Deportation to Afghanistan following lengthy asylum applications and proceedings in Sweden

Facts

The author of the communication is a national of Afghanistan and has unsuccessfully applied for asylum and for a residence permit in the State party several times. The author’s parents were granted residence permits. Over the course of the author’s applications, he claimed, inter alia, that he would be killed by the Taliban or Da’esh on his return to Afghanistan, and that he dealt with health issues. The author initially claimed that he had not had any personal encounters with the Taliban, but later stated that the Taliban had destroyed his fruit stand and had raped him. The author’s applications were rejected because, in relevant part, he had not demonstrated personal and concrete threats against him, and did not suffer from serious health problems. In February 2016, the author was deported, but was refused entry in Afghanistan and was returned to Sweden. The author later filed another application for asylum, invoking prior arguments and adding that he had become an atheist and would be persecuted and refused entry into Afghanistan. The application was rejected because the author had not plausibly demonstrated that his atheism was based on a genuine and personal conviction, or that anyone knew about it in Afghanistan, and because he did not sufficiently explain why he had waited so long to inform the asylum authorities that he was an atheist. The author’s appeal was unsuccessful, and the Migration Court highlighted that the author’s submissions could not be considered reliable because they had been significantly modified during the various proceedings. The Migration Court of Appeal rejected the author’s request for leave to appeal.

The author alleges that, by deporting him to Afghanistan, the State party would violate his right to life under article 6, the right to freedom of religion under article 18, the right to freedom of expression under article 19, the prohibition on arbitrary and unlawful interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence under article 17, the prohibition on torture under article 7, and the right to liberty and prohibition on arbitrary detention under article 9.

Admissibility

The Committee recalled that, in its General Comment No. 31, it referred to the obligation of States parties not to deport or otherwise remove a person from their territory when there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm. However, considerable weight is given to the assessment conducted by the State party, unless it was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.

The Committee considered the author’s claim under article 17 that his deportation would separate him from his parents and cause him hardship, and the claim that his deportation would violate articles 6 and 7 due to the state of the author’s mental health. The Committee noted that the author came to Sweden as an adult, and the State party’s migration authorities had reviewed the author’s mental health and medical documentation. The Committee did not find that the assessment by the State party’s authorities was clearly arbitrary or erroneous or amounted to a denial of justice. The author further had not provided any information to substantiate the claim that he would face a personal risk of irreparable harm from Da’esh. Therefore, the author’s claims under articles 6, 7, and 17 were inadmissible for insufficient substantiation. The Committee also considered that the author had not provided any details regarding his claims under articles 9 and 19 of the Covenant, and those claims were therefore inadmissible.

With respect to the alleged risk of harm by the Taliban, the Committee considered that the author had not provided an adequate explanation for the significant shifts in the nature of his claims, and therefore had not substantiated the argument that the assessment of his claims by the State party was clearly arbitrary or erroneous, or amounted to a denial of justice. Finally, regardless of the sincerity of the author’s atheism, he had not provided evidence to indicate that he engages in behavior or activities in connection with his atheism that would expose him to a real and personal risk of treatment contrary to articles 6 or 7 if he were deported to Afghanistan. In addition, he failed to indicate how the migration authorities erred in assessing the risk he would face with respect to his atheism. Therefore, the author’s claims under articles 6, 7 and 18 in relation to his atheism were inadmissible.