On 16 July 2019, the applicant, a Nigerian national, applied to the Latvian State Border Guard for international protection on the basis of sexual orientation, citing the murder of the applicant's partner and father as a fear of threat to life. The application was rejected by the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs on 16 January 2020, and the applicant did not challenge the decision.
On 21 April 2022, the applicant requested international protection in Germany. Under the Dublin III Regulation, the applicant was transferred to Latvia where she reapplied for international protection. The Board decided not to examine the applicant's request, while the Administrative District Court denied the applicant's request to review the content of the applicant's repeated asylum claim. The office made an initial decision to remove the applicant from EU territory for expulsion to Nigeria, a third country from which she arrived, or another country in which she has a right to remain, imposing a two-year ban on Schengen territory.
The applicant filed an appeal against the decision, which was denied by the Board as the applicant did not have a valid travel document, visa, or residency permit. The applicant refused to voluntarily leave Latvia, having previously arbitrarily fled the asylum seekers' accommodation centre, evading the return procedure. The board considered that the decision safeguards both legal orders in the State and the State's authority to manage foreign nationals on its territory. Moreover, it was held that there was no reason to assume that returning the applicant to Nigeria will endanger the applicant's life or health due to the current security situation, or subject the applicant to the risk of serious harm.
As the applicant was now expecting a child, the board considered the applicant and her unborn son's individual circumstances while determining whether they met the requirements for refugee or alternative status. The board, however, determined that pregnancy cannot be classified as a significant health condition. It also added that the applicant is a well-educated woman who is capable of taking care of herself. It was further noted that the applicant's conditions in Nigeria were likely to be less favourable than those in Latvia, but this did not amount to a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The applicant filed an appeal before the District Administrative Court, claiming that she and her child will face physical, social, economic, and moral hardship as a result of her future child being born out of wedlock.
The District Administrative Court upheld the appeal since the applicant's individual circumstances had significantly changed as the son had been born and was now residing in Latvia as an asylum seeker. The court ruled that if the decision was upheld, the mother would be separated from her newborn baby, which constitutes cruel and inhuman treatment, violating Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The court further ruled that in imposing an entry ban, the best interests of the child, including the right to family life, in line with Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Article 5 of the Return Directive, must be taken into account. Given the facts of the case, the court concluded that the administrative decision should be annulled and the applicant's application should be granted.