Sweden - Migration Court of Appeal, 22 December 2010, UM 2244-10

Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
UM 2244-10
Additional Citation:
MIG 2010:22
Court Name:
Migration Court of Appeal
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF version of SummaryPDF version of Summary

In order for an expulsion order to be immediately enforced it must be clear that the applicant is not at risk of persecution or similar treatment in the country of origin.


The applicant claimed he fled the regime in Syria. He experienced great difficulties due to his Christian faith. He was also accused of starting riots in his home town and causing other problems there. The Migration Board denied his asylum application (29 December 2009) stating that it was manifestly unfounded and that the expulsion order could be immediately enforced (Aliens Act Chapter 8 Section 1 and 2). The Migration Court denied the appeal on the same grounds in its judgment of 25 February 2010.

Decision & Reasoning: 

The Migration Court of Appeal however did not agree. The Court emphasised that in previous case law (MIG 2006:7) it had stated that immediate enforcement of an expulsion order can only be applied when it is obvious that no grounds exist for granting asylum. An individual assessment must always be made. The Migration Court also stated that this assessment must ensure that no further deliberations are necessary, neither as regards credibility or if the claims presented could be grounds for asylum. It has to be clear that the alien is not at risk of persecution or other such treatment in the country of origin.

The circumstances invoked by the applicant were not of such a character that his application for asylum should be considered manifestly unfounded. There have thus not been any grounds for the immediate enforcement of an expulsion order. The decision and judgment of the lower instances are therefore revoked. Furthermore, new circumstances were presented during the process in the Migration Court of Appeal that could have an impact on the applicant’s right to a residence permit. The case was therefore remitted to the Migration Board.


The Migration Court of Appeal revoked the earlier decision/judgment and remitted the case to the Migration Board. 

Case Law Cited: 

Sweden - MIG 2008:36

Sweden - MIG 2009:30