A., a Senegalese national, applied for international protection in Switzerland on 11 March 2024, claiming to be a minor born in 2007 and originating from Casamance. A EURODAC search confirmed that he had filed applications in Italy in February 2023 and in France in January 2024. He submitted medical certificates stating that he showed symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and suicidal thoughts, for which he was receiving treatment. After leaving Senegal with his brother (from whom he had been separated in Italy), the applicant had stayed for a year in Mali and a year and a half in Algeria, passing through Tunisia before reaching Switzerland. He stated that his mother had died two months before his departure from Senegal, and that his father had died in Senegal while he was in Tunisia. He held that he left Senegal because he experienced poor living conditions in the Koranic school where his mother had placed him, having been beaten, was forced to beg for the schoolmaster and received insufficient food. His father, who had been involved in the struggle for independence in Casamance within the Movement of Democratic Forces of Casamance (MFDC), wanted to withdraw him from the Koranic school so he could fight in MFDC, but the schoolmaster refused. Shortly after, the applicant’s mother was allegedly killed by his father, who also killed his two half-sisters. After these facts, the applicant fled Senegal. He also claimed that during his journey he had been contacted by his paternal uncle, who threatened to kill him if he refused to join the armed struggle.  

On 7 November 2024, the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM), contacted the Swiss embassy in Senegal to confirm that he was a minor, whether his relatives had died and whether he still had relatives in Senegal. The embassy submitted its report on 14 February 2025 and found that neither the applicant nor his relatives were known to local authorities or to inhabitants. 

The SEM rejected the applicant’s asylum request on 8 April 2025 and ordered his removal, holding that his claims were inconsistent and implausible. It alleged that the applicant had given contradictory versions of the events, which the embassy’s investigation had shown to lack credibility. The applicant appealed to the Federal Administrative Court on 2 May 2025, alleging a violation of his right to be heard and contesting the assessment of credibility.  

The Federal Administrative Court first evaluated the claims of procedural irregularity. It found no breach of the right to be heard, stating that the applicant was assisted by a counsel, understood the interpreter, and had ample opportunity to present his case. Even if he was interpreted in Wolof, which was not his mother tongue, he had stated at the hearing that he understood the interpreter well.  

Regarding the substantive claims on the credibility assessment, under Article 3 and 7 of the Asylum Act, the court found the applicant’s narrative implausible due to major contradictions, including varying accounts of his family members’ deaths, inconsistent chronology, and conflicting identity details. While his initial stated motive at his unaccompanied minor hearing was that he wanted to escape difficult living conditions in the Koranic school he attended, he later claimed that he left because his father wanted to force him to fight for the independence movement. Additionally, the embassy inquiry revealed no trace of the applicant’s alleged family in his purported hometown. Despite his claims that he was at risk of reprisals from the MFDC, there was no evidence that he had come to the attention of the movement. In any case, the court noted that in February 2025, the Senegalese government had signed a peace agreement with the MFDC, which significantly reduced the applicant’s risk of being forced to fight in the movement. The court also noted that Senegal remained listed as a safe third country within the meaning of Article 6a(2)(b) of the Asylum Act.  

The Federal Administrative Court found that the removal was enforceable, since there was no widespread armed conflict in Senegal and the appellant had not demonstrated that he would be exposed to serious harm upon return. The court also highlighted that he was currently an adult and had a family network in Senegal. As for his medical condition, the court held that the medications he was receiving for his mental health issues were available in Senegal.  

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed by the Federal Administrative Court. The applicant was not recognised as a refugee, and removal to Senegal was deemed lawful, reasonable, and enforceable.