This case concerns a Yemeni national and her minor child (second applicant), who is also a citizen of Yemen. The applicant was granted international protection in Cyprus on 29 June 2017. The applicant arrived in Iceland with her five children, four of whom had reached the age of majority, and submitted a request for international protection on 21 February 2022. On 25 February 2022, the applicant's fingerprints were searched on Eurodac and the Directorate of Immigration noted that she had been registered in Cyprus. On 8 March 2022, the Directorate of Immigration sent a freedom of information request to Cyprus in respect of the applicant. The Cypriot authorities replied on 11 April 2022 stating that the applicant was a beneficiary of international protection and was in possession of a valid residence permit.

The first applicant was interviewed by a representative of the Directorate of Immigration in order to determine the EU+ country responsible for examining the applicants request for international protection on 12 May 2022 while the second applicant was interviewed on 20 May 2022. On 25 May 2022, the Directorate of Immigration issued a decision in respect of the applicant stating that the substance of the request for international protection would not be examined in Iceland and that they would be returned to Cyprus as per the criteria outlined in chapter III. The applicant was notified of the decision on 31 May 2022. The applicant submitted an appeal, to the Immigration and Asylum Appeals Board on 9 June 2022.

The applicant claimed that she was unable to access medical assistance in Cyprus and that she experienced discrimination in the labour market because of her skin colour and the fact that she wears a veil. The applicant stated that her children also faced discrimination in school. Furthermore, she claimed that her ex-husband was involved in organised crime and had sold their daughter into prostitution. The applicant asserted that her daughter had sought assistance from the Cypriot police but was not given any support. The applicant claimed that the Directorate of Immigration did not adequately investigate whether their daughter would be at risk of human trafficking in Cyprus in line with Article 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act No. 37/1993 or whether she should be considered vulnerable within the meaning of the Articles 3 and 25 of the Act on Foreign Nationals.

The applicant reported having diabetes and feeling mentally exhausted but being in general good health while the second applicant reported being in good health.

The Immigration Appeals Board analysed country reports from international institutions and non-governmental organisations and determined that, in general, the protection offered in Cyprus constitutes effective international protection within the meaning of Article 36(1)(a) of the Act on Foreign Nationals.

The board noted that in the present case, the applicants had comparable access to healthcare to Cypriot nationals and that they have no life-threatening illness which would prevent them from being transferred under Article 36(2) of the Act on Foreign Nationals. The board further noted that, in Cyprus, beneficiaries of international protection have equitable access to the labour market, education and social assistance.

In relation to the applicant's fear of being attacked by gangs linked to her ex-husband and their daughter becoming a victim of sexual abuse and/or exploitation, the board concluded that the applicant could contact the police in Cyprus for protection.

Given the age of the second applicant, the board also considered the safety, welfare and social development of the child and concluded that transferring the family to Cyprus was compatible with the best interest of the child principle.

Based on the above, the Immigration Appeals Board confirmed that it was lawful to refuse to examine the substance of both applicants' cases with reference to Article 36(1)(a) of the Act on Foreign Nationals. The board therefore concluded that the decision of the Directorate of Immigration to transfer the applicants to Cyprus was lawful and valid.