The Gülen Movement and Asylum in Belgium

CCE-RVV’s 2025 Decisions

As of August 2025, the number of asylum applications made to Belgium from Turkey has reached 1,875. Although there has been a relative decline in the number of applications, Turkey still ranks fifth in Belgium in terms of international protection applications by nationality.

In asylum applications, the General Commissariat for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRA-CGVS, Commissariat général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides – Commissariaat-generaal voor de Vluchtelingen en de Staatlozen) have been transferred to the Aliens Appeals Board (CCE-RVV, Conseil du Contentieux des Etrangers- Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen). This study focuses on the Council’s approach to rejection decisions issued in relation to files linked to the Gülen movement.

CCE-RVV has the authority to review CGRA’s rejection decisions in both their legal and factual dimensions, in accordance with the principle of “effective remedy” (recours effectif) as provided for in European Union law. In this context, the Council may review a rejection decision:

  • approve it,
  • cancel it if it finds it procedurally or substantively flawed and send the file back for review,
  • or directly grant refugee status.

As Legal Assistance & Consultancy (LAC), this study examined 50 decisions issued by CCE-RVV in 2025 regarding applications related to the Gülen movement and analyzed how the Council assessed the systematic persecution of this movement in Turkey.

General Statistics (2025)

The distribution of CCE decisions within the 50 cases examined during the January–June 2025 period and alleged to be linked to the Gülen movement is as follows:

  • Refugee status granted (réformation): 11 cases (22%)
  • Cancellation and re-examination (annulation/renvoi): 16 cases (32%)
  • Rejection/confirmation (rejet/confirmation): 23 cases (46%)

This table shows that approximately half of the applicants in the CCE-RVV phase either obtained refugee status directly or had their files reviewed again.

Overview of the Gülen Files: The Framework Outlined by CCE-RVV

The Belgian Council for the Review of Foreigners’ Appeals (CCE-RVV) and current country information sources indicate that the treatment of the Gülen movement in Turkey is not considered “systematic persecution applied equally to all,” but rather a risk spectrum that varies according to the individual’s level of involvement/affiliation. However, the CCE-RVV emphasizes that these cases must be examined with great care and caution. Even with low visibility, cumulative factors (family ties, investigation/conviction, professional position, social/psychological vulnerability, timeline) can increase personal risk.

Furthermore, CCE-RVV emphasizes that in the practical operation of the Turkish judicial system, individuals can be detained, interrogated, or arrested not only on the basis of a final conviction or official arrest warrant, but also on the basis of mere suspicions or non-judicial information. Therefore, it rejected the Commissioner General’s argument that only the existence of a conviction or arrest warrant should be sought as evidence of “concrete risk.” According to CCE-RVV, given the actual judicial practice in Turkey, even lower-threshold indicators may constitute a reasonable basis for the applicant’s fear of persecution.

“Well-founded Fear” Criterion

One of the most fundamental concepts in international protection law is the principle of “well-founded fear” (crainte fondée). According to this principle, an applicant’s fear of persecution must not only be a subjective feeling, but must also be based on objective evidence. The CCE-RVV case law, for example, points out that approximately 65% of the more than 152,000 civil servants dismissed by emergency decrees were not subject to any judicial proceedings or investigations. In this context, merely pointing to a past connection with the Gülen movement is not sufficient; concrete and current evidence showing that the applicant was personally targeted is also sought in the examination of appeals. Indeed, for applicants who have not experienced any investigation or serious victimization in Turkey for many years (e.g., between 2016 and 2023), the risk of persecution upon return is often considered by the CCE-RVV to be “objectively unfounded.”

The General Commissioner did not find it convincing that the applicant justified his failure to apply for international protection despite having stayed in France for a year by citing “inability to integrate” and “lack of support from the Gülen movement.” This situation was considered a factor undermining the credibility of the application, on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the typical behavior of a person genuinely fearing persecution within the meaning of the Geneva Convention and weakened the objective basis for the fear of persecution.

In one case, the applicant claimed to have been detained three times in 2019, 2021, and 2022, yet only left Turkey in July 2023. The Commission found this time discrepancy unconvincing and issued a rejection decision. However, CCE-RVV granted the applicant refugee status, taking into account other elements of the file, and did not directly assess this point. According to the Council, the fact that the Commissioner failed to provide “valid reasons that the persecution would not be repeated” is sufficient in itself to accept that the applicant has a reasonable fear of persecution.

An applicant claimed that upon returning to Turkey, he would face social pressure and be ostracized as a “Fetö supporter”; however, this fear was deemed ‘hypothetical’ and was not considered “very important” due to the applicant’s possibility of moving to another city.

