C., a national of Mali, requested international protection in France, claiming that he feared, if he returned to his country of origin, that he would be exposed to persecution or serious harm from members of his family, his community and the authorities, because of his membership in the social group of homosexual people in Mali.

The French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) rejected his request by decision of 28 May 2025.

The applicant appealed this decision before the National Court of Asylum (CNDA).

The CNDA rejected the appeal while it ruled that the Kayes region in Mali is affected by a situation of indiscriminate violence resulting from an internal armed conflict.

The court noted that Mali has been affected by an armed conflict opposing non-state armed groups since 17 January 2012. These included the Group for the Support of Islam and Muslims (GSIM), an Al-Qaeda's Sahelian affiliate founded in 2017, the armed movement “Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (EIGS)”, and the Azawad Liberation Front (FLA), which is a Tuareg independence armed group, opposing the Malian Armed Forces (FAMa), supported by mercenaries from the Africa Corps, a Russian paramilitary organization that succeeded the Wagner Group.

The court found that, due to this conflict, the situation prevailing in the Kayes region must be characterized as indiscriminate violence, the intensity of which is not, however, such that there are serious and substantiated grounds to believe that every civilian returning there, simply by virtue of their presence in that city and region, faces a real risk of serious threat to their life or person. In such a case, the court noted that subsidiary protection can only be granted to an asylum applicant if there are factors characterising an increased risk of being exposed to the consequences of this indiscriminate violence, such as age, gender, disability, particularly difficult economic circumstances, or a specific occupation.

Finally, the court highlighted that it is for the applicant to adduce all evidence relating to his personal situation which suggests that he runs such a risk, and in the present case, the applicant has not provided any relevant information capable of establishing that he would be likely to be specifically targeted by attacks, in the event of his return to the Kayes region, on account of factors specific to his personal situation.

Thus, the CNDA rejected the applicant's appeal and the request for international protection.

Note follow-up jurisprudence from the CNDA concerning Mali, Bandiagara region: France, National Court of Asylum [Cour Nationale du Droit d'Asile (CNDA)], M.C. v French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (Office Français de Protection des Réfugiés et Apatrides‚ OFPRA), 25032534 C+, 18 December 2025. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.