CASE OF M.E. v. SWEDEN
Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Libya)
Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Johan Hirschfeldt;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano
8. The applicant was born in 1982 and is currently in Sweden. 9. On 29 July 2010 he applied for asylum in Sweden, stating that he had entered the country three days earlier. He stated that the smuggler who had organised his journey had taken his passport and he provided a mobile telephone number for a contact person, N. 10. On 6 August 2010, the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) held a first interview with the applicant during which he stated that he was from Libya. His mother and siblings remained there and he was in contact with them and would ask them to send him his passport and other identification documents. He further claimed that he had no relatives in Sweden but he provided the mobile telephone numbers of two contact persons in Sweden, N. and H. 11. An in-depth interview was held with the applicant on 20 August 2010, where his public counsel and an interpreter were present. The Migration Board’s official informed the applicant of the importance of giving all his reasons for asylum as this might be his only chance to present them. She further assured him that all information provided was treated confidentially. The applicant handed in his identity card and claimed that the authorities had confiscated his passport and other identity documents. He then stated essentially the following. 12. He had left Libya in April 2010 and had travelled to Tunisia, where he had remained until his uncle had helped him to reach Sweden in July 2010, with the assistance of smugglers and a fake French passport. In Libya he had been a soldier, working as a guard at a military base in Tripoli where he had met some persons who had paid him to transport illegal weapons for powerful clans from southern Libya, with connections to the authorities. He had been working for them for more than a year when, in November 2009, he had been stopped at a road check and interrogated. He had then been taken to an unknown location where he had been kept for about three weeks and subjected to interrogation and torture. He had been charged with possession of illegal weapons and car theft and had then been moved to a military prison where his uncle had visited him and arranged for a lawyer for him. During the torture, his arm had been seriously injured and become infected and, about two months after his transfer to the military prison, he had been taken to a civil hospital by two guards for treatment. After the doctor had treated him, one of his guards had gone to fetch coffee for him and the other had taken him outside for a cigarette. He had then managed to escape. If he were returned to Libya, he would risk at least ten years’ imprisonment for the criminal offences. He would further risk being killed by the clans since he had revealed their names under torture. He showed some scars on his arm, back and head. 13. The Migration Board’s officer asked whether the applicant had other grounds for requesting asylum, to which the applicant replied no. He had lived well in Libya until he was arrested and had even planned to marry a woman in May 2010. 14. In September 2010, the applicant’s public counsel submitted certain clarifications to the Migration Board but essentially maintained what had been stated during the interview. 15. On 21 February 2011 the applicant visited the Migration Board together with N. He stated that he wished to add to his grounds for asylum that he was homosexual and had a relationship with N., whom he had known since his first week in Sweden. Their relationship had developed over time and he had moved in with N. in December 2010. N. was transsexual and had a permanent residence permit in Sweden. 16. In view of this new information, the Migration Board held a supplementary interview with the applicant on 1 November 2011. During this interview, the applicant stated that he had been “normal” before and that it was N. he had become interested in. Their relationship had developed from friendship but it had been difficult because of the very negative attitudes from other Arabs in the city where they lived in Sweden. No one in Libya knew about his sexual orientation and he had never had a homosexual relationship in Libya. N. was in the process of changing gender from man to woman. They had spoken with his mother and sister over internet with a camera but N. had presented himself as a woman. They had married in September 2011. If he had to return to Libya to apply for family reunion from there, it would become known that he was married to a man and he would risk persecution and ill-treatment. 17. As concerned his original grounds for asylum, and in view of the changes in Libya during 2011, the applicant noted that the situation in Libya was very insecure. He thought that the clans would no longer be particularly interested in him since they had other interests now and were less powerful than before. If he was careful, there would no longer be much of a threat against him in Libya. 18. On 16 December 2011 the Migration Board rejected the application. It first noted that the applicant had failed to submit his passport despite having claimed on several occasions that he had a passport and would submit it. However, although he had not proved his identity, the Board accepted that he was probably from Libya. As concerned the situation in Libya following the overthrow of Gadhafi, the Board noted that it was serious but did not reach the level of internal armed conflict. Thus, an individual assessment had to be made in the applicant’s case. In this respect, the Board found that the applicant had given contradictory statements and that his story lacked credibility. To begin with, he had given diverging information about his passport at the interviews, first claiming that the smuggler had taken it, then that he could obtain it from his family, later that the Libyan authorities had confiscated it and, most recently, that he would submit the passport. It further observed that the name on the certificate relating to impediments to marriage, which the applicant had submitted in support of his marriage, was different from the name that he had given to the Migration Board. Since no passport had been submitted, it was not clear that the certificate concerned the applicant. In the same connection, the Board noted that the applicant had given contradictory statements about when he had met N. and their relationship. At the first interview, on 29 July 2010, he had given N.’s telephone number as a contact number, while in February 2011, he had stated that he had become acquainted with N. during his first week in Sweden and, at the interview in November 2011, he had claimed that he had met N. about three to four months after his arrival in Sweden. Moreover, at the in-depth interview, he had stated that he had no other grounds for his asylum application than those related to the weapon transport and that he had planned to marry in Libya. Against this background, the Board also questioned the nature of the applicant’s and N.’s relationship, as relied on before the Board only on 21 February 2011. Thus, the Board concluded that the applicant’s story, both in relation to events in Libya and his relationship with N., lacked credibility and was not sufficient to justify granting him a residence permit in Sweden. 