In another application, the CCE-RVV emphasized the current necessity of prosecution in determining well-founded fear, noting that the most recent documents submitted by the applicant during the appeal stage were dated February 2022 and related solely to the investigation phase, thus failing to prove an active prosecution or trial process.

In a separate application, the applicant, who was expelled from the Gendarmerie Coast Guard Academy on grounds of “academic failure,” claimed that this was actually due to his connection to Gülen. However, the Commissioner and CCE-RVV rejected his application for refugee or subsidiary protection status on the grounds that he failed to prove a concrete and current risk of persecution.

The Role of Family Ties

Family ties, while frequently discussed in CCE-RVV and Commissioner decisions, are not objective evidence of a well-founded fear of persecution on their own. For example, in one case, the applicant cited the situation of his uncle, who was allegedly associated with the Gülen movement, but the Commissioner’s Office assessed that this information did not constitute a reliable indication that the applicant would be personally targeted. In the same case, the submission of documents by another family member who had been granted refugee status was also not considered sufficient to prove his own case.

However, the CCE-RVV case law also shows that family ties are not entirely insignificant. In some of its decisions, the Council has emphasized that family ties can have an effect that reinforces other risk factors. In particular, where the applicant has a history of serious persecution (e.g., final convictions, lengthy investigations) or where multiple risk factors accumulate, family ties may be accepted as a criterion that supports the objective elements of the fear of persecution.

Therefore, while the general trend at the Commissioner’s Office is that family ties alone are not sufficient, the CCE-RVV adopts a more flexible approach, revealing that in some cases, family circumstances can be a key factor reinforcing personal risk.

CCE-RVV’s Holistic Risk Assessment

CCE-RVV case law indicates that a single factor (e.g., family ties or the timing of departure from the country) is generally insufficient in asylum applications, and that what is truly important is the assessment of all factors together. This approach is particularly evident in how the concrete persecution applicants have experienced in the past is weighed against the “positive” conditions in their current situation.

In one example, the applicant had been sentenced to eight years, one month, and fifteen days in prison due to alleged links to the Gülen movement and was still on probation until March 14, 2026. While acknowledging these serious circumstances, the Commission noted that the applicant:

  • Not having been deprived of his freedom again after his parole,
  • Not having faced a new judicial process,
  • Being able to obtain a passport,
  • Being able to leave Turkey legally,
  • And some of his family members still residing in Turkey,

as indicators that the fear of persecution was not present and concrete.

The CCE-RVV, however, adopted a different perspective from the Commissioner in this case. The Council emphasized that, considering the applicant’s specific profile and family situation, the factors cited as positive indicators by the Commissioner did not eliminate the risk of persecution. On the contrary, the severity of the past conviction and the ongoing conditional release strongly indicated the likelihood of renewed persecution upon the applicant’s return to Turkey. The CCE-RVV stated in its decision:

“The Council, taking into account the applicant’s specific profile and family situation; stated that the fact that he had not been deprived of his liberty again after his conditional release, that there were no new legal proceedings against him, that he had been able to obtain a passport and leave Turkey legally, and that some of his family members still resided in Turkey, was not sufficient to eliminate the risk of the applicant being subjected to persecution again. Given that this persecution could take different forms, there is no need to further examine whether the applicant risks serving the remainder of his prison sentence. The fact that the respondent has not provided valid reasons to believe that such persecution will not be repeated is sufficient to accept that the applicant has a reasonable fear of persecution.”

The CCE therefore overturned the Commissioner’s rejection decision and granted the applicant refugee status. The Council thus established that conditions that appear superficially “normalized” are not sufficient to eliminate the fear of persecution. 

The Determinative Role of Personal Profile

One of the most important points to note in CCE-RVV decisions is that cases are handled in a highly personalized manner. The Council makes its decisions by evaluating not only the general conditions in the country, but also many factors, including the applicant’s family history, personal activities, and position abroad. For example;

  • An applicant claimed that his father and uncle had been imprisoned for their links to the Gülen movement and that he himself had been educated at schools associated with this movement. However, the CCE-RVV assessed that these links alone did not constitute sufficient and concrete evidence that the applicant would be personally targeted. The Council emphasized that the applicant’s individual situation must be examined in light of current, general, and objective information, and found the approach of the Commissioner, who issued a rejection decision in this case, to be correct.
  • However, in another case, the applicant stated that his father had received an eight-year prison sentence in 2019, but that he himself had not been personally and directly targeted when he left the country. However, CCE-RVV also took into account that the applicant had an “active family profile,” continued his activities with the Gülen movement in Belgium, and organized events while staying at an official residence of the movement. It concluded that these elements were sufficient to raise suspicion among Turkish authorities in the event of a return to the country and reinforced the risk of persecution. The Council therefore accepted that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution and granted him refugee status.

