A 23-year-old Cameroonian woman from Douala, from the Bamun ethnic group and of Christian faith applied for international protection in Austria on 6 March 2023. The applicant initially argued a fear of forced marriage and female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C). In a later appeal, she additionally stated she feared persecution in Cameroon due to her homosexuality. The applicant’s mother tongue was French but she also spoke English.
On 25 February 2025, the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum rejected refugee status, subsidiary protection and a residence permit for special protection and issued a return decision with a 14-day voluntary departure period. The applicant, represented by the Federal Agency for Care and Support Services, appealed the decision to the Federal Administrative Court, which held a hearing on 2 June 2025.
The court found several inconsistencies and credibility gaps in the applicant’s submissions. Regarding the applicant’s identity, the court acknowledged that individual pages were removed from her passport but held that the applicant’s identity and place of birth were confirmed.
Regarding forced marriage, the court assessed the applicant’s argument that her parents had planned to marry her against her will to an older man who already had four wives. The court held that the applicant’s description of her father as a ‘tradition-conscious Muslim’ was difficult to reconcile with the fact that the applicant was able to complete school with a high school diploma and then begin university studies. The court noted that there was a contradiction in the fact that the applicant's father was described in the complaint as characterised by ‘traditional strictness’ rather than "religious strictness". The court found it implausible that the applicant only knew the suitor as “the old man” despite his regular visits and months of wedding planning, and it was unlikely that her parents, eager for her to marry, would refer to him constantly in such vague terms. The court held that the applicant had made contradictory statements about having direct contact with the man and the timing of the planned marriage remained unclear. Therefore, the court found no evidence that her parents had tried to force her into marriage with an older man.
Regarding the threat of FGM/C, the Court considered that the applicant's parents did not want to force her to undergo genital mutilation on the basis of the applicant’s inconsistent claims regarding the dates on which it was to be performed. The court also held that it would have been possible for the applicant, as an adult and educated woman, to have refused to undergo FGM/C in Cameroon, where genital mutilation is prohibited and very rarely carried out by her ethnic group. Based on country of origin information, it noted that FGM/C is not a mass phenomenon in Cameroon, but it is practiced in the north and in rural areas along the border with Nigeria and several ethnic groups (Boki, Otu Ejagham, Bayangi) practice FGM/C in southwest Cameroon, sometimes on adult women after the birth of their first child but the information does not mention FGM/C before marriage. The court also added that, according to 28TooMany, an organization that campaigns against FGM/C, the procedure is usually performed between the ages of 4 and 9 and that only 1% of girls and women in Cameroon are circumcised and that in the southwest, where the complainant comes from, the figure is 2.4%. Furthermore, the court noted that since FGM/C is prohibited in Cameroon, the authorities enforce the law when cases are reported, although successful prosecutions are extremely rare.
The court also rejected the applicant’s claims of religious and ethnic persecution, stating that while isolated discrimination against the Bamum ethnic group or Christians may occur in Cameroon, the applicant did not demonstrate individual persecution. The court acknowledged that her alleged sexual orientation, being homosexual, was raised for the first time in the appeal. The court stated that it did not overlook that the mere fact that a person does not immediately declare homosexuality does not speak against the credibility of the submission. However, the court deemed the applicant’s submission to be non-credible due to a lack of supporting evidence and inconsistencies.
Regarding country of origin information, the court acknowledged human rights concerns in Cameroon, conflict zones in the anglophone regions, and discrimination against LGBTIQ individuals. However, it concluded that the applicant was not personally at risk of being persecuted. Taking into account the individual situation of the applicant, the court noted that exceptional circumstances were not shown according to which the basic needs of human existence could not be met in the event of her return to Cameroon. The court acknowledged that the applicant was employable, had professional experience and had family ties in Cameroon. The court held that the fact that her livelihood in Cameroon may have been more modest than it could be in Austria does not justify the assumption that she would be deprived of the most basic means of subsistence in the event of her return and that the threshold of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) would be exceeded.
The Federal Administrative Court dismissed the appeal as unfounded. The court found no substantial personal risk to the applicant upon a return and no compelling grounds for international protection.