The applicant A. and her daughter C., Turkish nationals, applied for international protection in Switzerland on 14 March 2022 after previously seeking protection in Spain on 6 September 2021 and briefly residing in Iraq. On 22 June 2022, the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) ordered the transfer of the applicants to Spain, but the deadline for transfer expired before it was executed. On 14 July 2023, the SEM granted both applicants refugee status. Subsequently, on 19 July 2023, A. requested family reunification for her husband B, a Turkish national, invoking Article 51 of the Swiss Asylum Act. The SEM rejected the application on 22 September 2023, holding that the couple had cohabited only in an Iraqi refugee camp (where the husband still resided), and that there had been no joint household in Türkiye (the country of origin). Thus, the condition of family separation due to flight from the country of origin was not met, given that the family had been formed in a third country. Additionally, the SEM held that the dissolution of the applicant’s first marriage was insufficiently proven. The applicant appealed on 20 October 2023 to the Federal Administrative Court, arguing that the separation was due to her flight to seek international protection in Switzerland, that she was genuinely married to B., and invoking her child’s best interests under international conventions. 

The Federal Administrative Court examined the scope of Article 51 of the Asylum Act, which allows family reunification only when separation results from the refugee’s flight from the country of origin and when a prior family community existed there. Citing its case law in E‒2413/2014 of  13 July 2025, the court reaffirmed the provision’s restrictive character, holding that it did not apply when the family unit was formed or lived exclusively in a third country rather than in the country of origin.  

Assessing the evidence, the court found that A. and B. lived together only in Iraq, not Türkiye, and that their separations during successive migrations appeared to be voluntary and not inevitable. Moreover, A. had provided inconsistent accounts of her marital history, including three different versions of marriage and divorce sequences, without proof of divorce from her first husband. The court found her narrative incoherent and unsubstantiated. The court also ruled that Article 8 of the ECHR and the best interests of the applicant’s daughter in being united with her father did not allow for derogation from the strict statutory conditions in Article 51 of the Asylum Act.   

Finally, the court dismissed the applicant’s arguments based on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). It found no indirect discrimination against women, noting that the applicant is free to work or pursue training in Switzerland, including learning French, since she was a recognized refugee. The court also held that Article 15(4) of the CEDAW cannot be invoked to claim a right to family reunification with her spouse. In this regard, it held that alleging sex-based discrimination on the basis of being unable to rely on her husband's financial support contradicts the purpose and scope of the CEDAW. 

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, confirming the SEM’s decision. It held that the requirements for asylum-based family reunification under Article 51 of the Asylum Act were not met.