A woman from Burkina Faso, of Mossi ethnicity, from the locality of Bissighin, requested international protection in France, claiming that her family wanted to subject her to FGM/C in her country of origin and that the authorities cannot offer effective protection. She submitted that her mother’s uncle wanted to subject her to this practice and that following a family gathering it was decided to have her undergo FGM/C in July 2022. Her mother tried to object to this decision but they subsequently fled to France on 20 April 2022.

On 31 August 2022, the Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) rejected the request.

On appeal, the CNDA annulled the decision of the OFPRA and provided refugee protection.

The court held that the applicant belonged to the social group of young women exposed to female genital mutilation, without being able to benefit from the protection of the authorities of her country.

The court noted the rather old legal provisions governing the fight against FGM/C in Burkina Faso and the report of the NGO 28 Too Many, which emphasised the high rate of prevalence of excision within the Mossi ethnic group, higher than 78% for women aged 15 to 49 and the even higher prevalence of this practice within the Muslim community, approximately 81% of women. The court observed that this report is corroborated by a UNICEF report of May 2020 indicating that the province of Ganzourgou, where the locality of Bissighin is located and from which the applicant originates, has an excision prevalence rate of over 80% for women aged 15 to 49. 

The court further examined the case in detail, noting that the applicant's mother made consistent statements about the events that took place in her family, namely the fact that after the death of her father, the paternal uncle who had become the head of the family threatened her with death when she opposed his wish to have the applicant circumcised. The court noted that she found herself unable to protect her daughter, because she was born of an extra-marital relationship. In addition, the court noted that the applicant’s mother had not been subjected to FGM/C herself as her father and mother in law had protected her against the practice. Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant’s statements were supported by a medical certificate attesting to the applicant’s physical integrity. 

The court thus annulled the decision of the OFPRA and provided refugee protection.