Menu

Case Law

Picture by Joice Kelly at Unsplash

The “B” Question and the Departmental Policy: Not a Generic Application

,

In Laila’s case, the District Court of The Hague ruled that the IND cannot disregard iMMO’s conclusion regarding the ability to provide a statement without further justification, provided that this conclusion is specifically substantiated and tailored to the individual. This means that the IND must explain how the identified limitations affect the assessment of alleged inconsistencies in the statements. If the IND has doubts about the quality of the investigation or the conclusion, it is upon the IND to substantiate those doubts explicitly and specifically.

On March 11, 2026, the District Court of The Hague issued a landmark ruling on the legal significance of the so-called “B question” in iMMO reports, particularly in light of recent case law from the Supreme Court. The case concerns Laila, an Eritrean woman who claims that she was sexually abused over a long period by her supervisor while performing military service. She therefore left Eritrea and fears punishment upon return for desertion and illegal departure. Her asylum application was rejected as manifestly unfounded, and her account was deemed implausible.

Central to the ruling is the question of the extent to which the minister may disregard the iMMO’s conclusion regarding the claimant’s ability to explain her actions (the B question). On April 2, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that such conclusions may lack sufficient clarity if it is not evident that they are based on an individually tailored assessment. The court acknowledges this framework but emphasizes that this criticism does not apply generically to all iMMO reports.

In the present case, the court ruled that the iMMO report does, in fact, meet the requirements set by the Division. According to the court, the conclusion regarding the limitations in explanatory power is based on a concrete analysis tailored to the individual. Consequently, the minister cannot set aside this conclusion without providing further justification.

This implies an important nuance: the Division’s case law of April 2, 2025, does not constitute a free pass to routinely downplay iMMO findings regarding the “B” question. On the contrary, it must be assessed on a case-by-case basis whether the report is sufficiently transparent and individually substantiated. If that is the case, the report must be fully taken into account in the decision-making process.

The court finds that this has direct implications for the minister’s duty to state reasons. In this case, while the minister did present the relevant medical reports, he did not indicate that they were taken into account in assessing credibility. In particular, no justification was provided as to how the identified limitations in the individual’s ability to provide a statement affect the assessment of alleged inconsistencies in the individual’s statements. In doing so, the minister acted in violation of Articles 3:2 and 3:46 of the General Administrative Law Act (Awb).

It is important that the court explicitly identifies the B-question as a key component of the assessment of evidence. If an expert concludes, with proper justification, that the ability to provide a complete, coherent, and consistent account is limited, this has direct implications for the application of the credibility assessment. In such cases, it is not permissible to apply the same standards to statements as in regular cases without further clarification.

In addition, the court considers that if the minister has doubts about the methodological quality or the individualization of an iMMO report, it is incumbent upon him to substantiate this explicitly and specifically. That did not happen in this case. The minister did not provide a rationale for why the conclusion regarding Question B was insufficiently tailored to the plaintiff, whereas the report actually shows that this conclusion is extensively based on her personal situation. It is precisely under these circumstances that the conclusion is legally untenable.

The ruling shows that the criticism of Question B formulated by the Division on April 2, 2025, is not automatically generally applicable. Whether an iMMO conclusion regarding explanatory power carries weight depends on the extent to which it is substantiated in a concrete and individualized manner. If this is the case, the Minister must explicitly take this conclusion into account when assessing credibility. Failure to do so constitutes a lack of proper justification and due diligence.

The IND must issue a new decision.

Read the medical case study here

Photo by Dana Al-Hawitey on Unsplash

Hague court backs up ruling with women’s treaties

, , ,

On June 10, 2025, the Hague District Court handed down a meaningful ruling in the case of Christina and her husband. The family has filed successive applications for asylum. Central to the case is the account of Christina, who claims to have been abused and raped by members of an extremist group. While the secretary of state finds the sexual violence credible, it finds the circumstances and perpetrators implausible. It also refuses to reimburse the cost of the iMMO investigation submitted by Christina.