These two examples demonstrate that the CCE-RVV does not take a “one size fits all” approach. The same family background can lead to different outcomes in different cases; what is decisive is the applicant’s personal profile, the activities in which they have participated, and how the current risk factors are assessed in their entirety.

Not Certainty, but Reasonable Fear

One of the key points highlighted in the CCE-RVV case law is that, in international protection applications, it is not certainty but a fear based on reasonable grounds that is sought in proving a “fear of persecution.” This approach, in line with the essence of Article 1(A)(2) of the Geneva Convention, establishes that the risks the applicant may face in the future must be assessed on the basis of probability.

In one decision, the applicant’s links to the Gülen movement, the imprisonment of some family members because of this movement, and the financial assistance he provided to them were examined. The Commission argued that these links alone did not indicate a definite risk of persecution, even considering his ability to leave Turkey legally and the fact that family members still lived in the country as factors “indicating the absence of risk.”

The CCE-RVV, on the contrary, stated that when considered together in light of the applicant’s specific profile, these elements gave rise to a reasonable fear of persecution upon return to Turkey. It also leveled serious criticism at the Commission’s approach:

  • The failure to provide access to the COI Focus (December 14, 2021) document referenced in the file,
  • The absence of the document in question on the Commission’s website or in the case file,
  • And the fact that this creates the impression of “concealing information that could be favorable.”

The CCE-RVV noted that during the hearing, the Commissioner’s Office explicitly acknowledged that long-term residence abroad constituted an additional risk factor for the applicant, yet the request was denied on the grounds that the concrete risk was “not established.” The Council emphasized that requiring the condition of “established persecution” is incompatible with the standard set forth in the Geneva Convention.

Ultimately, when the applicant’s family ties and his own actions (financial support, contacts with the movement, long-term residence abroad) were considered together, it was accepted that he faced a risk of persecution upon return to Turkey. The Council overturned the Commissioner’s rejection decision and granted the applicant refugee status.

Benefit of the Doubt Principle: The Protective Power of Article 48/7

The CCRVV clearly stated that the arguments cited by the Commission to justify its rejection decision in certain cases did not suffice to overcome the presumption introduced by Article 48/7 of the Law of December 15, 1980. This article provides that, under certain conditions, doubt must be interpreted in favor of the applicant.

The Commission based its rejection of an application in one case on the following grounds:

  • The belief that the applicant’s judicial problems in Turkey had ended,
  • The claim that past persecution had only occurred under specific conditions of detention,
  • The lack of documentary evidence of new legal proceedings,
  • The applicant’s ability to leave Turkey by legal means,
  • And the misinterpretation in this case of the general principle that “each individual’s situation must be assessed separately.”

The Council examined these grounds individually and found that:

  • The documents in the file refute the applicant’s belief that his judicial problems have ended.
  • The claim that past serious persecution was solely linked to detention conditions is not consistent with the available evidence.
  • The argument of a lack of new evidence has been refuted by the documents submitted to the Council by the applicant himself.
  • It is clear that legal departure alone does not eliminate the fear of persecution.
  • And the principle of “individual assessment” has been misapplied in this case.

Consequently, the Council, noting that the Commissioner’s arguments did not suffice to remove the presumption of doubt in favor of the applicant, overturned the rejection decision.

Social and Economic Exclusion is also Persecution

CCE-RVV acknowledges that not only direct state pressure such as criminal investigation or arrest, but also unemployment, social exclusion, and stigmatization can reach the level of persecution in refugee law.

In one decision, the applicant’s difficulties in finding work and social exclusion following his dismissal under a decree-law were considered to constitute persecution of a serious nature; it was also noted that his family’s situation reinforced this fear. By examining country reports (COI Focus 2021; COI March 28, 2024), CCRVV has determined that the following issues pose current and ongoing risks:

  • The addition of the code “36 OHAL/KHK” to the social security records of those dismissed by KHK, making it nearly impossible to find work.
  • Serious restrictions on fundamental economic rights such as opening a bank account, using credit, receiving insurance payments, establishing a company, and selling property.
  • Stigmatization extending to family members due to their relatives’ links to Gülen: spouses, siblings, and even children struggling to find work.
  • Arbitrary restrictions on access to health services and basic daily necessities.
  • The continuing “attribution of guilt” and stigmatization in society due to constant reports of detention and criminalization in the media.

