A Cameroonian national requested international protection in Belgium on 14 October 2021, claiming persecution based on her sexual orientation. By decision of 30 July 2024, the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS) rejected her asylum application, finding her statements inconsistent, vague and evasive. The CGRS further emphasised that the applicant's account was marked by significant gaps and inaccuracies on essential points of her narrative, particularly regarding the awareness of her sexual orientation, her forced marriage, and her relationship with D., compromising her credibility. On 29 August 2024 the applicant appealed before the Council for Alien Law Litigation (CALL), arguing that the CGRS did not properly assess the merits of her asylum claim. She further stated that the CGRS applied an excessively stringent assessment, particularly in light of the taboo surrounding homosexuality in Cameroon, the pervasive homophobia in her country of origin and her personal vulnerability.

The CALL found that the applicant had adequately established a well-founded fear of persecution in her country of origin based on her membership in the particular social group of homosexuals in Cameroon and granted her refugee status.

The CALL first noted that the CGRS did not dispute the applicant's sexual orientation. The CALL also considered that the CGRS submitted the “COI Focus on homosexuality in Cameroon”, which showed that homosexuality was penalised in Cameroon and that homophobic rhetoric was strongly present in Cameroonian society.

The CALL then noted that the applicant demonstrated a certain vulnerability. In addition to her sexual orientation, the CALL emphasised that she was a victim of forced marriage and various acts of violence. The CALL further considered that the applicant had special procedural needs due to her psychiatric and psychological condition. In this regard, the CALL observed that the applicant submitted various medical documents (injury reports, psychiatric reports and psychological follow-up) to support her physical and mental health status. The CALL noted that the injury certificate dated 6 April 2023 indicated that the applicant presented several scars on her left arm, left hip and right leg, which were consistent with whip marks and aligned with the facts she invoked in support of her international protection request. Moreover, the psychiatric and psychological follow-up documents showed regular monitoring since November 2021 and revealed a major severe depressive state with suicidal ideation and post-traumatic stress symptoms necessitating hospitalisation for several weeks and pharmacological treatment. The CALL held that these documents indicated attentional and memory difficulties, which affected her ability to recount her life story in a chronological and detailed manner. The CALL further considered that the applicant's personal interviews showed that she approached her narrative with significant emotion and difficulty.

The CALL found, contrary to the CGRS, that the applicant's claims were consistent and convincing. The The CALL considered that the applicant was able to provide a sufficiently coherent, plausible, and supported narrative, which allowed the conclusion that she was homosexual. The CALL further stated that her sexual orientation should be considered established independently of the credibility of the triggering incident that led to her departure, namely the episode in which her husband discovered her in the company of D., assaulted them with the assistance of villagers, and which resulted in her three-day detention.

The CALL noted that the applicant's awareness of her sexual orientation began in primary school, where she had a relationship with her neighbour. The CALL considered that they secretly met in the fields after school, that her family caught them on several occasions, and that this was the reason why her father decided to force her into marriage. The CALL found the applicant's account of the forced marriage arranged by her family and her experiences during that marriage to be credible and consistent with lived experience. The CALL noted that she provided detailed explanations of the circumstances leading to the marriage, the customary marriage process itself, and her experiences with her husband. The CALL also held that the applicant sufficiently detailed her relationship with D. It deemed credible that D. was the applicant's seamstress, that they began a relationship in 2017 after knowing each other for several months, and that they met secretly, when possible, approximately once or twice a month.

The CALL further noted that the applicant submitted evidence of her involvement with LGBTIQ associations in Belgium. While it considered that the participation in such associations was not in itself proof of a person's sexual orientation, the CALL emphasised that they strengthened the credibility of the applicant's statements regarding her sexual orientation.

The CALL then emphasised that Cameroon presented a social and legal climate hostile to the LGBTIQ community, which corroborated the legitimacy of the fears invoked and called for extreme caution when evaluating international protection claims from members of the homosexual community in Cameroon. The CALL further noted that the effective protection from Cameroonian authorities was illusory.

The CALL concluded that the applicant's sexual orientation alone was sufficient to consider that she risked persecution if returned to Cameroon. The CALL held that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution in Cameroon and would not have access to effective protection from the authorities. The CALL further noted that since homosexuality constituted an essential characteristic of an individual's identity, and because the social climate in Cameroon led homosexuals to be perceived as different from the rest of society, homosexual persons in Cameroon constituted a 'particular social group'. The CALL referenced the CJEU judgment X., Y. and Z. v. Minister for Immigration and Asylum (C-199/12, C-200/12, C-201/12, 7 November 2013), noting that requiring individuals who share the same sexual orientation to conceal it contradicts the recognition of a fundamental aspect of their identity, which they should not be compelled to renounce.