A national of Somalia requested international protection in France claiming a fear of persecution by Al-Shabaab due to the refusal of her family to give up an agricultural land and due to the lack of protection by the authorities. By decision of 12 November 2021, the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) rejected the request. The applicant appealed the decision.

The CNDA rejected the appeal. The court updated its assessment with regard to the indiscriminate violence resulting from a situation of armed conflict in Somalia, referring particularly to the EUAA Country Guidance Somalia from June 2022, the reports of the Secretary General of the UN of 8 February and 13 May 2022, as well as the EUAA COI Report Somalia - Targeted profiles from September 2021. The court noted that the conflict between the armed group Al-Shabaab, which controls rural areas in the center, south and west of the country, and the security forces and those of the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), replaced by the African Union Transitional Mission in Somalia (ATMIS) since 1 April 2022, remains the main source of armed conflict. It also noted that "clan rivalries for political power and control of territories and their resources constitute another important factor of clashes within Somali society".

The court held that the claims of the applicant did not fall under Article 1, A, 2 of the Geneva Convention, nor the provisions of 1° and 2° of Article L. 512-1 of the CESEDA, since she failed to demonstrate that she would be individually affected. The court assessed the situation which prevails in the region where the applicant had the center of her interests before departure, where she would resettle in the event of her return to Somalia, as well as in the regions she would have to cross to reach it. The applicant, originally from the Bay region, would have to transit through Mogadishu, the closest international airport, and cross the Benadir region and the Lower Shabelle. The court noted that the situation prevailing in the regions of Bay, Benadir and Lower Shabelle must be qualified as indiscriminate violence, but the intensity of this violence is not such that there are serious and proven reasons to believe that every civilian would run, simply because of their presence in these regions, a real risk of serious harm within the meaning of Article L. 521-1 3° of the CESEDA.