A., a Somali national of Hilibi ethnic background, requested international protection in Norway arguing that she had been stopped and mistreated by men affiliated with the Islamist movement al-Shabaab after she had danced at a wedding, which the men believed was against their culture and religion. She stated that she was threatened by them. The Norwegian Directorate of Immigration (UDI) rejected A.'s application on 26 June 2017. The UDI did not take a position on the applicant's credibility, although it indicated that certain aspects of her statements gave rise to doubts about its credibility. Although UDI concluded that A. had a well-founded fear of persecution that could be linked to one or more of the grounds for international protection under the Immigration Act, it also found that an internal flight alternative (IFA) was available for her in Mogadishu. The UDI also concluded that there were no strong humanitarian considerations or special ties to Norway that could justify granting her a residence permit in the country. The Immigration Appeals Board (UNE) upheld the decision on 9 February 2018 and set her departure deadline for 2 March 2018. A. filed several reversal requests which were all rejected by UNE until 21 March 2025. Then, on 3 April 2025, A. filed a writ of summons with the Oslo District Court claiming that the last of UNE's decisions was invalid. A. was deported to Somalia on 14 June 2025 as the request for a temporary injunction was dismissed. The main hearing of her case was held on 9 and 10 September 2025 in the Oslo District Court. The court delivered a judgment on 24 September 2025 and concluded that UNE's ruling not to reverse previous decisions refusing asylum was invalid. The State appealed the judgment to the Borgarting Court of Appeal, challenging the first instance court's application of the law and assessment of the evidence.

The Borgarting Court of Appeal quashed the District Court's judgment. Judge Wesenberg submitted a minority dissenting opinion.

The court noted at the outset that UNE had not taken a position on A.'s risk of persecution from al-Shabaab, however in its decision of 9 February 2018 it had assumed that she had a well-founded fear of persecution on one or more of the Convention grounds, and that the conditions for considering her a refugee had been met. Since the State kept such conclusion during the court's hearing, the key question concerned whether A. could relocate to Mogadishu as an IFA under Section 28 of the Immigration Act.

The court recalled the main legal principles applicable to the IFA. It then outlined UNE's main arguments in support of upholding UDI's assessment and concluding that an IFA was available to the applicant. In essence, UDI had considered that the general security situation in Mogadishu did not entail a real risk of treatment contrary to Section 28, that A. was not at risk of persecution by al-Shabaab, that the general humanitarian situation in Mogadishu had improved compared to previous years, and that A. had close relatives or a network able to assist her in Mogadishu. The court noted that this last element was disputed and that UNE had endorsed UDI's assessment. The court indicated that the central issue was whether UNE had relied on a correct factual basis in concluding that A. had relatives or a male network in the city capable in practice of providing protection, housing or financial and social assistance, thus making return possible.

The court pointed out that, by default, women without a sufficient male network would have a well-founded fear of persecution. For a woman to have a safe IFA, she must therefore have a male relative in the proposed area of internal flight. In addition, citing ECtHR case of Sufi and Elmi (Application Nos.8319/07 and 11449/07, 28 June 2011) it indicated that internal flight area would not be safe if the applicant faced a real risk of having to seek refuge in areas for internally displaced persons.

The court noted that UDI's representation of A.'s asylum application was correct and adequate, and that there were no significant errors or omissions. The court noted that whilst the statements of the applicant regarding her parents, upbringing and absence of male relatives had remained essentially unchanged since her asylum interview, her statements regarding her sisters' situation and residence had evolved over time. The court noted A.'s explanations that the information concerning her sisters in Mogadishu was not based on her own contact with them, since she had not been in touch with her sisters still in Africa for years, but on information relied to her by her other sisters in Norway. The court also noted that her explanation on her clan and clan affiliation had not changed significantly. On the information about the children and the care situation, the court noted that it had developed over time and the applicant had relied on information she received indirectly. Her statements during the court hearing, no new information emerged deviating from her previous statements.

On such basis, the court of appeal found that the factual basis for UNE's decision was largely consistent with A.'s account in her asylum interview, and later explanations largely consist of clarification and development related to the fate of family members over time.

The majority of the court's judges concluded that the information available at the time of the decision indicates that A. had family or a male network in Mogadishu who could in practice provide protection, and that the city would be safe for her. They found that A.'s overall explanation about the lack of a network in Mogadishu could not be considered plausible, emphasizing a shift in the information regarding sibling relationships, sister's residence and their actual situation. Namely, regarding her two sisters in Mogadishu, she first referred to illness and vulnerability to that one sister was allegedly the only one left in the city and was later killed in various bomb attacks, to explanations that no sisters are any longer in Mogadishu. Citing the Supreme Court, the court emphasized that explanations that are gradually developed or changed in a striking way will more easily contribute to weakening the overall credibility. The court further ruled that A.'s information about the lack of network was in clear tension with available country of origin information, which indicated that clan have a fundamental and far-reaching importance and networks normally encompass a much wider circle than the nuclear family. The court found difficult to reconcile A's explanation about being completely without a network in Mogadishu with this information, especially since both parents were born and raised in the city, and that she herself grew up there until adolescence. The court also emphasized that A's explanations on her parents, sisters, aunts, uncles and other extended family lacked substance and detail, were generally sparse. Although she did not live with her mother or sisters while growing up, the court pointed that she lived with them in the same city at the same time. On her extended family, the court found that she was able to specifically state that they were dead but had consistently been unable to provide further information about when, how, or under what circumstances that supposedly had happened and this weakened her claim. Referring to Landinfo's information, the court stressed that given the importance of family network in Somalia, it is unlikely that a person with A.'s background would in practice be completely without knowledge of or access to such a family. The court also found inconsistent the lack of her clan knowledge with the significance that clans have in Somali society. The court noted that A's explanation on the lack of network and resources confronted with other information of the case – such as that her trip to Europe was financed by her father-in-law and that seven sisters have migrated to Norway, Kenya and Yemen over time, and that there were people who have had concrete interest in her welfare.

On her stay in a camp for internally displaced persons, the court found that such information was fraught with considerable uncertainty in terms of time, registration and actual living conditions, and could not be given significant weight when assessing whether UNE had relied on a correct factual basis at the time of the decision.

Based on these, the court found that, even though some aspects of A's explanation had been consistent, the explanation of a lack of family and network ties in Mogadishu did not appear to be at all plausible. Thus, UNE had not relied on an incorrect factual basis.

Judge Wesenberg submitted his dissenting opinion. He stressed that the fact that A. had stayed in a camp for internally displaced persons after returning to Mogadishu may help explain and strengthen the applicant's allegations that she lacks a network in Mogadishu. The minority further found that the applicant must be afforded the benefit of the doubt according to the evidentiary requirement in asylum cases.