With the final decision made by the CAD, the procedure for international protection ends. Applicants may encounter with different situation:
However, there is the possibility of lodging an appeal with the Council of State. This screens applications in order to check whether the reasons for the appeal are valid.
When the application has been definitively refused by a negative decision from the CAD, the failed applicant receives an order to leave the territory (BGV/OQT). If you receive a BGV/OQT, you must leave Belgium to return to your country of origin, or to the country where you have a right of residence. You must leave the country within a certain time. After this time, you may be forcibly removed.
If you have new evidence, you can file a subsequent application under certain conditions. Read more about this under.
The Immigration Office registers subsequent applications. The asylum seeker’s declaration on new elements and the reasons he or she could not invoke them earlier, and transmit the claim normally without delay to the CGRS. The CGRS first decides on the admissibility of the claim by determining whether there are new elements, which significantly add to the likelihood of the applicant qualifying as a beneficiary of international protection. The claim is deemed admissible where the previous application has been terminated on the basis of implicit withdrawal.
The CGRS should take this decision within 10 working days after receiving the application from the Immigration Office. Due to a high volume of subsequent applications, the 10 days delay is often not respected. If the person is in detention, this decision should be taken within 2 working days. If the CGRS declares the application admissible, it continues with an examination of the merits under the Accelerated Procedure. The final decision should be made within 15 working days. In 2019, significant delays in these procedures were noted in practice, from several months up to more than a year.
Where the subsequent application is dismissed as inadmissible, the CGRS should determine whether the removal of the applicant would lead to direct or indirect refoulement.
An appeal to the CALL against an inadmissibility decision should be made within 10 days, or 5 days when the applicant is in detention. The appeal has an automatic suspensive effect, except where:
The CGRS deems that there is no risk of direct or indirect refoulement; and
The application is either (i) a second application within one year from the final decision on the previous application and made from detention, or (ii) a third or further application.
Legal assistance is arranged in exactly the same way as regarding first asylum applications. However, in practice some asylum seekers or lawyers themselves have experienced difficulties in obtaining “pro-Deo” assignments because the bureau for legal assistance required them to provide proof of the existence of new elements in advance.
An applicant does not have a right to remain on the territory even before the CGRS pronounces itself on admissibility in cases where:
The CGRS has decided in the previous procedure concerning the second application that removal would not amount to direct or indirect refoulement.
The evaluation of new elements is strictly applied in practice according to multiple actors and lawyers. However, the Belgian State has avoided condemnations by the ECtHR through friendly settlements. On 7 March 2019 for example, a decision on a friendly settlement was issued in a case concerning an Afghan applicant who was denied international protection due to lack of credibility. His subsequent medical report had not been taken into account, leading to the rejection of his new application, as no new elements were found. The applicant complained of a violation of Article 3, in its procedural aspect, as well as Article 13, as the standard of proof required was excessive. He claimed the asylum authorities had failed to take his mental disorder into account, even though the lack of credibility was later based on this disorder. He also claimed that the CALL had placed the burden of proof entirely on him, regardless of the benefit of the doubt, and that the judge failed to duly examine available evidence (i.e. the medical report). The Belgian State successfully settled this case so as to avoid a (possible) negative decision by the ECtHR. The Belgian government guaranteed that the CGRS would take all evidence into account if a new asylum application is lodged, including the mental disorders of the applicant which seem to have been at the origin of a lack of credibility.