A Sierra Leonean national of Mende ethnicity and Christian faith requested international protection in Germany on 30 September 2020, alleging that she fled Sierra Leone due to fear of an imminent forced initiation/circumcision into the Bondo secret society. Her parents had opposed circumcision. After their deaths, she lived with her maternal grandmother, a member of the Bondo society and a circumciser, who allegedly prepared the applicant for initiation and expected her to assume the role of circumciser. The applicant described preparations lasting about a year and episodes of fear in 2018. The applicant reported that she had lost contact with family in Sierra Leone. 

On 7 July 2021, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) rejected the application for refugee status and subsidiary protection. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision before the Administrative Court of Munich. 

The court held that the applicant's account was coherent, detailed, free of contradictions and consistent. The court treated forced female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) as gender-based persecution within the meaning of Sections 3(1) and 3b(1) of the AsylG and as a grave, torture-like violation under Section 3a of the AsylG. The court noted that FGM in Sierra Leone was widely practiced, especially among communities of Mende ethnicity, and often supported by traditional structures. The court also noted that Sierra Leone's domestic legislation lacked effective direct prohibition against FGM in practice. The court relied on several country-of-origin information (COI) sources, including TERRE DES FEMMES submissions; EASO_COI_query of August 2021; US Department of State (USDOS), ‘Sierra Leone 2020 Human Rights Report' of 30 March 2021; and UNICEF, ‘Sierra Leone, Statistical Profile on Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting' of February 2016 and January 2019. According to this country-of-origin information, there were provisions in place in Sierra Leone which prohibited torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of children and provided a fine or imprisonment of up to two years (e.g. Child Rights Act 2007, Domestic Violence Act 2007, Sexual Offences Act 2012).  

However, the court noted that FGM/C is considered an important social standard which does not constitute a practice contrary to human rights. It further noted that the Memoranda of Understanding's (MoUs) concluded between Paramount Chiefs and traditional circumcisers in certain chiefdoms of Sierra Leone, according to which FGM/C among underage girls was not permitted lacked legal force. The court found very high FGM/C rates in Sierra Leone (close to 9 out of 10 women aged 15–49) and substantial incidence before age 15, with rural areas and traditional chiefdoms showing over 90% prevalence. The court noted the socio-economic drivers and the political influence of secret societies (e.g., Bondo) and of the National Sowei Council, undermined state willingness and capacity to protect women against FGM. 

The court held that the applicant's departure from Sierra Leone and the social role expected of her created a direct internal link between past threats and a high probability of future forced FGM/C if returned to Sierra Leone. The court held that Article 4(4) of the recast Qualification Directive (recast QD) afforded the applicant a rebuttable presumption of renewed persecution given prior imminent risk, but it found that such presumption was not rebutted. 

The court found that internal relocation within Sierra Leone could not be reasonably expected. According to the court, Sierra Leone's severe poverty, high unemployment, weak social safety nets, reliance on extended family and informal support, and the applicant's lack of network and childcare responsibilities made internal relocation unreasonable. The court concluded that returning the applicant to Sierra Leone would expose her to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Furthermore, it held that no effective state protection would be available in Sierra Leone if the applicant were to return. 

The Administrative Court of Munich annulled BAMF's decision and ordered it to grant the applicant refugee status. The court found that she faced a well-founded risk of gender-based persecution through forced initiation and FGM/C by the Bondo society. It concluded that the applicant could not rely on effective state protection nor reasonably relocate within Sierra Leone.