwGVG and those contained in the AsylG as well as the material provisions of the AsylG in the current version, including those standards to which the AsylG refers, are to be applied.

On 01.01.2006 the federal law on the granting of asylum came into force (AsylG 2005, Federal Law Gazette I No. 100/2005 in the current version) and applies to the applications for international protection made from this point on, including the present to apply.

In accordance with Section 6 of the Federal Administrative Court Act - BVwGG, Federal Law Gazette I No. 10/2013 in the current version, the BVwG decides by single judges, unless the decision by senates is provided for in federal or state laws. This means that the individual judge has jurisdiction.

In accordance with Section 7, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the BFA-Procedure Act (BFA-VG), Federal Law Gazette I No. 87/2012 in the current version, the BVwG decides on complaints against decisions (notices) of the BFA.

According to § 27 VwGVG, the administrative court, insofar as it is not found to be unlawful due to the lack of jurisdiction of the authority, has the challenged decision, the challenged exercise of direct administrative authority and coercive power and the challenged instruction based on the complaint (§ 9 para. 1 nos 3 and 4 ) or on the basis of the declaration of the extent of the contestation (Section 9 (3))

Pursuant to Section 28 (1) VwGVG, the administrative court has to deal with the case by means of knowledge, provided the complaint is not to be rejected or the proceedings are to be discontinued.

According to § 28 Abs. 2 VwGVG, the administrative court has to decide on complaints according to Art. 130 Abs. 1 Z 1 B-VG itself if

1. the relevant facts are established or

2. the determination of the relevant facts by the administrative court itself is in the interest of speed or is associated with considerable cost savings.

Pursuant to Section 15 AsylG, the asylum seeker has to participate in the procedure under this federal law and, in particular, to justify his application without undue delay and to truthfully present all the information necessary to justify the application for international protection.

Pursuant to Section 18 AsylG, the authority has ex officio at all stages of the procedure to ensure that the information relevant to the decision is provided or incomplete information on the circumstances asserted to justify the application is completed, the means of certification for the information or the means of certification offered supplemented and all information given that appear necessary to justify the application. If necessary, the means of certification must also be provided ex officio.

5.2. Legally it follows from this:

Regarding part A):

5.2.1. The relevant, admissible and timely complaint was submitted to the BFA on March 23, 2018 and was received by the BVwG on March 29, 2018. Since the relevant legal provisions do not provide for a Senate competence, the decision in the case at hand is incumbent on the single judge responsible according to the respectively applicable business division of the BVwG.

5.2.2. The BVwG also states that the main points of the administrative procedure were lawfully carried out.

The BF was given an adequate hearing, in particular through the initial interview and the hearing - each with the help of suitable interpreters.

The authority concerned questioned the BF in particular about the dangerous situation he claimed in India and based its decision on extensive reports from unobjectionable bodies on the situation in India.

5.2.3. To the complaint:

The submission in the complaint, including the amendment, was also unsuitable to support the BF's submission. It essentially exhausts itself in a brief repetition of his escape submissions and an unsubstantiated criticism of the proceedings before the BFA.

In the complaint, too, the BF did not provide any evidence for his submission or his identity and did not introduce any new aspect into the proceedings that would be significant (see Section 10 VwGVG).

5.2.4. Regarding the ruling points of the contested decision: On § 3 AsylG (point I. of the contested decision):

According to § 3 AsylG, an alien who has submitted an application for international protection in Austria is to be granted the status of person entitled to asylum, provided that this application cannot be rejected due to third-country security or the jurisdiction of another country and it is credible that he is being persecuted in the country of origin within the meaning of Art. 1 Section AZ 2 of the Convention on the Legal Status of Refugees, Federal Law Gazette No. 55/1955, in the version of the Protocol on the Legal Status of Refugees, Federal Law Gazette No. 78/1974 (hereinafter GFK) threatens (cf. also the definition of persecution in § 2 para. 1 no. 11 AsylG, which is based on Article 9 of the Status Directive (Directive 2011/95 / EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 13, 2011 on standards for the recognition of third-country nationals or stateless persons as entitled for international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons with the right to subsidiary protection and for the content of the Sc hat; New version).

