CAT/C/59/D/644/2014 responsible had never been prosecuted because of police inaction; and that the Nigerian authorities would therefore not be able to protect the complainant’s children from female genital mutilation. Since her family in Nigeria all practised female genital mutilation, she would not be able to protect her children herself. Finally, the complainant contended that the Migration Agency had failed to take adequately into account her and her children’s special vulnerability. The children had never lived in Nigeria and the complainant herself had left her country in 2000. If returned, she would have no network which would help her find work and no means for her and her children’s protection. 2.5 On 18 October 2013, the Migration Court rejected the complainant’s appeal. The Migration Court pointed out that the State of Edo had banned female genital mutilation; that a number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were working in this field locally; that the practice of female genital mutilation was most frequent in the Yoruba and Igbo ethnic groups; and that the complainant had therefore not proved it probable that Nigerian authorities were lacking willingness or authority to protect her and her children. Moreover, the general situation in Nigeria was not so severe that it justified, in itself, a right to a residence permit in Sweden.2 2.6 On 5 November 2013, the complainant appealed this decision before the Migration Court of Appeal. She argued, inter alia, that women from her own and her ex-husband’s ethnic groups were usually mutilated in Nigeria, and that female genital mutilation was practised by her own family. 2.7 On 17 December 2013, the Migration Court of Appeal decided not to grant leave to appeal. The decision to expel the complainant and her daughters became final and nonappealable. 2.8 On 8 or 9 July 2014, the complainant requested suspension of the deportation order and re-examination of her case in the light of the changing security situation in Nigeria, and reiterated that her three daughters would be at risk of female genital mutilation if deported. She pointed out that she was a divorced single mother with three daughters, who had no possibility of protection from the Nigerian authorities. She further argued that her three daughters had developed strong ties with Sweden. 2.9 On 30 September 2014, the Migration Agency rejected the complainant’s request for re-examination of her case. It stated that the general situation in Edo State had not changed, and that the fact that two of her daughters were in the Swedish education system and that the family participated in local church activities was no proof that they had a special link with Sweden. Finally, it considered that, even though the general human rights situation had worsened in northern regions of the country, such was not the case in the south, where the complainant comes from. Accordingly, the Migration Agency stated that the measure to enforce the decision must continue. 2.10 On 14 October 2014, the complainant appealed once again to the Migration Court on the same grounds. She added as new circumstances that Boko Haram had expanded its control over more territory in Nigeria, and that there was an increased risk of Ebola virus disease in the country. 2.11 On 20 October 2014, the Migration Court rejected the appeal on the grounds that there were no new circumstances related to the risk of female genital mutilation, that Boko Haram was active mainly in northern Nigeria, and that the risk of Ebola virus disease did not qualify as a new circumstance under the Swedish Aliens Act. 2 The Migration Court refers to the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs general country information report for 2010, available from www.manskligarattigheter.se/sv/manskliga-rattigheter-i-varlden/ud-srapporter-om-manskliga-rattigheter/afrika-och-soder-om-sahara?c=Nigeria. 3