The applicant, a Guinean national of Diakhanké ethnicity and Muslim faith born in 2002, applied for international protection in France in April 2025. She claimed that she feared persecution if returned to Guinea on two grounds: membership of the social group of women fleeing forced marriage, and of women exposed to female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C). She also alleged a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment due to potential reprisals from her family and her spouse following forced marriage, as well as her personal vulnerability.

The applicant stated that she was subjected to FGM/C at the age of six and was later forced to marry a man in his sixties to repay her father’s debt. She claimed to have suffered physical and psychological abuse until 2018, when she escaped from her village with the help of her aunt. She moved to Morocco, where she lived with a partner, with whom she had a child in 2020. After her family in Guinea discovered her whereabouts, she left for France in June 2023 without her child. In December 2024, she underwent reconstructive surgery in France for genital mutilation.

The French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) rejected the applicant’s asylum application on 21 February 2025. She appealed to the National Court of Asylum (Cour nationale du droit d’asile, CNDA), seeking refugee status or, alternatively, subsidiary protection under Article L.512-1 of CESEDA.

The CNDA assessed the credibility of the applicant’s account, finding significant inconsistencies and gaps in her narrative. She failed to provide detailed explanations of the reasons behind her father’s indebtedness which led to her forced marriage, provided contradictory statements about her extramarital relationship with her partner (with whom she eventually fled to Morocco), and gave vague descriptions of the ritual surrounding her forced marriage. The court found implausible that she left the country with the help of her aunt without being pursued or harassed by other family members. She was also unable to demonstrate that forced marriages were common in her family or community. Although the CNDA acknowledged the medical documentation confirming the presence of excision scars, it concluded that this did not substantiate the alleged circumstances of persecution.

On the risk of re-excision, the court referred to multiple country-of-origin reports (OFPRA 2018, Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2020, Belgian Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons 2020) indicating that re-excision was not a general practice in Guinea, especially for adult women. The CNDA found that the applicant’s claim that having had reconstructive surgery in France exposed her to renewed excision risk in Guinea was unsupported and speculative.

The CNDA also rejected the applicant’s allegations of family reprisals, noting that the threats she reported from her uncle and other relatives while in Rabat were not corroborated. Her psychological assessment did not establish a direct link between her condition and the alleged persecution.

In conclusion, the CNDA dismissed the appeal and upheld OFPRA’s refusal of international protection. It found that the applicant’s account lacked credibility and coherence, and that the risk of re-excision was not established in light of reliable country information, and that therefore, persecution under Article 1A(2) of the Geneva Convention or a real risk of serious harm under Article L.512-1 of CESEDA were not established.