CAT/C/40/D/301/2006
Page 4
authorities the complainant was fired from his job on 20 October 2003, so he decided to go
into hiding as he feared for his life.
2.7 During his period of hiding, local police went to his home several times, threatening his
wife and children. He received a summons dated 1 March 2004 from the Oahu Police
Department and a summons dated 31 August 2004 from the Baku Yasmal Police district,
which was sent to his brother’s address. The complainant’s wife received threats, including
one from the governor of the Oghuz region. The complainant therefore decided to leave
Azerbaijan on 1 September 2004. He arrived in Sweden with his wife and two children on 4
October 2004, and applied for asylum. After his departure from Azerbaijan, the author
received an additional summons dated 30 December 2004.
2.8 After three interviews (the complainant states he struggled to understand the interpreter
but was afraid to complain) and written submissions by counsel, on 25 May 2005 the
Migration Board rejected his asylum application.
2.9 The complainant appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board, which rejected the appeal on
14 September 2005, supporting the findings of the Migration Board. The expulsion order
therefore became effective, and his case was returned to the Migration Board for enforcement.
2.10 He lodged a new application for a residence permit with the Aliens Appeals Board on
23 September 2005. He asserted that he wanted to stay in Sweden until 20 November 2005,
when elections were due to be held in Azerbaijan, hoping the country would become
democratic. The Aliens Appeals Board rejected the application on 28 September 2005. The
complainant left Sweden on 10 October 2005 and traveled to Germany to seek asylum.
Pursuant to the Dublin Convention he was returned to Sweden and applied there for asylum
again on 5 December 2005. The Migration Board held an interview with the complainant,
where he submitted a list of persons in Sweden considered by Musavat in need of protection.
The Migration Board rejected his second application on 21 February 2006, and held that the
decision should be enforced, as it had already considered the complainant’s reasons for
seeking asylum and the list did not change its decision. In addition, his kidney condition did
not warrant a residence permit on humanitarian grounds.
2.11 On 1 March 2006, he appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board, arguing that other persons
on the list had been granted asylum in Sweden and that the Migration Board, in those
decisions, had not questioned the credibility of the list. His appeal was rejected on 21 March
2006, as the need for protection had already been considered by the Board. He also applied
for permanent residence permit pursuant to the interim legislation then in force (Chapter 2,
section 5 b of the 1989 Aliens Act). This was rejected on 19 June 2006 by the Migration
Board as the complainant had not been in Sweden long enough to qualify for a resident
permit pursuant to the interim legislation. On 26 June 2006, the complainant applied for
asylum again pursuant to the new legislation entered into force on 31 March 2006 (Aliens
Act 2005:716). According to Chapter 12, section 19, it is possible for the Migration Board
and newly created Migration Courts to re-examine the matter of a residence permit and issue
an order staying the enforcement.
2.12 On 29 June 2006, the Migration Board decided not to grant a residence permit as the
conditions in the new law were not fulfilled. The Migration Court rejected the appeal on 14
July 2006. The complainant appealed to the Migration Court of Appeal on 21 July 2006,