CRC/C/86/D/83/2019- advance unedited version
1.1
The author of the communication is R.H.M., a Somali national of the Hawiye clan,
from Ceelbuur in the Galgaduud region, born in 1988. She submits the communication on
behalf of her daughter, Y.A.M., who was born in Denmark on 2 March 2016. The author and
her daughter are subject to a deportation order to Somalia. 1 She claims that her daughter’s
deportation would violate her rights under articles 3 and 19 of the Convention. She is
represented by counsel. The Optional Protocol entered into force for Denmark on 7 January
2016.
1.2
Based on article 6 of the Optional Protocol, on 30 April 2019, the Working Group on
Communications, acting on behalf of the Committee, requested that the State party refrain
from returning the author and her daughter to their country of origin while their case was
under consideration by the Committee. On 10 May 2019, the State party suspended the
execution of the deportation order against the author and her daughter.
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1
The author entered Denmark on 19 September 2013 without valid travel documents
and applied for asylum on the same day. On 12 February 2014, the author was granted a
residence permit pursuant to article 7(2) of the Danish Aliens Act. During her stay in
Denmark, the author gave birth to her son in 2014 and to Y.A.M. in 2016. Both of her children
were also granted residence permits based on their mother’s status. On 27 March 2018, the
Danish Immigration Service decided to revoke the author’s and her children’s residence
permits. The author appealed the decision to revoke her permit before the Refugee Appeals
Board, which confirmed the original decision on 8 March 2019. Also, the Immigration
Service’s decision to revoke the children’s permits as a result of the revocation of their
mother’s permit was appealed to and upheld by the Immigration Appeals Board on 11 March
2019.
2.2
On 5 December 2017, the author filed a separate asylum application on behalf of
Y.A.M., claiming that, upon return to Somalia, she would face a risk of being forcibly
circumcised, removed from the author and married as a result of the author’s secret marriage
against her family’s will. In her application, the author stated that she and her siblings had
lived with her uncle after the death of their parents and that she had entered into a secret
marriage with her husband who could not pay for the dowry. When the uncle learned about
her marriage, he imprisoned her for four years. On 23 March 2018, the Danish Immigration
Service rejected the author’s application, finding her statements divergent and not credible.
She appealed the decision to the Refugee Appeals Board, which rejected the appeal on 8
March 2019. The Board did not find as proven facts the author’s statements about the conflict
with her uncle or her four-year imprisonment. The Board considered that, because the author
and her husband2 were both against female genital mutilation, they would be able to oppose
the social pressure to have their daughter undergo female genital mutilation. The author notes
that, in this respect, the Board relied on the Immigration Service report on female genital
mutilation in Somalia,3 according to which mothers who were against the practice of female
genital mutilation were able to prevent having their daughters undergo this practice.
1
2
3
2
The author also has a son who was born in Denmark in 2014.
According to the Refugee Appeals Board decision of 8 March 2019, the author’s husband left
Somalia before she did, and currently resides in the United States of America.
See Denmark, Ministry of Immigration, Integration and Housing, “South central Somalia: female
genital mutilation/cutting: thematic paper — country of origin information for use in the asylum
determination process” (January 2016). Available at
https://lifos.migrationsverket.se/dokument?documentAttachmentId=43509. In the report, it is stated
that “it is possible for women to avoid having their daughters subjected to the practice of FGM/C and
some women manage to do so. This, however, would highly depend on the personality of the mother
and on whether or not she has the necessary commitment to stand firm against FGM/C and the strong
psychological pressure it entails, both from family members and society alike” (p. 8). It is also noted
that “a strong personal conviction that her daughter should not undergo the practice is most important
for a mother to succeed, with her educational background, social status, cultural or geographical
affiliation also being of considerable, yet minor importance”.