A Cyprus court has overturned the Asylum Service’s rejection of a Sierra Leone woman’s application for international protection and recognised her as a refugee, after hearing testimony that she had been forced into marriage at 17, subjected to domestic and sexual violence, and had suffered female genital mutilation.
Judge Elena Riga of the International Protection Administrative Court ruled that the woman’s claims were credible and that the conditions for refugee recognition under Article 3 of the Refugee Law had been met.
The woman left Sierra Leone on February 18, 2021, and entered government-controlled areas of Cyprus irregularly through the occupied north the following day. She submitted her application for international protection on July 15, 2021. The Asylum Service rejected her application and ordered her return to Sierra Leone.
She appealed through her lawyer, G. Konstantinou of the M. Papaloizou law firm, arguing that her application had not been properly or adequately examined.
In her testimony, the woman said she had been forced into marriage and was a victim of domestic and sexual violence at the hands of her husband. She also described psychological and emotional abuse by his other wives and their children, saying she had lived as a slave. She told the court she had miscarried after her husband beat her because she had not washed the dishes.
She said she had been unable to report her husband to authorities in Sierra Leone because of threats from him and his associates, her young age, and the absence of any safe shelter or support structure she could turn to.
Her lawyer argued that the Asylum Service had also failed to examine whether the woman had undergone female genital mutilation and whether she faced a risk of being subjected to the practice again if returned to Sierra Leone. On the question of why she had not sought a divorce in her country of origin, her lawyer said customary law in Sierra Leone significantly restricts or discourages the dissolution of marriage, and that the woman had remained under threat with no alternative place to live.
The Asylum Service’s lawyer argued that even if the woman’s claims were accepted as credible, her fear fell within the scope of a private dispute and was not connected to any of the grounds for persecution listed under Article 3(1) of the Refugee Law. The service further contended that the fear she described did not meet the objective threshold required for refugee recognition.
The court, having examined the woman’s testimony, the positions of both sides, and relevant international reports, found that the conditions for refugee recognition under Article 3 of the Refugee Law had been met and annulled the Asylum Service’s decision.