Sweden - Migration Court of Appeal, 14 January 2009, UM 4118-07

The Migration Court of Appeal stated that even if it is the applicant who primarily holds the burden of proof for the adduced need for protection, the burden of proof normally is transferred to the Migration Board as regards the existence of internal protection. There are different standards, depending on the circumstances of the case, as regards the lengths to which the Migration Board has to go to investigate the conditions of internal protection. The Migration Court of Appeal however stated that the Migration Board, as a minimum, is obliged to identify a specific area (a reference to “larger cities” is not sufficient) and also to show that internal protection in this individual case (to the  identified area) is a both a reasonable and plausible alternative. In its reasoning, the Court took as a starting point statements by the UNHCR, previous case law and the Qualification Directive (not incorporated into Swedish legislation at this point in time). The Court emphasised that weight should be given to the individual’s gender, age and health, as should the possibilities of making a living. It was not considered possible to refer to internal protection if those returning will face serious hardship from a humanitarian perspective.

In the present case, the Migration Court of Appeal found, supported by documentation from e.g. UNHCR, that the Migration Board had not identified the area which could serve as an adequate alternative for internal protection. Neither had the Board been able to show that Kabul was a reasonable and plausible alternative for the applicant.  The applicant’s own information, as well as the fact that the burden of proof lay on the Migration Board, contributed to this last conclusion.