19. Furthermore, the Board noted that substantive changes had occurred in Libya after the applicant had left the country and considered that he had failed to substantiate that, on the basis of the criminal accusations against him, he would risk persecution by the authorities upon return or that the authorities would not be able to protect him against harassment by the clans. As concerned the applicant’s relationship to N., the Board referred to the main rule in the Aliens Act that an alien, who seeks a residence permit in Sweden on account of family ties or a serious relationship, must have applied for and been granted such a permit before entering the country. Whilst noting that an exemption from this rule can be made if the alien has strong ties to a person who is resident in Sweden and it cannot reasonably be required that he or she travel to another country to submit an application there, the Board considered that it would not be unreasonable to require the applicant to file such an application from Libya in accordance with the main rule. As there were no other grounds on which to grant the applicant leave to remain in Sweden, his application was rejected. 20. The applicant appealed to the Migration Court (Migrationsdomstolen), maintaining his claims and adding that the spelling of his name differed in the various documents because the transcriptions from Arabic had been made by different persons. He had his passport but had been afraid to hand it over to the Migration Board for fear of being returned to Libya. His relationship with N. was serious; they were married and lived together. It would also become known in Libya that he was homosexual if he were to apply for a residence permit from there, which would expose him to a real risk of persecution and ill-treatment. Moreover, he would not be able to apply for a residence permit from Libya since Sweden had a consulate only in Benghazi. He submitted a copy of his passport, from which it appeared that he had been granted a Schengen visa by the Maltese Embassy in Tripoli in May 2010 and that he had entered Sweden on 15 June 2010. He also submitted a copy of a military card, copies of photographs of scars and two warrants for his arrest. 21. During the oral hearing before the Migration Court, the applicant claimed that there was a threat against him from the Libyan authorities since he had worked for the military during the Gadhafi regime. Moreover, he added that it was not known in Libya that he was married to a man but he was certain that other Libyans in Sweden would spread that information to Libya, if he were to be sent there. In his view, it would also become known that he was homosexual if he had to apply for family reunion and be interviewed at the Swedish Consulate in Libya. He also presented his passport in original. 22. On 13 September 2012 the Migration Court rejected the appeal. It first found that the general situation in Libya was not severe enough to grant the applicant asylum without there being individual reasons for asylum. Turning to the applicant’s individual reasons, the court noted that, since he had now submitted his passport, certain other documents provided could be linked to him. However, on examining these documents, the court found that the military card was for training and did not show that the applicant had later been employed by the military. The two warrants for arrest were of a simple character and easy to fabricate. Moreover, one of them did not contain any date and the applicant had not given any acceptable explanation of how he had obtained them. Turning to the photographs of the scars, the court considered that the fact that the applicant had had wounds which had left scars did not make probable that he would be ill-treated in the future. Thus, the court concluded that the documents did not show that the applicant was in need of international protection. Furthermore, the court found that the applicant was not credible, stressing that he had submitted his passport only at the oral hearing before the court and that he had deliberately given false statements before the Migration Board concerning his passport, how he had travelled to Sweden and the date of his arrival. He had also given contradictory statements concerning his knowledge of the possibilities of applying for asylum in Sweden and the alleged threats against him in Libya. Thus, the court did not believe the applicant’s asylum story. 23. However, the court did not question that the applicant was homosexual but considered that he had failed to substantiate that there was a threat against him in Libya on account of this. In this connection, the court noted that, according to the applicant’s own statements, it was not known in Libya that he was homosexual. Moreover, it took the view that it was unlikely that Libyans in Sweden who knew about the applicant’s sexual orientation would be more willing to spread this information simply because the applicant was to return to Libya. The court also noted that the applicant had kept his passport in order to be able to return to Libya. In sum, it concluded that the applicant had failed to show that he would risk persecution or ill-treatment upon return to Libya. In so far as concerned his relationship with N., the court observed that all embassy personnel had an obligation to respect confidentiality and that there were no impediments for the applicant to apply for a residence permit from abroad. The fact that the Swedish Consulate was located in Benghazi did not alter this conclusion. 24. One lay judge gave a dissenting opinion and considered that it could not be ruled out that information about the applicant’s sexual orientation might leak from an embassy. 25. The applicant made a further appeal to the Migration Court of Appeal (Migrationsöverdomstolen) which, on 10 October 2012, refused leave to appeal. 26. The applicant then requested the Migration Board to reconsider his case, submitting that a Libyan in Sweden, who knew about his marriage, had travelled to Libya and, by chance, had met his brother and told him that he was married to another man. His uncle had later called him and threatened to kill him if he returned to Libya since he had shamed the family. He further claimed that friends of his in Libya had told him that 12 homosexuals had been killed in Libya recently and that others had fled the country since they were being persecuted by unknown groups in Libya. He was convinced that he would face a real risk of being ill-treated or killed if returned and that it would not be possible for him to apply for family reunion from there without his sexual orientation becoming known. 27. On 10 December 2012 the Migration Board rejected the request for reconsideration. It found that there was no reason to depart from the main rule that an application for family reunion had to be lodged from abroad. The applicant’s claim that his relatives had threatened him was not considered sufficient to constitute a permanent impediment to the enforcement of the expulsion order and thus there was no ground to reconsider the applicant’s case.