Asylum for divorced Iraqi woman in danger of losing custody of her children

The divorced Iraqicitizen who is in danger of losing custody of her children in her country because, according to a law, the father is their guardian, hasthe right to asylum. TheCassal Court thus upheld the appeal of the woman who had been granted special protection, but not the enhanced protection guaranteed by the asylum.

The Court - while noting, in general, the condition of women in Iraq on the basis of the updated Country of Origin Information (Coi), in particular with reference tofreedom of movement and gender violence and forms ofdiscrimination- in assessing the woman's right to asylum, only dwelt on the general socio-economic-political situation in Iraq and on the applicant's relations with the her ex-husband's family. "Derubricating" the latter as "referring to mere private relations". Nor had the judges assessed the risk of the serious harm that the applicant might suffer in her situation, precisely in view of the accounts considered credible. As an illustration of the 'climate', the woman had reported that, on 28 September 2024, her brother, who had helped her to flee Iraq with her children, had been found dead, apparently as a result of suicide, but with investigations under way to ascertain the actual cause of death.

The court had then examined the situation in the country of origin, highlighting the many significantcritical issues in the lives of women. It had, among other things, emerged 'that the law and custom do not respect their freedom of movement; that the law prevents a woman from applying for a passport without the consent of her male guardian or legal representative; that they are discriminated in numerous areas of law, even in cases of divorce and with regard to child custody'. By law, in fact, 'the father is the guardian of the children, but a court may grant a divorced mother custody of her children until the age of 10, extendable to the age of 15, after which the children may choose which parent they wish to live with'. The same court then recalled the tradition ofmatrimforced and early marriages.

Elements that, for the Supreme Court, should have led the judges on the merits not to exclude the greater protection ofrefugee status.