An Afghan woman first applied for asylum in Switzerland on 26 February 2024 with her brother.  A Eurodac search showed that she had been granted refugee status in Greece in November 2023. After Greece accepted a take-back request, the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) issued a non-entry decision and removal order on 24 April 2024. Following her return to Greece in December 2024, the applicant re-entered Switzerland in March 2025 and lodged a new asylum application, alleging homelessness, sexual assaults, and severe psychiatric distress in Greece.

She argued that as an Afghan woman without means, she could not build a life in Greece and risked further assaults. She also stated that her parents and some of her siblings lived in Switzerland.

The Swiss authorities issued a new take-back request, which was accepted by Greece on 17 March 2025. After requesting and assessing further medical information, on 2 July 2025 the SEM issued a non-entry decision, without considering her asylum application and ordered her removal to Greece. The applicant appealed this decision to the Federal Administrative Court on 11 July 2025, seeking access to the asylum procedure in Switzerland, provisional admission, or in the alternative, specific guarantees from Greek authorities to ensure that she would be provided with appropriate accommodation and medical care upon return.

The Federal Administrative Court stated that in appeals against decisions not to consider an application on the merits, its power of assessment was limited to the question of whether the SEM was right not to consider the application. However, the court noted that it had full jurisdiction regarding removal and the enforcement of removal. The court held that under Article 31a(1)(a) of the Asylum Act, Switzerland may refuse to examine an asylum claim when the applicant can return to a safe third country. Greece was recognized as a safe third country by Switzerland since 2008, and the applicant had been granted refugee status there. The court held that the legal presumption of effective protection in Greece had not been rebutted, since the applicant had not provided evidence of fundamental changes since her first application. Thus, the SEM's decisions on non-entry and removal were deemed lawful under Articles 31a and 44 of the Asylum Act.

The court then examined the enforceability of the removal under Article 83 of the Foreign Nationals Act. The applicant claimed that her psychiatric problems, her homelessness and her inability to establish a life in Greece as an Afghan woman with no means made enforcement of the return order unreasonable. Citing its landmark case A, B, C, D, E and F v State Secretary for Migration (28 March 2022), the court noted that transfers to Greece are in principle admissible and reasonable unless the person is in an extremely vulnerable situation, such as being a single woman or persons whose mental or physical health was severely impaired. The court found that the applicant could not be considered a single woman, since she was accompanied by her brother. Regarding her mental health, the court considered that no evidence proved that her state of health was so serious that she would be considered an extremely vulnerable person. It stated that according to Swiss case law, suicidal tendencies did not constitute an obstacle to enforcement. The court cited ECtHR case law in Dragan and others v Germany (7 October 2004), supporting that a transfer did not violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if protective measures preventing suicide were provided by the expelling state. The court also ruled that return would not violate the right to family life under Article 8 of the ECHR, since there was no special relationship of dependency between her and her relatives residing in Switzerland. Addressing her fear of being subjected to sexual assault again upon return to Greece, the court noted that Greece had a functioning police authority which was willing and able to provide protection. There was also no risk that Greece would return the applicant to Afghanistan, since Greece was a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and was bound by the non-refoulement clause.

In conclusion, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the SEM's non-entry decision and removal order to Greece and found its enforcement lawful, reasonable, and possible. Requests for provisional admission, remittal, or individual guarantees from Greece were rejected, although the executing authorities were instructed to take medical measures during the transfer and to inform Greece of her psychiatric condition.