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.