The applicant, a Somali national, filed a complaint before the UN CRC, arguing that Danish authorities did not appreciate, when rejecting her application for international protection, the best interests of her daughter, who risked being subjected to FGM upon return to their country of origin. The applicant added that, in so doing, the Danish violated Articles 3 and 19 of the CRC.

Recalling its General comment No 6 (2005), the Committee for the Rights of the Child stated that, in assessing asylum applications, States should give "utmost attention" to persecution of kin, including child-specific forms and manifestations of persecution as well as gender-based violence. The committee noted the applicant's arguments that she would not be able to protect her daughter from FGM, as a single mother without any support, in a country where 98% of girls and women are subjected to this practice despite its legal prohibition. The committee also appreciated the Danish authorities' arguments that the applicant had failed to establish the specific risk her daughter would run, as several reports showed that it was possible for parents to protect their children from FGM. Indeed, the Danish authorities put forward that the occurrence of FGM had declined in Somalia, especially in non-rural areas such as the one the applicant would be returned to, where it is easier for parents to resist social pressure as they are not as dependent on their community.

The committee ruled that the Danish authorities were under the obligation to refrain from deporting the applicant's daughter to Somalia, or to separate her from her mother and brother. It stated that the Danish authorities had failed to consider the best interests of the child by basing their decision on a report concerning FGM in central and southern Somalia, rather than on the specific context of the case at hand, as well as on the assumption that the mother would be able to resist family and social pressure simply because she was opposed to the practice. The committee found that Denmark, in doing so, had violated Articles 3 and 19 of the CRC. Finally, the committee reasserted that States have a due diligence obligation to analyse the best interests of the child in asylum proceedings which affect children, as well as to follow the principle of precaution when making their decision.