CCPR/C/131/D/3069/2017
2.8
In April 2017, before the prison sentence was enforced, the author’s parents
disappeared from their home.5 When the author came back from school, he found a letter in
which his father disowned him and his brother and promised to kill him when he returned to
Afghanistan to punish him for reporting his abuse to the police and for the ensuing conviction.
The author was considered an unaccompanied minor and placed in a children’s home.
2.9
The author’s legal guardian submitted on his behalf an application of impediment to
enforcement of his expulsion order.6 It requested that the author be granted a resident’s permit
or a re-examination of his asylum case based on the developments in the author’s situation
after the expulsion order became final, i.e. that his parents had travelled to Afghanistan, he
was now in Sweden alone with his brother and that he had received a threatening letter from
his father who wrote that he would kill him if he travelled to Afghanistan.
2.10 On 7 July 2017, the Migration Board rejected the application for a resident’s permit
or re-examination of the author’s case. The Migration Board noted that the disappearance of
the author’s parents was a new circumstance that had not been previously examined, but there
was no evidence in support of the author’s claims that his parents had actually left Sweden
to go to Afghanistan. The Board held that the threatening letter could not have evidential
value as it was a simple handwritten message with no indication of when, how, from whom,
or why the author had received it. The translation service used by the Migration Board noted
that the letter could not be properly translated, as it was incomprehensible. The information
which the author himself has provided about the content of the document is scarce, unclear
and vaguely formulated. The Migration Board therefore concluded that there were reasons to
believe that the author’s parents were deliberately hiding so that the author would be once
again considered an unaccompanied minor and treated as such. Furthermore, it held that even
though the whereabouts of the author’s parents were unknown, it had been established that
the author had other relatives in Afghanistan.7 Accordingly, the Board concluded that there
was no practical impediment to the enforcement of the expulsion order against the author.
2.11 The decision was appealed to the Migration Court. In support of the claimed threat
against him from his father, the author submitted the judgment of 30 March 2017 of the
district court of Ångermanland, in which his parents were convicted of assault on him and
his brother. 8 On 21 July 2017, the court rejected the author’s plea for inhibition of the
enforcement of the expulsion order and an oral hearing. On 9 August 2017, the court rejected
the appeal.9 The author again appealed the decision to the Migration Court of Appeal which
rejected the request for leave to appeal on 19 September 2017.
2.12 On 25 September 2017, the Migration Board decided to hand over the enforcement of
the expulsion order to the police authority. On the same day, the police authority detained the
author, since they assumed that he otherwise might go into hiding or pursue criminal
activities in Sweden.10 On 2 October 2017, the author was indicted for a minor drug offence.11
At the request of the police authority, on 6 October 2017 the Migration Board examined the
current security situation in Afghanistan and concluded that it could not be deemed an
impediment to the enforcement of the expulsion order against the author.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
The author believes that his parents fled to Afghanistan, as they had been saying they would, to evade
the father’s prison sentence. The current whereabouts of the parents of the author are not clear
according to the information on file.
See chapter 12, sections 18–19 of the Swedish Aliens Act.
The Board emphasized that a decision to expel an unaccompanied minor may not be enforced unless
the enforcing authority has ensured that the child will be received by a family member, a designated
guardian or an organization well-suited to care for children.
See para. 2.7.
“The court concurs with the Migration Board regarding the limited evidential value of the letter and
notes that nothing appears in the criminal court verdict to lead anyone to suppose that the complainant
runs any risks mentioned in chapter 12, section 1 of the Aliens Act, or that such risks exist regarding
chapter 12, section 2 and 3 of the Act.”
See para. 4.11.
The author received a summary imposition of a fine on the charge of this drug offence. He has not
been convicted for any other offence in Sweden.
3