In this ruling, the court emphasizes the importance of expert forensic-medical assessment, especially in cases of severe sexual violence and psychological problems. It explicitly confirmed that medical-forensic findings should never be assessed as binary evidence (yes/no evidence), but should always be considered as supporting evidence. Moreover, the IND itself had not commissioned expert evidence to refute iMMO’s findings. Therefore, the Secretary of State could not deem the claimant’s account implausible without a breach of her own duty to investigate.

What is special about this ruling is that the court argues that the sexual violence should have been considered an independent motive for asylum. In doing so, the court refers extensively to international standards, including CEDAW General Recommendation 32 and the Istanbul Convention. According to these conventions, asylum authorities must always assess gender-based violence thoroughly and gender-sensitively. The court emphasizes that this applies to both women and men, as shame, stigma and trauma often make explanations seriously difficult.

In doing so, the court followed the line that the violence undergone may in itself require refugee status, subsidiary protection or protection on humanitarian grounds. The IND had not examined this, which makes the decision making careless and unsoundly motivated.

Also on the issue of successive applications, the court looks deep into the IND’s methodology. Instead of assessing all old and new evidence in conjunction, the IND only looked at whether new documents changed anything “with respect to” the earlier decision. The court stated that this is incorrect: in a subsequent application, all evidence from all procedures must be assessed as a whole.

A second crucial part of the ruling is that the court ruled that the IND had improperly denied the payment of the iMMO fees because this policy does not take into account traumatized asylum seekers who are often not able to explain or conduct specialist examinations until later. Moreover, the examination was necessary because the IND itself did not conduct a medical examination while the claimant’s psychological symptoms limited her ability to explain. The court therefore mandated full reimbursement. To this day, the IND has not yet made payment.

The IND must decide the asylum claims again, taking into account the iMMO report, sexual violence as an independent motive, a proper coherent assessment of evidence, and a completely new hearing on political affiliation.

This ruling sets a firm precedent for the importance of gender-sensitive assessment of sexual violence as well as the recognition of iMMO as an expert body.

Read the substantive case study here.

(* Names are fictitious)

Image by Pexels from Pixabay

The new European Pact on Asylum and Migration: what will change?

,

The European Pact on Asylum and Migration entered into force on June 11, 2024. It consists of nine regulations and one directive and applies in all EU countries from June 12, 2026. The rules largely take effect immediately, but the Netherlands still needs to make national decisions and transpose the Reception Conditions Directive into law. This will significantly change the asylum procedure, including how forensic medical examinations of asylum seekers are conducted and assessed, with consequences for the work of the iMMO foundation.

The Pact on Asylum and Migration has three objectives: more secure external borders, stricter and fairer asylum and return rules, and a balance between solidarity and responsibility. All EU countries have two years to implement it. The pact accelerates procedures with mandatory border screening, shorter decision periods (usually six months), and a solidarity mechanism: countries receiving large numbers of asylum seekers will receive support through relocation or financial aid.

Not everything is set in stone. Member states are free to decide on certain points, such as extending decision deadlines or offering free legal assistance. The Netherlands published a legislative proposal to implement the pact on December 23, 2024. The Council of State issued its recommendation on October 22, 2025: observe fundamental rights during detention, be clear about deadlines, and distinguish between residence status and residence permit.

Article 18 of the old Asylum Procedures Directive required Member States to arrange a forensic medical examination in cases of suspected torture. This obligation is absent in the new Asylum and Migration Pact; the focus is primarily on uniform procedures such as information and interviews. Article 20 of the pact does mention “special guarantees,” and Article 24 the possibility of “conducting a medical examination,” but there is no obligation to conduct a forensic medical examination, as previously stipulated in Article 18.

In the future, member states will still be able to arrange forensic medical examinations themselves; the question is whether the Dutch government will defer this. Finally, iMMO is concerned about whether the new screening procedure at the external borders offers sufficient safeguards for vulnerable asylum seekers who require forensic medical examinations.

iMMO closely monitors all new legal trends and developments. We recently attended the WRV meeting of the Dutch Council for Refugees, where workshops on the pact were held. In the coming period, we will continue to monitor how the Netherlands implements the regulations and what this means for the implementation of forensic medical examinations.

