First instance decision

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
File information
Introduction
Basis of claim
Credibility assessment
Risk assessment
Legal analysis
Form
Efficiency
Indicates required field

File information

Reference

Applicant

Case data

Assessment

Other

Introduction

Each indicator can and must be assessed by choosing one of the options: Correct, Minor error, Significant error, Not applicable. Guidance on situations encountered is provided for each indicator. Those situations are not exhaustive nor conclusive.

Introduction

1. The decision correctly states the applicant’s details.

1.1. The decision states the correct name, country of origin and home area, date of birth and file number, as well as other details required by national policy.

2. If applicable, the decision includes a concise and accurate summary of the immigration history of the applicant.

2.1. The decision includes a concise and accurate summary of possible previous applications and other immigration history of the applicant, according to national policy.

Basis of claim

3. The basis of claim correctly outlines all material facts, future fear and evidence.

3.1. All the material facts relevant to whether the third country is safe for the applicant are correctly identified and stated.
3.2. The basis of claim correctly specifies who and what the applicant fears, and why, in the context of the third country.
3.3. Evidence (documentary or other evidence) presented by the applicant is correctly outlined according to national practice.

Credibility assessment

4. The credibility of each material fact is assessed correctly, including the identity and country of origin of the applicant.

4.1. Each material fact is correctly formulated.
4.2. The evidence (the applicant's statements, documentary or other evidence) is linked correctly to each material fact.
4.3. Internal credibility indicators are applied and analysed correctly including the assessment and explanationsof the indicators.
4.4. External credibility indicators are applied and analysed correctly including the assessment and explanations of the indicators.
4.5. The concept of plausibility is applied objectively.
4.6. Only inconsistencies/discrepancies that have been put to the applicant for comment are used in the decision.
4.7. COI is relevant, up-to-date and referenced correctly.

5. A clear finding is made on each material fact.

5.1. For each material fact, the decision clearly states whether it is accepted or rejected.
5.2. Where needed, Article 4(5) of the qualification directive is applied correctly.

6. The correct standard and burden of proof is applied.

6.1. When assessing the material facts, the correct standard of proof is applied, according to national guidance.
6.2. The burden of proof is applied correctly when assessing the material facts.
6.3. Individual circumstances and individual factors such as age, education, gender, trauma, etc. are correctly identified and taken into account when assessing the applicant's ability to substantiate their claim.

Risk assessment

7. The risk on return is accurately and fully assessed.

7.1. The decision correctly identifies and assesses the risk upon return (who, what why and in which circumstances) in the context of the third country.
7.2. The correct standard of proof is applied (reasonable degree of likelihood) in assessing risk on return.
7.3. COI with regard to the third country is relevant, up-to-date and correctly referenced.
7.4. The particular circumstances of the applicant are taken into account and assessed correctly regarding the safety of the country and the connection with the applicant.

Form

14. The decision follows a correct structure and includes all required elements.

14.1. The reasoning is non-speculative.
14.2. The language of the decision is appropriate, sensitive and factual.
14.3. The rules of grammar and spelling are applied.

Efficiency

15. The decision is issued according to the prescribed timelines.

15.1. The decision is issued according to the prescribed timelines according to national practice.

Conclusion

To be filled by the quality assessor based on overall observations.

A conclusion on the overall quality, pointing out the identified good practices, weaknesses, and recommendations, how the first-instance decision could be further improved. 
The overall quality is

The scale below is applied.

  • High: Under 20% minor errors and no significant errors from all applicable indicators.
  • Moderate: 20% or more minor errors and no significant errors from all applicable indicators.
  • Low: One or more significant error.
  • 0
    Total correct
  • 0
    Total minor errors
  • 0
    Total significant errors