The applicant, a Mauritanian national born in 1960, arrived in France in 1991 and was granted refugee status by the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) on 8 October 1991 on grounds of persecution risks linked to his membership of the Black Mauritanian community and attributed political opinions.

In July 2023, the OFPRA terminated his refugee status under Article L.511-8 (1) of the Code on Entry and Residence of Foreigners and the Right of Asylum (CESEDA) and maintained his quality of refugee, citing cessation clauses based on changed circumstances in Mauritania. The Office relied on recent government measures facilitating the issuance of identity documents and the legal recognition of the Initiative for the Resurgence of the Abolitionist Movement (IRA), considering these as evidence of significant improvement in the situation of Black Mauritanians.

The applicant appealed the OFPRA’s decision to the National Court of Asylum (Cour nationale du droit d’asile, CNDA), arguing that his right to a fair hearing had been violated as he was not heard before OFPRA, that the situation of the Black Mauritanian community had not changed within the overall Mauritanian society and that he was still at risk of persecution due to his membership. He stated that he still feared persecution from the Mauritanian authorities, who were aware of his refugee status in France. Finally, he submitted that since his family had been deported to Senegal in the late 80s and early 90s, he had no relatives left in Mauritania.

The CNDA rejected the procedural claims, noting that the applicant had been duly invited by OFPRA through letters dated 30 March 2022 and 8 February 2023 to submit written observations, which he did. The court held that an oral hearing was not required to ensure the applicant’s right to be heard in termination proceedings. 

Regarding the cessation clause, the CNDA referred to recent reports (US Department of State, 20 March 2023; Bertelsmann Stiftung, BTI 2024 Country Report –Mauritania, 19 March 2024; Freedom House; OFPRA notes) according to which widespread and systemic discrimination against the Black Mauritanian community was ongoing, and that despite certain moves towards reform, the community’s political participation, procedures for the obtention of identity documents, as well as access to public services and land restitution following return were still not duly implemented. The court noted reports which confirmed that political parties representing the interests of these ethnic groups were excluded from political life, that many Black Mauritanians were unable to participate in the electoral process, due to the lack of required civil status documents preventing them from voting and even their exclusion from the nationwide census process. Therefore, the CNDA held that the situation in Mauritania had not undergone sufficiently significant and lasting changes for the basis of the applicant’s refugee status to be regarded as having ceased to exist. The court further noted that there was no evidence that the applicant’s situation was within the scope of the other cessation clauses set out in Article 1C of the Refugee Convention or one of the situations referred to in Article L. 511-8 paragraph 2(1), (2) and (3) of CESEDA.

The CNDA also assessed the applicant’s situation under Article L. 511-7 of the CESEDA, which transposes Article 14(4)(b) of the recast Qualification Directive (QD), and allows to revoke, end or refuse refugee status where the person constitutes a serious threat to society. This arose because of the applicant’s multiple convictions in France for repeated sexual assaults against minors, committed between the late 1990s and 2010, for which he served prison sentences and was subject to socio-judicial monitoring and mandatory treatment until 2025. The CNDA noted that it is up to the OFPRA and, in the event of an appeal, the CNDA, to verify whether the person concerned has been the subject of one of the convictions referred to in these provisions and to assess whether their presence on French territory constitutes, at the date of the decision, a serious threat to society, i.e. whether it affects a fundamental interest of society, taking into account the criminal offenses committed - which cannot, in themselves, legally justify a decision refusing or terminating refugee status - and the circumstances in which they were committed, the time that has elapsed and the conduct of the person concerned since the commission of the offenses, as well as all relevant circumstances at the date of decision. The court also added that the mere circumstance that a convicted refugee has refrained, following release, from any reprehensible behavior, does not imply, in itself, that this threat has disappeared.

The court observed that the offenses for which the applicant was sentenced, sexual assault of a minor under fifteen years of age, was punishable by 10 years of imprisonment at the time of this decision, which allows the conclusion that the crime for which the applicant was sentences was a particularly serious one, which meets the first requirement of the legal provision.

In addition, the CNDA noted that the applicant was also under a five year prohibition of exercising a professional activity or volunteering which would include any contact with minors. The CNDA pointed to his limited awareness of the severity of these acts, the persistence of his social and religious authority within his community which could lead to a continuation of his teaching the Quran in his community, and the fact that despite the end of his socio-judicial monitoring in 2025, he did not appear to understand the gravity of the acts since he lied before the CNDA, stating at first that he did not commit such acts, then that he was ashamed of having recognised such a commission before the criminal authorities, that there was a conspiracy against him and finally recognising that he indeed committed the acts for which he was criminally punished. These cumulative factors, together with the repetitive nature of his offences, led the court to conclude that he continued to pose a serious threat to public order and safety in France.

In conclusion, the CNDA held that the applicant still retained the quality of refugee, his refugee status must be ended based on Article L.511-7 CESEDA and Article 14(4)(b) of the recast QD due to the serious danger he posed to society. The appeal was dismissed, and OFPRA’s termination of refugee status was upheld.