In 2022, an Eritrean woman and her child received a residence permit in Norway for family reunification with the child's father, who was a Norwegian citizen.

In 2023, the woman applied for asylum in Norway for herself and for her child, stating that she risked imprisonment in Eritrea because she had deserted from military service. She also pointed out that she needed a refugee travel document because she lacked valid identification.

The Norwegian Directorate of Immigration (UDI) and the Immigration Appeals Board (UNE) rejected the applications in March 2023 and respectively on 16 November 2023, with the reasoning that applicants who already have a residence permit in Norway, which can be renewed and can form the basis of a permanent residence permit, do not have a well-founded fear of persecution pursuant to Section 28 of the Immigration Act, because they do not need to return to their country of origin. UNE added that the need for travel documents cannot justify asylum. The UDI and UNE did not assess the applicants' situation in Eritrea, as deportation was not a relevant aspect.

The applicants brough legal proceedings before the Oslo District Court concerning the validity of UNE’s decision. The Oslo District Court rejected the appeal on 3 June 2024, concluding that the legal interpretation was correct and that the decision rejecting the asylum requests was valid.

On 11 April 2025, the Borgarting Court of Appeal concluded to the opposite, that the refusal to grant asylum was not valid.

The issue was also raised before the Supreme Court, which examined whether when examining the well-founded fear, consideration should be given to the fact that the person holds a residence permit in Norway on another basis besides asylum.

Similarly to the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court established by judgment of 27 March 2026 that a person who risks persecution in their home country pursuant to Article 1 A of the UN Refugee Convention is entitled to asylum in Norway pursuant to Section 28 of the Immigration Act.

Furthermore, the court considered that it is not permissible to attach importance to the fact that the applicant has another residence permit in Norway, as this follows from the wording of the Immigration Act, seen in the context of the preparatory work and the legal history. The court emphasised that residence based on family reunification with a Norwegian national is by purpose and function a type of permit of a different nature than asylum, as UNHCR had also emphasized in its observations before the Supreme Court. It also noted that if the right to asylum would not be applicable when the foreign national already has a residence permit in Norway, it would mean that the institution of asylum was given a subsidiary character, which is contrary to the legislative history of the Immigration Act. Furthermore, the court added that the exclusion clause of Article 1E of the Refugee Convention would apply only if the person has the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country and is therefore fully protected against deportation and expulsion. The court observed that the residence permit based on family reunification does not provide such protection  and therefore there are no grounds for refusing asylum based on the foreign national having a different basis for residence in Norway.

Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that UNE's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of the law, and the appeal against the Court of Appeal's judgment was dismissed.