MELİKE DEMİR*
From Social Exclusion to Well-Founded Fear: The Reality of Asylum
“We are resolutely continuing our struggle against FETÖ.”
This statement, shared on September 21, 2025, by Interior Minister Ali Yerlikaya on his social media account praising ongoing operations in 81 provinces, cannot be taken merely as a political message. The announcement not only reveals the scale of the operations in Turkey but also carries serious implications under international law.
According to the 1951 Geneva Convention, the likelihood of persecution due to belonging to a social group or holding political opinions constitutes a concrete indicator of “well-founded fear.” Such official declarations once again demonstrate how realistic and current this fear is, forming the basis for asylum applications.
Rising Asylum Applications
Since 2016, applications for asylum from Turkey to Europe have continued without interruption. Belgium has been one of the countries most affected by this wave. As of August 2025, 1,875 individuals from Turkey applied for asylum there. Although the number of applications has decreased compared to previous years, Turkey still ranks as the fifth-largest source of asylum applications in Belgium. A significant proportion of these applicants are linked, or alleged to be linked, to the Gülen movement.
Despite the fact that most applications have been accepted by the Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRA-CGVS), a small portion has been rejected. A review of 50 Gülen-related cases decided by the Council for Alien Law Litigation (CCE-RVV) in the first half of 2025 reveals the following:
22% of applicants were directly granted refugee status.
32% of rejections were annulled, with cases sent back for reconsideration.
46% of rejections were upheld.
Thus, nearly half of Gülen-related cases in Belgium ultimately resulted either in direct recognition of refugee status or in reconsideration of the file.
“Personal Profile” as the Key Criterion
A striking aspect of the Council’s approach is the individualization of each case. While the Council does not fully accept that repression against the Gülen movement in Turkey amounts to “systematic persecution applied equally to everyone,” it does recognize risk depending on the applicant’s personal profile, past experiences, family ties, and activities abroad.
For example, the imprisonment of a family member alone is not deemed sufficient to justify refugee status. But if the applicant also lived in movement-affiliated houses, attended its events, or maintained such ties abroad, the combination of these factors is considered enough to establish a reasonable fear of persecution.
Social and Economic Exclusion
One of the Council’s most notable precedents is its recognition of social exclusion as a form of persecution. Being dismissed by emergency decrees (KHK), inability to find employment, blacklisting in the social security system, denial of bank accounts and loans, and stigmatization in society are all treated as serious risk factors justifying refugee status.
In one case, a highly educated applicant who could not find work in Turkey and was forced to take cleaning and caregiving jobs was deemed to have experienced social exclusion. This was accepted as evidence of persecution, showing a high likelihood of renewed victimization if returned to Turkey.
“Well-Founded Fear,” Not Absolute Certainty
The CCE-RVV carefully applies the core asylum principle of “well-founded fear.” What is required is not absolute certainty of persecution, but rather a fear supported by reasonable grounds.
The first-instance body, CGRA-CGVS, sometimes interprets the ability to obtain a passport, to leave the country legally, or the continued normal life of relatives in Turkey as signs of “no risk.” However, the Council takes a different view: such factors do not eliminate the possibility of renewed persecution.
Indeed, Interior Minister Yerlikaya’s own statement on September 21, 2025—that within one week alone, 39 operations were conducted, 97 people detained, and that 11,667 operations have been carried out under the current cabinet—clearly supports the existence of well-founded fear.
Family Ties Not Sufficient Alone
Another frequently debated issue is family ties. The Council generally does not consider the imprisonment of a relative as sufficient on its own. However, when combined with other risk factors, family ties strengthen the applicant’s profile. For example, an applicant whose father was imprisoned, who had lived in movement houses, and who maintained activities abroad was granted refugee status based on this overall context.
Procedural Errors as Grounds for Annulment
The CCE-RVV also examines procedure, not just substance. Failure to consider documents, superficial use of country reports, or violation of deadlines are treated as serious procedural errors and lead to annulment of decisions. In this way, the Council seeks to safeguard not only individual rights but also the guarantees of fair trial.
In Line with EU Law
The Council’s approach is consistent with EU law. As emphasized by the European Court of Justice in 2019, even if an applicant has refugee status in another EU country, they retain the right to reapply if living conditions there are incompatible with human dignity. In one case, an applicant previously granted status in Greece was allowed to apply in Belgium, given their psychological vulnerability and expired residence permit.
Key Takeaways
Every file is examined individually. Country reports matter, but the applicant’s unique story is decisive.
Certainty is not required; reasonable grounds for fear are sufficient. Persecution is evaluated on the basis of probability.
Social and economic exclusion can also qualify as persecution. Unemployment, stigmatization, and financial exclusion may justify protection.
Procedural guarantees are upheld. Errors or omissions in procedure can benefit the applicant.
Conclusion
These rulings in Belgium set an important precedent for international law: persecution is not confined to prison walls. Sometimes, being denied employment, stigmatized, or excluded from economic life can be just as oppressive.
And above all: every person’s story is unique. That is why each asylum application must be evaluated not by cold statistics, but in its own personal context.
*Lawyer
