A., a Somalian national applied for international protection in Finland, citing a threat of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) by the family of the father of her then unborn child. The applicant reiterated the same grounds during her interview, after her daughter was born in Finland. The Finnish Immigration Service rejected the application for A. and her child and ordered their removal to Somalia. The applicants' appeal was further dismissed by the administrative court, who found their statements superficial and the risk of circumcision of her daughter unlikely. The applicant further appealed before the Supreme Administrative Court.

The Supreme Administrative Court assessed whether the threat of FGM/C can constitute a ground for granting international protection to the applicant's daughter. The court reviewed the applicable legislative framework, namely Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Article 3 of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention) and Article 3(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It further referred to national provisions in the Aliens Act, emphasising that the decision-making process for applications of minors requires special attention to the best interests of the child.

On country-of-origin information, the court considered the EUAA Country Guidance Somalia, 2025 which notes that FGM is very common in Somalia. It particularly mentions that according to a 2020 study, 99,2% of Somali girls and women had undergone it, with no significant changes reported in recent years. Although prohibited by constitution, Somalia lacks national legislation criminalising the procedure which in practice is widely considered necessary for social acceptance, marriage and religious obligations. According to several reports cited by the court, a non-mutilated girl can face long-term stigma from both the cut girls and her family, being excluded from the community. The age at which FGM is performed varies, with some reports suggesting the practice is performed at the age of 3-5 years old while others reported that it is conducted at around 10 years old. While it is difficult to escape the procedure, due to strong pressure from family and close relatives, reports mention several options when the procedure may be avoided: if not only the mother opposes in the family, but also the father; the family must be educated, have resources and be in a like-minded social network opposing FGM/C. However, even if parents oppose to it, other family members and relatives can arrange for a girl to be mutilated, often the grandmother may consider that the procedure is very important and take the girl to be circumcised without parents' permission.

The court looked into the individual circumstances of the applicant and noted that she is from Hargeisa, Somaliland and belongs to the discriminated Gaboye minority clan. The applicant is an uneducated and divorced single mother, who has an older daughter who remained in Somalia with the applicant's mother. The older daughter has a different father than the daughter residing in Finland and had not undergone FGM/C while the applicant lived in Somalia, despite pressure from the parental family which later arranged for the procedure for the older daughter. The applicant applied in Finland when she was pregnant with her daughter born out of wedlock. The father of the youngest daughter did not have marriage intentions because of her belonging to a minority clam. The family of the applicant considered she has brought shame in the family due to her out-of-wedlock pregnancy. The applicant herself was also subjected to FGM when she was 10 years old and she provided detailed information during the asylum interview.

Contrary to the Finnish Immigration Service and the administrative court findings that there were no reasons to believe that the applicant's daughter would be at risk of FGM upon return, the Supreme Administrative Court affirmed that, in assessing the daughter's ground for asylum, the prevalence of FGM in Somalia and the personal circumstances of the applicant and her daughter, in particular the possibility of preventing the mutilation upon return to their home country, had to be taken into account. Based on COI, FGM constitutes a very common practice in Somalia, affecting almost all girls and women, despite its prohibition being stipulated in the constitution. The decision to have a girl's genital mutilation is influenced not only by the mother, but also by family or clan members and strong cultural traditions. The mother's will is relevant when she belongs to a community in which FGM is not practiced or where her decision is considered, due to education or other circumstances, such a like-minded social network opposing the practice.

The Supreme Administrative Court held that, based on the applicant's circumstances, it could not be inferred that she could effectively resist the pressures and expectations imposed by the surrounding community. She was an uneducated single mother, with a child born out of wedlock, with challenging relationship with her own family due to the shame she caused. The daughter's father ceased all contacts with the applicant, his family disowned the child, and he could not be considered a safety net protecting the daughter from undergoing genital mutilation. Against these circumstances, the court found that the mother's will to oppose mutilation could not constitute, with sufficient certainty, a factor protecting her daughter. The fact that the applicant could not point to a single party who will decide on the mutilation of her daughter was not considered a decisive factor by the court.

The court emphasised that in cases of a potential threat to a minor, the best interests of the child must also be taken into account when assessing personal circumstances in view of the COI. Thus, the court held that the applicant's daughter must be considered to be in a particularly vulnerable position, as a young girl.

The court further found that girls who have not undergone FGM constitute a particular social group in Somalia, because they are perceived as being different from the rest of society, pursuant to Section 87 of the Aliens Act. In view of the prevalence of FGM in Somalia as highlighted in COI and on the personal circumstances of the applicant and her daughter, the court concluded that the applicant's daughter has a legitimate reason to fear persecution on account of her membership of a particular social group if returned to her home country. The court held that, since Somalia is not willing nor able to offer protection against FGM, the applicants cannot be expected to recourse to an internal flight alternative.

The court annulled both the decisions of the Finnish Immigration Service and the administrative court, referred the case back for re-examination by the Finnish Immigration Service with a view of granting asylum to the daughter and reassessing the applicant's need for international protection.