A Sudanese national of Fur ethnic background, originating from the Darfur region but who later lived in Khartoum and Port Sudan, left Sudan in November 2024 and, after several months in Russia and Belarus, tried to enter Poland in May 2025 but was pushed back to Belarus. In July 2025, avoiding border controls through the forest, he reached Latvia, where he applied for international protection, citing fear of forced recruitment by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) or the Arab armed group Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which, according to the applicant, had already detained and tortured him on several occasions.

On 2 March 2026, the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs (OCMA) refused the applicant's request for international protection, finding the applicant's account of detention by the RSF not credible and finding no risk of forced recruitment by the RSF, as it mainly recruits from Arab tribes and the applicant had not stated that the RSF had made any attempts to involve him in military activities. Additionally, OCMA acknowledged that armed conflict was taking place in parts of Sudan, but considered the security situation in Port Sudan to be relatively calm.

The applicant challenged this decision before the Riga District Administrative Court, which upheld OCMA's decision, applying the new CEAS regulations that had become applicable while the appeal was pending.

The court examined the applicant's request for international protection in light of the war in Sudan and conflicts between different ethnic groups, drawing on information from the EUAA COI Report - Sudan: Country Focus (February 2025). It recalled that the conflict dates back to 2003 and that, by 2018, prolonged internal conflicts had brought Sudan to the verge of state collapse, followed by a coup d'état by the SAF and RSF in 2019. The succeeding military leaders fought for control of the country, which escalated into civil war in 2023, resulting in over 150,000 casualties and more than 12 million displaced persons. Based on the EUAA COI Report, the court noted that violence in Darfur has a pronounced ethnic character and continues to be associated with the RSF, which particularly targets non-Arab ethnic communities, including the Masalit, Zaghawa, Fur and Berti, through forced displacement, extrajudicial killings and unlawful detention based on ethnic origin.

Nonetheless, citing the EUAA's Judicial Analysis on Evidence and Credibility in the Context of the Common European Asylum System: Second Edition (February 2023), the court considered the applicant's account not credible. The court noted that, at different stages of the procedure, the applicant had claimed to have been detained by representatives of the Sudanese Government in September 2021 for almost 2 years while he was a student; to have moved to Khartoum in 2018 and remained there until 2023 to study, only mentioning to have been detained for three days and tortured in 2023; and to have stayed in Khartoum for study purposes from 2021 to 2022, without mentioning any prolonged detention. In a supplementary statement to his application, he made no mention of his stay in Khartoum and instead claimed that he had left his home in Darfur and subsequently lived in refugee camps.

Based on the above, the court refused to grant refugee status. The court held that persecution against members of the Fur tribe could be established in territories controlled by the RSF, particularly in Darfur. It added that forced recruitment was a risk in areas where armed conflict was taking place, but not throughout Sudan. The court reasoned that the applicant had consistently stated that he had lived in Khartoum and later Port Sudan, had been able to study at university, earn an income, and travel to and stay in Russia and Belarus on a student visa, and concluded that the applicant's journey was not related to protection needs, but to  study and employment reasons.

With regard to subsidiary protection, the court noted that the death penalty continues to be imposed in Sudan for various criminal offences, but that nothing in the case file indicated that the applicant would face a death sentence or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Regarding entitlement to subsidiary protection pursuant to Article 15(c) of the Qualification Regulation, the court found that the geographical scope of the armed conflict was limited and that the security situation in territories controlled by the SAF (northern, eastern and central Sudan) was sufficiently stable, whereas the RSF dominates most of western Sudan, including a significant part of the Darfur region.

The applicant had invoked 2025 UNHCR guidance stating that it did not consider it appropriate to deny international protection to Sudanese nationals on the basis of the availability of an internal relocation alternative. The court reasoned that, although the applicant originated from Darfur, he had lived and worked in Khartoum for a considerable period before leaving Sudan. It considered Khartoum, which it deemed safe, to be his previous place of residence to which he would return, rather than a place to which he would be internally relocated. Accordingly, the court also denied subsidiary protection.