The case concerns a Nigerian applicant and her four minor children, who applied for international protection on grounds that she left Nigeria because her family and community wanted to circumcise her against her will and that she cannot return because she fears circumcision of both herself and her daughter. The State Secretary found that the applicant’s claim that she fled because she would be circumcised was not credible and rejected the asylum application.

The applicant appealed the decision claiming that the State Secretary wrongly considers it implausible that she fled Nigeria because of the circumstances above and that it insufficiently motivated the decision. The applicant made reference to reports from UNHCR, the UK Home Office, the Austrian Center for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation and the US Department of State.

The court held the applicant did not make credible statements, as it appears from several reports that in Nigeria there is legislation that prohibits female circumcision. Additionally, the applicant made contradictory statements around her circumstances. The court ruled that the State Secretary rightly took the position that there is no well-founded fear of female circumcision upon the applicant’s return to Nigeria and dismissed the appeal.