6.  The applicant, who was born in 1985, is a Sunni Muslim from Mosul. 7.  The applicant arrived in Sweden on 21 December 2007 and applied for asylum the same day. He stated in essence the following in support of his application. Following the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime, he had served in the new Iraqi army, which he had joined in October 2003 and which had involved work with the American troops. As a consequence of his military service, he claimed that he had been subjected to threats and ill-treatment. At the end of 2004, terrorists had thrown a grenade at him and his colleagues and he had injured his foot. In March 2006, when his unit had guarded a recruitment session at a military base, two suicide bombers had detonated bombs that killed 25 Iraqi soldiers and 5 Americans. One of the bombs had detonated close to the applicant and he had been severely injured. He had been hospitalised for approximately two and a half months. He had ended his military service in March 2006, after this incident. Upon release from hospital he had moved to Mosul to live with his family for one year. In June 2007, while he had been with his sister in the front yard, a car had approached them and opened fire on them. His sister had been hit by four shots and had become paralysed. The applicant himself had been hit once in the shooting and had again been taken to hospital for care. While still in hospital, he had been told by his brother that a letter had been left for him at his house containing death threats against him. When he had left the hospital, he had gone into hiding for five months at a friend’s house in Mosul before leaving Iraq. The applicant also referred to the injuries he had sustained and submitted photographs and extracts from medical journals. 8.  On 12 March 2009 the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) rejected the application and ordered the applicant’s deportation to Iraq. The Board first accepted that the documentation supplied by the applicant showed that he had served in the Iraqi army and that he had been shot at and had, as a consequence, sustained serious injuries. It went on to note that the incidents in late 2004 and March 2006 had been connected to the applicant’s military service and had not been directed at him personally. He had not received any personal threats or been subjected to ill-treatment while serving in the army or during a period of 15 months after he had left the army. Having regard to this 15-month period without incidents and noting that the applicant did not know who had shot at him and his sister or the reason for the June 2007 attack, the Board considered that the shooting was connected to the difficult security situation at the time rather than the applicant’s previous military service. Further, the applicant had remained in Mosul for five months after the threatening letter had been received without anything happening to him. Moreover, the applicant had been in contact with his family since he had left Iraq and had been informed that they had not been subjected to threats or ill-treatment after his departure. Nor was there any indication that the applicant was being searched for in Iraq. In conclusion, he had failed to make plausible that he would be at risk of persecution or ill-treatment if he were to return to Iraq. Furthermore, his state of health was not such that it gave reason to grant him a residence permit, as a return to Iraq was not deemed to cause any danger to his life or health. 9.  The applicant appealed, stating that he was convinced that he would be killed if returned to Iraq. He further claimed that he had injuries which required medical treatment unavailable in his country of origin. He had infections and low blood circulation in his legs. Further, because of his injuries and the other circumstances invoked, he was in a very bad mental state. He submitted a medical certificate issued by M. Eves, chief physician at Lindesberg Hospital, according to which he had been injured many years before in his home country, had a remaining handicap with recurring numbness and ulcerations in his foot and received treatment for infections. He also had large scars on his left leg after substantial soft tissue injuries. 10.  On 9 February 2009 the Migration Court (Migrationsdomstolen) upheld the decision of the Board, agreeing generally with its conclusions. In regard to the applicant’s state of health, the court found that it was not sufficient for the grant of a residence permit. It noted that he had been injured several years before and that he had received treatment for his injuries in Iraq. 11.  In March 2010 the applicant left Sweden and applied for asylum in Germany. He was transferred back to Sweden in April 2010, in accordance with the provisions of the Dublin Regulation. 12.  On 22 April 2010 the Migration Court of Appeal (Migrations-överdomstolen) refused the applicant leave to appeal. 13.  Subsequently, the applicant claimed that there were impediments to the enforcement of his deportation order, reiterating the claims he had made previously. He submitted another medical certificate dated 6 August 2010, issued by M. Eves. It stated that the applicant was under treatment for injuries to his left leg. The injuries did not require urgent treatment, but there was a need of future care. 14.  On 1 October 2010 the Migration Board rejected the petition, finding that no new circumstances justifying a reconsideration had been presented. It does not appear that any appeal was made against this decision.