A common reason for refusing an asylum claim based on FGM/C is to allege that it is within the power of the woman herself, or her parents, to refuse the act of FGM/C. In almost every society where it is practised, FGM/C is a rite of passage or initiation as girls enter womanhood and/or perceived as a religious duty; its persistence must be understood in terms of societal pressures to conform and the consequences of failing to do so. In Sierra Leone, for example, FGM/C is explicitly a sacrifice for the fertility both of the individual and the community . FGM/C is believed to ensure that women will desire conjugal relations over masturbation, and thus guarantee reproduction. It is often believed that an un-cut woman will not bear live or healthy children and is often ‘required’ if a girl is to be marriageable.

Marriage, in turn, guarantees economic security, therefore, refusing FGM/C is not an option for women who want to remain part of the community, marry and have children. Often, it is not the decision of the woman, or a girl’s parents whether FGM/C will be performed, but that of elders of the community, often a grandmother. Even if the parents are opposed to FGM/C, they cannot watch their daughters at all times, and girls may be abducted and cut while the parents are away. Furthermore, under European refugee law, actors of protection are defined as ‘parties or organisations, including international organisations, controlling the State or a substantial part of the territory of the State’ (Qualification Directive, art 6(c)). This definition can include clans or tribes, (Clayton: 2014) but individual families or parents are not mentioned. In AMM and others, the judge stated that ‘[u]nless the parents are from a socio-economic background that is likely to distance them from mainstream social attitudes, […] the fact of parental opposition may well as a general matter be incapable of eliminating the real risk to the daughter that others (particularly relatives) will at some point inflict FGM on her’ ([560]).

Another common reason for refusing an asylum claim based on FGM/C is to allege that the woman can simply relocate to avoid being cut. While this reason is not strictly specific to claims based on FGM/C, there are some elements specific to the practice of FGM/C that may make it impossible for the woman to relocate. The issue of relocation (or internal flight or protection alternative) is closely bound up with the existence of state protection. Even if a state prohibits FGM/C by law, this does not necessarily mean that state protection is available. The practice of FGM/C may continue in states which have outlawed it because it is upheld by those in power at local level, or because authorities are unwilling or unable to prevent, persecute and punish perpetrators. Thus, relocation is often no alternative to fleeing the country. In paragraph 28, the UNHCR Guidance Note on FGM/C states:

Where the claimant is from a country with a universal (or near-universal) practice of FGM, internal flight will normally not be considered a relevant alternative. As with other forms of gender-based persecution, FGM is typically perpetrated by private actors. The lack of effective State protection in one part of the country is an indication that the State will not be able or willing to protect the girl or woman in any other part of the country.

And in paragraph 29:

Internal flight in FGM-related claims has mostly been considered by decision-makers in the case of countries where FGM is not a general practice, or is less widespread. If the woman or girl were to relocate, for example, from a rural to an urban area, the protection risks in the place of relocation would nevertheless have to be closely examined, including the potential reach of the agents of persecution.

In addition to these general rules, it should be noted that where ‘ethnic groups are thoroughly interspersed, the country is small and ethnic groups in different parts of the country are highly interconnected’ (K and others
[128]), internal relocation is not feasible. There is a similar problem, even if the country is large and ethnic groups not well-connected. Women who relocate without a male relative are likely to have to turn to members of their tribe or ethnic group for protection, which, if this ethnic group practices FGM/C, will lead to her being endangered yet again. This also shows that some women may not be able to relocate simply because of their status as women. Lone women may be at risk of sexual violence or be unable to find work and become destitute.

A less well-known, but no less important, type of asylum claim based on FGM/C is one made by a woman who flees because she is to become a cutter. As with women who are afraid to undergo FGM, it may be claimed that the woman can relocate (see above) or that she can simply refuse to cut other women. Just like women cannot simply refuse FGM/C without facing exclusion from the community, not all women who are to inherit the position of cutter cannot simply refuse this “privilege.” Whether or not such a refusal is possible will depend on the particular society and community the woman is part of. This is why anthropological research and expert reports are so vital to asylum cases.