CCE-RVV, within the scope of the file, notes that although the applicant, who has a master’s degree from university, was able to find work as a babysitter, house cleaner, or salesperson after being dismissed from her job, these last jobs show that he was at least socially excluded.“ With this finding and general assessments, the Council concluded that ”the applicant’s past and current involvement in the Gülen movement, his family ties to persons prosecuted and/or convicted for FETO membership, family ties with persons recognized as refugees, and the social and administrative exclusion they have suffered and/or may (again) suffer, the Council considers that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Turkey.” The Council thus determined that the applicant has a reasonable fear of persecution if returned to Turkey and granted them refugee status.

Assessment of Risk After Acquittal

In some cases, the CCE-RVV has taken into account the fact that the applicant had been acquitted of charges related to the Gülen movement in the past and that this acquittal had been upheld by the court of appeal. For example, in one decision, it was determined that the applicant had not been subjected to any reprisals after the acquittal and that the situation of his family did not automatically create a risk of persecution against him.

In this case, the CCE-RVV ruled that the applicant’s fears were not supported by sufficient concrete evidence and concluded that there were no valid grounds for granting either refugee status or subsidiary protection status.

Status Holders in Greece and Inadmissibility Reviews

The CCE-RVV also assessed the files of applicants who had previously obtained international protection in Greece based on their personal circumstances. In one decision, the applicant’s application in Belgium was rejected by the Commission on the grounds that it was inadmissible because the applicant had previously been granted refugee status in Greece.

Although the Council acknowledged that living conditions in Greece entailed serious difficulties for persons with refugee status, it emphasized that individual circumstances were the decisive factor. In this case, the applicant:

  • Psychological vulnerability,
  • Expiration of residence permit in Greece,

It was specifically noted that these circumstances would give rise to a risk of extreme material deprivation and inhuman treatment if the applicant were returned to Greece.

On these grounds, the CCE annulled the Commission’s inadmissibility decision and decided to refer the case back for a substantive re-examination, taking into account the applicant’s situation in Turkey.

This approach is consistent with the principle set out in the CJEU’s judgment (March 19, 2019, C-297/17 and others): An EU member state may deem an application inadmissible even if protection is available in another member state; however, this only applies if the living conditions in that member state do not expose the applicant to a serious risk of ill-treatment.

Current Status within the EU and Inadmissibility

CCE-RVV only examines whether the living conditions in the country are incompatible with the protection of fundamental rights in cases where applicants already have international protection status in another EU member state. In one case, applicants with status in Poland claimed to have experienced difficulties with housing, employment, access to healthcare, and racist attacks, but the CCE-RVV ruled that these claims were not sufficient to undermine the presumption that the rights of beneficiaries of international protection in Poland are protected. Furthermore, the applicants’ failure to make sufficient efforts to seek their rights before the Polish authorities was also among the reasons for the decision.

Procedural Errors and CCE-RVV Oversight

CCE-RVV subjects the Commissioner’s decisions to rigorous oversight not only in terms of content but also in terms of procedure. Various cases demonstrate that procedural errors can have significant consequences in favor of applicants:

  • Insufficient examination of documents: When it emerged that the Fedactio membership certificate submitted by the applicant in their second request had not been sufficiently examined even in the previous file, CCE-RVV overturned the Commission’s second rejection decision and returned the file. This decision demonstrates that a superficial evaluation of documents is considered a serious procedural error.
  • Contradictory country information and disregard of documents: The applicant claimed risk due to both his Kurdish ethnicity and alleged ties to the Gülen movement; he also submitted a “file confidentiality decision” obtained from the prosecutor’s office. The Commission found these documents unconvincing and rejected the application. The CCE-RVV, however, noted that there were contradictions in the country information and that the confidentiality decision had not been sufficiently examined, overturned the rejection decision, and sent the file back for re-examination.
  • Violation of legal deadlines: The CCE-RVV considered the Commissioner’s decision to exceed the four-week legal deadline for the applicant detained at the border to be a fundamental procedural error. Therefore, the decision was overturned and the file was sent back to the Commissioner.

General Conclusion

The decisions examined show that the CCE-RVV focuses not only on general rules in cases related to the Gülen movement, but also on each applicant’s personal profile and specific circumstances. While the CGRA often rejects applications based on the “no systematic persecution” approach, the CCE-RVV makes its decisions by jointly evaluating factors such as family ties, past convictions, social stigmatization, psychological vulnerability, and activities abroad.

The Council seeks reasonable grounds rather than certainty in proving the fear of persecution; in some cases, it also accepts social and economic exclusion as persecution. In addition, it can rule in favor of applicants by strictly scrutinizing procedural errors.

In conclusion, the CCE-RVV’s approach sends a clear message: each application is individual; general country conditions are important, but what is decisive is the risk profile that emerges within the context of the applicant’s own history, family, and personal story.