According to Section 3 (3) AsylG, the asylum application with regard to the granting of the status of the person entitled to asylum must be rejected if the alien has an option to flee within the country (Section 11 AsylG) or if he has set a reason for exclusion from asylum (Section 6 AsylG).

Paragraphs 4 to 4b of § 3 AsylG, which came into force on 01.01.2016 and which apply to asylum applications made after November 15, 2015 according to § 75, paragraph 24, are as follows:

"(4) An alien who is granted the status of asylum seeker is granted a temporary residence permit as a person entitled to asylum. The residence permit is valid for three years and is extended by an unlimited period of validity, provided that the conditions for initiating a procedure to withdraw the status of the person entitled to asylum are met The right of residence shall continue to apply until the person entitled to asylum has been revoked. The right of residence shall expire once the person entitled to asylum has been revoked.

(4a) As part of the state documentation (Section 5 BFA-G), the Federal Office must prepare an analysis at least once a calendar year to what extent it is in those countries of origin that have been granted asylum status in the last five calendar years is of particular importance, there has been an essential, permanent change in the specific, in particular political, circumstances that are decisive for the fear of persecution.

(4b) In family proceedings in accordance with Section 34, Paragraph 1, Item 1, Paragraph 4 applies with the proviso that the period of validity of the temporary residence permit is based on the period of validity of the residence permit of the family member from whom the right is derived. "

Refugees within the meaning of Art. 1 Section AZ 2 of the GFK are those who are outside their home country and are not "for a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a certain social group or political convictions is able or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of this country with regard to this fear; or who is stateless, is outside the country of his habitual residence and is unable or unwilling to enter into to return to this country. "

The central aspect of the GRC refugee concept 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 e.g. VwGH 22.12.1999, 99/01/0334; VwGH 21.12.2000, 2000/01 / 0131; VwGH January 25, 2001, 2001/20/0011; VwGH May 28, 2009, 2008/19/1031).

Persecution is to be understood as an unjustified intrusion of considerable intensity into the personal sphere of the individual that is to be protected. There is considerable intensity when the intervention is suitable to justify the unreasonableness of claiming the protection of the home country or the return to the country of the previous stay.

The risk of persecution must have its cause in one of the reasons mentioned in Art. 1 Section A Z 2 GFK (VwGH 09.09.1993, 93/01/0284; VwGH 15.03.2001, 99720/0128); it must be the reason why the asylum seeker is outside his home country or the country of his previous stay. The risk of persecution must be attributable to the country of origin or the country of the last habitual residence (VwGH 16.06.1994, 94/19/0183; VwGH 18.02.1999, 98/20/0468). However, only a current threat of persecution can be relevant; it must be available when the asylum decision is issued; the prognosis has to be based on this point in time as to whether the asylum seeker has a significant probability of fear of persecution for the reasons mentioned (cf. VwGH 09.03.1999, 98/01/0318; VwGH 19.10.2000, 98/20/0233).

The requirements of the GRC are only met for those refugees who do not find adequate protection from specific persecution in the entire national territory of their home country (VwGH October 8, 1980, VwSlg. 10.255 A). If the asylum seeker is free to enter parts of his home country in which he can live free from fear, and if this is reasonable for him, he does not need protection under asylum law; in this case there is a so-called "domestic escape alternative". The term "domestic flight alternative" takes into account the fact that the well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning of Art. 1 Section AZ 2 GFK, if it is to establish refugee status, must relate to the entire national territory of the asylum seeker's home country (VwGH 08.09. 1999, 98/01/0503 and 98/01/0648). On the basis of the investigative procedure carried out and the established facts, it emerges that the BF's alleged fear of being persecuted in his country of origin with a significant degree of probability for the reasons stated in the GFK is unfounded:

An asylum-relevant interference in the sphere of the individual to be protected by the state leads to refugee status if it is based on a reason specified in Art or political views.