Photo by Ye Jinghan via Unsplash

Reimbursement for assessment takes time

, ,

In Ibrahim’s case, the lawyer submitted the invoice for reimbursement along with the iMMO report. A positive decision followed shortly thereafter, but the IND (Immigration and Naturalization Service) did not respond to the reimbursement request. After some time, the lawyer submitted another request. When that request also remained unanswered, two reminders followed: first after a few months, and again more than six months after the initial request. Finally, almost a year later, the IND indicated that the reimbursement fell within their internal guidelines and would be granted after all.

This case demonstrates that the reimbursement process is often lengthy and complex. iMMO investigations are labor-intensive and expensive. iMMO charges a fee based on the rates for expert reports in criminal cases. In 2025, this rate amounted to €8,470, while the actual costs were around €17,000.

The IND assesses requests for reimbursement based on an internal guideline. This guideline states that reimbursement only occurs if the iMMO report demonstrably contributed to the decision to grant asylum, and in principle only for initial applications. For subsequent applications or when other factors are decisive, the IND rejects the reimbursement – even if the iMMO report was substantively relevant.

According to iMMO, the outcome of the asylum application should not be the determining factor, but rather the substantive role a report plays in the decision-making process. The distinction between initial and subsequent applications is also irrelevant, according to iMMO. Approximately 40% of applications submitted to iMMO are subsequent asylum applications. Shame and fear often prevent those involved from being able to speak about traumatic experiences until later—a dynamic that the Council of State recognized in its ruling of December 13, 2023.[1] For this reason, many iMMO reports are only submitted within a repeated asylum application.

[1] Council of State, December 13, 2023, (202108163/1, ECLI:NL:RVS:2023:4620) point 6.3

Photo by Thomas Marquize on Unsplash

Legal recognition expertise iMMO

, ,

On April 3, 2025, the Amsterdam District Court issued an important ruling in the case of Yusuf*. Yusuf applied for asylum on the basis of persecution in his country of origin. He argued that he was in danger because of his political beliefs and activities against the government. The Secretary of State considered his asylum claim to be partially implausible, because Yusuf allegedly contradicted himself on certain key parts of his story. After his asylum application was rejected, Yusuf filed an iMMO report with the Amsterdam District Court during the appeal phase.

In this ruling, the court confirmed that invoking iMMO as an expert in this case was not unreasonable, given the nature of Yusuf’s psychological symptoms. This highlights the importance of specialized medical expertise in complex asylum cases such as Yusuf’s. The court had stayed the hearing pending the iMMO report.

The court then ruled that the alien’s appeal was well-founded. Because the secretary of state had not disputed the diligence and content of the iMMO report, he could not simply say that the alien’s testimony was contradictory, inconsistent or summary.

He referred to the differences between the further and supplementary hearing and therefore found Yusuf’s asylum account implausible. However, it is not sufficient to ignore the conclusions of the iMMO report based solely on the nature and extent of contradictions. Therefore, the State Secretary could not remedy the defect in the decision-making process, as indicated in the ruling of December 7, 2022 (ECLI:NL:RVS:2022:3615). The state secretary did not appeal. This means that this ruling is final and the IND must again decide on Yusuf’s asylum application, taking into account the iMMO report.

In addition, the court found the fee charged for the iMMO investigation to be reasonable. For iMMO, the ruling represents recognition of the value and necessity of the costs associated with conducting thorough forensic medical examinations. It is essential to the continued existence of iMMO that the costs of our expert reports be reimbursed. The iMMO investigations are labor intensive and therefore costly.

In accordance with case law, iMMO uses a fee based on the rates in criminal cases; that now stands at €8470 per investigation. But the actual cost of an iMMO investigation is double that.

iMMO will pay special attention to the cost reimbursement issue of iMMO reports in the next newsletter.

UPDATE: After this post was published, the lawyer informed us that Yusuf’s asylum application has been granted.

