6. The applicant is an Iraqi national who was born in 1979. He is currently in Sweden. 7.  On 18 January 2008 the applicant applied for asylum in Sweden. Before the Migration Board (Migrationsverket), the applicant submitted that he is a Sunni Muslim from Nasriya, located in the Thi-Qar district in Southern Iraq. He had been in a relationship with a woman who was a Shiah Muslim. He had asked her family for permission to marry her on three occasions in 2007, but had been refused because he was a Sunni Muslim. After his first proposal, two of the woman’s cousins had assaulted him and warned him against proposing again. In late 2007 the couple had decided to elope. They had travelled to Baghdad, where they had stayed with a relative of the applicant for one week. They had falsely told their families that they had married and the woman had returned to her parents’ house, after having been promised that the family would allow the marriage. Meanwhile, the applicant had returned home with his brothers. Some days later, four unidentified persons had shot at their house, but had left after the applicant’s brother had fired back. The next day the applicant had driven past the woman’s house, and had discovered that she had been killed. Her hair and her hand with the engagement ring had been hung on the front door of her house, as a sign that the family had cleansed their honour. The woman had been killed by her father and two of her cousins. Of the woman’s cousins one was involved with the Badr Organisation and another with the Al Daawa party, and they had requested the militias to harass the applicant. His family’s house had been visited daily by the woman’s relatives, and they had left a threatening letter stating that they wanted his head. They had also entered his family’s house to look for him. The applicant had left the region after a few days in hiding. In 2008, his father had received a threatening letter, urging him to surrender the applicant or else leave his home. His mother had been shot and killed by relatives of the woman in January 2009. The shot had been aimed at another relative, but had hit her instead. Their house had subsequently been burnt down. 8.  On 22 June 2009 the Migration Board rejected the applicant’s claim for asylum and ordered his deportation to Iraq. It noted that the first shooting at the applicant’s home had been perpetrated by unknown persons. The Board further held that the applicant’s claim that the woman’s family had been responsible for the shooting was mere speculation on his part. The threatening letter addressed to his father was unsigned, while the one addressed to the applicant had not been submitted to the Board. It had not been made probable that the death of the applicant’s mother was connected to him. The Board also noted that the police had contacted the woman’s family regarding the incidents, and that they had denied involvement. The woman’s family had, according to the applicant’s own statements, “washed away their shame” by killing the woman, and the Board therefore presumed that the family considered their honour to be restored. The Board further highlighted that the applicant had been offered protection by his own family and clan. Furthermore, he had been able to live in Baghdad for a certain period of time without being subjected to threats or violence. 9.  The applicant appealed and added the following. His family had reported the events to the police, but the investigation had not led to any results. Members of his family, still residing in the area, had on several occasions noticed cars circling their house at night. Their neighbours had been asked about the applicant’s whereabouts, and had been told to pass on the message that his mother’s death was not enough, and that nothing short of the applicant’s death would wash away the shame of the woman’s family. The woman’s family had also announced that they would kill the applicant’s family if they could not find him. He had been in touch with the mukhtar, the village chief, who had told him that mediation had failed and advised him not to return. 10.  The Migration Board contested the appeal and contended that the applicant could hardly be said to have damaged the honour of the woman’s family – if any honour was offended it was his own family’s. If the woman’s family was indeed persecuting him, this should be considered as pure revenge. If that were the case, the applicant should be able to avail himself of the authorities’ protection. The Migration Board noted that there was no information regarding the police investigation, but it could be assumed that it would be duly carried out. According to the Board, internal relocation was an option. 11.  On 21 January 2010 the Migration Court (Migrationsdomstolen) in Stockholm upheld the Migration Board’s decision. The court held that what the applicant had been subjected to was normally a matter for the domestic authorities. According to the court, there was no indication that the domestic authorities lacked the willingness or ability to protect their inhabitants. Therefore, the applicant was not considered to be in need of international protection. 12.  On 17 March 2010 the Migration Court of Appeal (Migrations-överdomstolen) refused leave to appeal.