6.  The applicant, who was born in 1979, is a Sunni Muslim from Baghdad. He is married and has a son. 7.  The applicant arrived in Sweden on 11 November 2007 and applied for a residence permit the following day and for asylum on 20 May 2008. The Migration Board (Migrationsverket) held an interview with him in the presence of his legal counsel and an interpreter. 8.  The applicant stated in essence the following in support of his application. He and his family lived in Karrada, a Shi’a-dominated district of Baghdad. In June 2003 he began working for a security company. After a year and a half he switched to another company in the same business and in January 2007 he began working for the biggest security company in the country which had connections to the US military. In May 2007 his clan disowned him due to this affiliation. In his work he had access to the “Green Zone”, the international area of Baghdad. He also had the right to bear arms and to search suspected criminals. In October 2007 members of the Badr militia visited his house and told his wife that he should appear at their office for questioning. Some days later the al-Mahdi militia, which cooperated with the Badr militia in his neighbourhood, made the same demand. On 20 October 2007 he received a threatening letter pasted to his car, urging him to stop working for the US troops or else he would be killed. He asked his employer for help, but did not get any. On 1 November 2007 his house was hit by shell fire and was completely destroyed. No other house in the street was hit. He suspected that the two militias were behind the attack. The police arrived, but did not take any action. He and his family went to live with his parents-in-law in another part of Karrada. Three days later he left for Sweden, leaving his wife and son behind in Baghdad. In October 2008 they were assaulted at the home of his parents-in-law by men who were asking about his whereabouts. In late 2008 a friend visited his destroyed house in Baghdad and found another threatening letter addressed to the applicant which was forwarded via the applicant’s wife to Sweden. The applicant claimed that he would risk persecution and inhuman treatment from the militias and his clan if he were to return to Iraq. He was also worried that he could be badly treated by the US military which may believe that he had disclosed information about them and because he brought with him his service identification cards when he left Iraq. 9.  On 3 March 2009 the Migration Board rejected the application and ordered the applicant’s deportation to Iraq. The Board held that he had not proved his identity, but that he had made it plausible that he was from Iraq. It further considered that the situation in Iraq as such did not constitute grounds for asylum. Noting that the applicant had not had any difficulties for religious or political reasons and that he had been able to live in a Shi’a-dominated area without anything having happened to him until October 2007, the Board concluded that the threats against him were local and related to the militias in question. It could not be considered as persecution, however, and there was no indication that he risked persecution upon return. Nor did the Board find that he risked other forms of ill-treatment. In so finding, it noted that he had not been subjected to such treatment previously. Since the applicant had been working for security companies and thereby cooperated with the American troops since 2003, the Board found his claim that he had received threats only in October 2007, four years later, to be peculiar. As to the alleged threats by the militias, the applicant had not been able to state who the people visiting his house were or what had been the purpose of their visits. His accounts in these respects were, according to the Board, mere speculation. Moreover, if the threats concerned his work for the American troops, the applicant had since ended that job and the threats could therefore no longer be considered valid. Also the applicant’s accounts of the destruction of his house and the attack on his wife and son lacked details as to who the perpetrators were and why the actions had been undertaken. Consequently, no connection had been shown between the militia visits and the alleged subsequent events and the latter events did not indicate that the militia groups were still looking for him. In this context, the Board also noted that a remarkably long period of time had passed between the applicant’s leaving Iraq and the alleged attack on his family members. It was further deemed peculiar that someone should have left a threatening letter at his demolished house long after his escape from the country. Furthermore, the applicant had not been able to explain why his clan would pose a threat to him. Finally, the Board noted that the incidents to which the applicant claimed to have been exposed were locally restricted to the Shi’a-dominated Karrara district; as a Sunni Muslim he should be able to move to a Sunni part of Baghdad. 10.  The applicant appealed, adding that, if he were to be removed to Iraq, he would be split up from his family, who had moved to Syria. Furthermore, he claimed that he had not ended his employment at the security company and that, thus, the connection to the American troops remained. 11.  On 2 March 2010 the Migration Court (Migrationsdomstolen) held an oral hearing in the case. The applicant was represented by his counsel and assisted by an interpreter. He later requested a further hearing, at which he wished that his former boss at one of the security companies in Iraq be heard by telephone. On 24 March 2010 the court rejected this request, finding it unnecessary, and instead gave the applicant the opportunity to finalise his submissions in writing. 12.  On 16 April 2010, after having rejected the applicant’s renewed request for a further hearing, the Migration Court upheld the decision of the Board, generally agreeing with its conclusions. The court considered that, even though the applicant and his family had been assaulted in Iraq, there was no evidence of a remaining threat against him upon return. In so finding, the court noted that it had not been shown that there was a connection between the various incidents and that the applicant did not know who were the perpetrators or why they had carried out the acts. Furthermore, almost a year had passed between the destruction of the house and the assault on his family. His wife and child had stayed in Baghdad during this period and, if any group had had an interest in him to the alleged extent, they would in all likelihood have searched for him more actively. The court further took into account that more than two years had passed since the applicant had stopped working for the security companies and, consequently, that it was not likely that he would be exposed to further threats due to his former work if he were to return to Iraq. Also, many of the incidents dated back a number of years and had to be seen as consequences of the difficult general security situation in Iraq in 2007. 13.  On 4 June 2010 the Migration Court of Appeal (Migrations-överdomstolen) refused the applicant leave to appeal. 14.  In September and October 2010, at the Court’s request, the applicant presented additional information, including copies of identification cards, certificates and letters of recommendation to show that he had been working for the security companies in question. He also submitted photos to prove that he had been training with the US military and photos of his wife and child to show that they had been injured in the alleged assault in October 2008. Additionally, he submitted several documents in Arabic and translations into Swedish. The documents, a report to the police by the applicant’s brother, instructions of an investigating judge, witness statements by the brother and neighbours and a police account of measures taken – all dated in October 2008 –, provide the following account of events. On 10 October 2008 at 10 p.m., a black car stopped outside the applicant’s house and four men got out of the car and went into the house. They rummaged through the house looking for the applicant and destroying property in the process. However, the brother told the police that the applicant was at work in the “Green Zone” at the time and therefore was not at home. The four men left a threatening note for the applicant. The alleged note was submitted to the Court with a translation.