CRPD/C/18/D/28/2015 1.1 The author of the communication is O.O.J., a Nigerian national born in 1984. He is submitting the communication on his own and on behalf of his son E.O.J, born in 2010, his wife F.I.J., born in 1982, and his daughter E.J., born in 2012. The author’s son, E.O.J., was diagnosed with autism and unspecified psychosocial disabilities in 2013. The author and his family’s application for asylum was rejected by the State party on 30 April 2014. The author alleges that the deportation of the family from Sweden to Nigeria would amount to a violation of articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, 15, 24, 25, 26 and 28 of the Convention. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 14 January 2009. The author is represented by counsel. 1.2 On 19 March 2015, pursuant to rule 64 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures, acting on behalf of the Committee, issued a request for interim measures under article 4 of the Optional Protocol, requesting the State party to refrain from deporting E.O.J. and his family to Nigeria pending the examination of the communication by the Committee. A. Summary of the information and arguments submitted by the parties Facts as presented by the author 2.1 The author’s wife held a temporary residence permit for studies in the State party from 1 August 2008 to 2 October 2010. The author held a temporary residence permit in the State party on the grounds of family ties from 21 January 2010 to 2 October 2010. He applied for a residence permit as self-employed, in September 2010. E.O.J. was born in December 2010, in Sweden. On 25 January 2012, the author’s and his wife’s application for residence permits was rejected by the Swedish Migration Agency and a deportation order was issued. Subsequent appeals to the Migration Court and the Migration Court of Appeal were rejected and the decision became final on 13 November 2012. Owing to the insecurity in Nigeria, the family feared returning there. They therefore filed an application for asylum in the State party on 10 January 2013. In autumn 2013, E.O.J. was diagnosed with autism and other unspecified psychosocial disabilities. An underlying suspicion of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was also detected. The author submitted this information to the Migration Agency together with a medical report from a psychologist and a report from a welfare officer, in support of the family’s asylum application. The author was informed that his son’s health case would be handled separately, independent of the asylum application. The author requested information from the Migration Agency as to the reasons why E.O.J.’s health case had been separated from the asylum application case, but he received no information in that regard. 2.2 On 30 April 2014, the family’s application for asylum was rejected by the Migration Agency. The Agency stated that the application should be examined primarily in the light of the conditions in the family’s home town of Lagos. It concluded that the family had not plausibly demonstrated that they would personally be at risk of harm if returned to Nigeria. 2.3 In June 2014, the Migration Agency rejected the family’s application for residence permits on the basis of E.O.J.’s medical needs (the health case). It was stated in the decision that information obtained through the Medical Country of Origin Information (MedCOI) site showed that help could be obtained for E.O.J. in Nigeria. Two hospitals offering treatment and services for autistic children were specifically referred to in the decision, namely the national hospital in Abuja and the federal neuropsychiatric hospital in Yaba. It was also stated that there were preschools in Nigeria that accepted autistic children. It was further stated that the family had not submitted a medical report in support of their claim, only a journal entry. The author claims that the decision did not make reference to the reports that had been submitted with their asylum application, which included a diagnosis of his son’s condition as established by a psychologist. 2.4 Upon receipt of the decision of June 2014, the author and his family tried to contact the hospitals referred to in the decision. They managed to contact a senior doctor at the national hospital, who replied that the hospital did not offer services for children with autism. The head of paediatrics at the hospital also informed them that neither the Government nor the Ministry of Health had centres dedicated to dealing with autistic 2

Select target paragraph3