* Names are fictitious.

tingey-injury-law-firm-L4YGuSg0fxs-unsplash vierkant

Detailed Response to the Council of State’s Ruling

, , ,

In its ruling of April 2, 2025, the Council of State discussed at length a specific section of the iMMO expert report (ECLI:NL:RVS:2025:1472). This ruling explicitly does not concern the physical and psychological examination conducted by iMMO in accordance with the internationally accepted Istanbul Protocol. In previous rulings, the Council of State has expressed its appreciation for this part of the iMMO examination, and the Division’s case law regarding the significance of an iMMO report as supporting medical evidence therefore remains unchanged.

In light of the statements made by the expert witness, the Division does, however, raise questions about another, separate aspect of the investigation, namely whether the psychological problems of the individual in question could have affected their ability to testify at the time of the IND hearing. iMMO has written a detailed response (PDF in Dutch) on this point. In it, iMMO argues that an investigation into trauma-related memory issues, as mentioned in the ruling, does not belong within an iMMO investigation. This should be the responsibility of the IND and should take place immediately before or immediately after the hearings.
tingey-injury-law-firm-L4YGuSg0fxs-unsplash vierkant

Brief initial reaction from iMMO to the RvS ruling April 2, 2025

,

On April 2, 2025, the Council of State ruled on iMMO’s approach to the B-question in an iMMO study. To be clear; iMMO expert reports consist of two parts. By far the most important part is the examination of medical support evidence in support of an asylum application, known as the A-question. The B-question examines with what degree of likelihood psychological problems could possibly have affected the ability to explain during IND hearings.
The Council of State, following the expert they hired, ruled that the iMMO methodology should be more in line with current scientific understanding of how PTSD affects memory and what effect that has on the ability to explain in asylum cases.
But iMMO has never investigated, nor will it investigate, memory problems on the ability to explain at the time of the hearings, since iMMO is called in a very long time after the hearings, at which time it is no longer possible to investigate a state of mind at the time of the hearings. The B-question is therefore answered at iMMO solely on the basis of written medical and legal information available at the time of the hearings.
iMMO included above explanation extensively in writing leading up to the hearing and it was also discussed at length at the hearing. Unfortunately, this input is not reflected at all in the ruling. iMMO very much regrets how the wording in the ruling now seems to concern the entire modus operandi of iMMO. It thus overshadows the investigation into the medical support evidence of the A-questions, which is the main purpose of an iMMO investigation. iMMO will thoroughly consider the consequences of this ruling together with experts

The full ruling can be read here. (in Dutch)

louis galvez via Unsplash

Court rules on cost reimbursement of iMMO study

, ,

On February 25, 2025, the Roermond District Court ruled on Ekele’s* repeated asylum application. He applied for asylum in the Netherlands because of his claimed problems regarding his homosexual orientation and conversion to Christianity. In his first asylum application, the above asylum motives were not deemed credible. His second asylum application was dismissed. With his third asylum application, Ekele submitted an iMMO report as medical support evidence of his asylum motives. This report named, among other things, his PTSD-related symptoms, feelings of guilt and shame, and stress-related physical symptoms in addition to scars from abuse.

Ekele obtained a residence permit in 2021. The IND did not want to reimburse for the iMMO examination. However, the court ruled that it had to.

The court ruled that the difference between initial and subsequent applications is not justified because some aliens do not submit medical reports until later because of psychological problems or other obvious reasons. Aliens cannot judge whether their statements are sufficiently convincing to the IND. Perhaps a medical report is not necessary at all. It is also possible to wait for a court ruling before collecting additional evidence. Also, an iMMO examination may be too burdensome for some people.

The court stated that there are good reasons why an iMMO examination should not be conducted in the first proceeding and that it is not natural for a traumatized alien to recognize for himself his psychological symptoms and their effect on his statements.

This court ruling highlights why aliens may not always be able to submit a forensic medical report in the initial proceedings. Since 42% of all applications for iMMO examinations are filed within a subsequent asylum application, this ruling on reimbursement is highly relevant.

* Names are fictitious.

Photo by Daniel Lee on Unsplash

Court emphasizes diligence iMMO report

,

After Kevin* submits his first asylum application in 2021, the IND rejects it on the grounds that his statements are implausible and inconsistent. Kevin appeals the decision, submitting an iMMO report as medical support evidence.

On October 24, 2024, the District Court of The Hague rules on Kevin’s appeal, which included the iMMO report. The court rules that the appeal is well-founded and that the IND must make a new decision on Kevin’s asylum application.

In addition to the substantive assessment of Kevin’s asylum application, the focus of this ruling is whether the iMMO report was carefully prepared. If the iMMO assessment would not have been carefully prepared, the IND does not have to engage a medical expert to refute the content of the iMMO report. The IND may then decide not to consider the content of the iMMO report in their assessment of the asylum application.

The court finds that the iMMO report was indeed carefully produced. If the IND questions iMMO’s expertise, it must request a contra-expertise from another medical expert. The court thus states that the IND cannot refute the contents of the iMMO report on its own. Finally, the court appoints the influence of shame and distrust on the ability to explain. This is in line with the Council of State ruling of December 13, 2023. (ECLI:NL:RVS:2023:4620).

In its conclusion, the court ruled that the IND did not sufficiently involve the iMMO report in its decision on the asylum application and that the IND must reimburse the costs for the iMMO report. The IND has to make a new decision on the application.

The case study can be found here.

* Names are fictitious.

majestic-lukas-LR_fmlnWGTs-unsplash

Role of iMMO in credibility assessment

,

On August 2, 2024, the District Court of The Hague issued a ruling in an asylum case involving an iMMO report from 2020. This ruling is relevant to iMMO because it provides insight into how an iMMO report is used in the examination and judgement of the application. It is particularly important to read how being a child at the time of the interview should be taken into account in the final decision on asylum.

Many years ago, Rudo* applied for asylum as a minor. After he had been granted temporary (categorical) protection for several years, an application for asylum for an indefinite period of time was rejected, and this rejection is well established in law. Using a 2020 iMMO report, Rudo then made a subsequent asylum application in 2021 where the asylum narrative remained the same as what he had previously told.

iMMO investigated whether Rudo’s medical problems stemmed from the alleged history of violence underlying the asylum application. iMMO also looked at whether there were any medical problems at the time of the earlier asylum hearings that cpuld have interfered with the ability to explain. This refers to the interviews when Rudo was still a child. Earlier, the IND rejected the subsequent asylum application because he had declared implausible, inconsistent and incongruous. This he appealed.

In this ruling, the court ruled that the appeal was well-founded and that the IND must make a new decision on Rudo’s asylum application. The ruling is relevant to iMMO because the court elaborates on how the conclusions of an iMMO report can be applied in assessing an asylum application. The court notes that credibility is central to asylum cases, rather than the complete certainty of the account. The underlying iMMO report finds that two of Rudo’s scars are consistent with the violence narrative, one group of scars is highly consistent, and two other scars and the psychological symptoms are typical according to the gradations of the Istanbul Protocol.

The IND previously objected that these gradations leave too much room for other causes for the scarring and psychological symptoms. However, the court concluded that if a gradation other than characteristic of the alleged violence is given, it does not necessarily mean that the account is therefore implausible.

That the court appoints this nuance is important to iMMO and the weight of iMMO reports. Additionally, it is significant that the court states that the IND applied an incorrect credibility assessment because the IND previously acknowledged that the iMMO report was competent and carefully prepared.

Finally, this ruling highlights the influence of being a child or adolescent at the time of interviews and how this should be taken into account, especially in light of the person’s medical and psychological problems. According to the court, the IND did not take this sufficiently into account in their decision and it can indeed have an influence. iMMO often conducts research on individuals who are minors at the time of the iMMO research, or at the time of their initial asylum application. This ruling therefore provides valuable insight into the assessment framework used by the IND and what role minority plays in it.

(*) Names are fictitious.

Load More

Processing...
Thank you! Your subscription has been confirmed. You'll hear from us soon.
Schrijf je in voor onze nieuwsbrief
ErrorHere