CAT/C/47/D/365/2008 risk being killed by the Taliban because they are Shia Muslims. Their mother is ill and it would be a great danger to her health if they were expelled to Afghanistan. The second complainant also stated that he is not feeling well, that he sleeps badly and is stressed. 6.14 On 3 October 2008, the Migration Board rejected the complainants’ applications for residence permits. The Board based its decision on a judgment of the Migration Court of Appeal in a similar case, according to which the Migration Board shall determine whether it is reasonable to apply an internal flight alternative. The prerequisite for applying internal flight alternatives is that the alien will be received in the country of return and is entitled to apply for work there. If the alien would be exposed to undue hardship, internal flight is not a reasonable alternative. This determination should be made on a case-by-case analysis. Not only the general situation in the country is to be considered, but also the alien’s possibility to settle down in a new place where he or she lacks a social network. In this evaluation such circumstances as gender, age and state of health may be of relevance. The Migration Court of Appeal stated that the situation in Kabul was not such that a person risked serious abuse due to internal armed conflict or other severe conflicts. The security situation in Kabul was much better than in the countryside, above all due to the presence of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). In additional, national and international humanitarian organizations were established in Kabul. The Migration Board then noted that the Government of Sweden, the Government of Afghanistan and UNCHR had concluded an agreement of readmission of Afghan nationals. According to the agreement, a person voluntarily returning to Afghanistan would receive financial assistance upon arrival in Kabul. Taking this into consideration, the Migration Board concluded that the complainants could not be considered to risk undue hardship if returned to Afghanistan. As men, they could move freely within the country and had the option of settling down elsewhere than in Kandahar province. There were no reasons to believe that they would not be received in Afghanistan or that they would be expelled from the country. It did not appear likely that it would be difficult for them to acquire identity documents. The Board added that in an examination of impediments to the enforcement of an expulsion order that had gained legal force, there is very little scope for taking into consideration an alien’s state of health or adaptation to Sweden. Thus, it found the circumstances presented by the complainants not lasting impediments and considered that internal flight was an alternative for them. They had not given probable cause to believe that they were to be regarded as refugees or as aliens otherwise in need of protection and therefore entitled to asylum. 6.15 The complainants appealed against the decision to the Migration Court. They maintained their previous claims and added that there was no internal flight alternative. They claimed that, according to a report issued by UNHCR on 5 October 2008, people should no longer be sent to Kabul, especially those without any connection to Kabul. The Taliban were only a few kilometres away from Kabul. Their expulsion would constitute a personal disaster for their mother. The Migration Court rejected their appeals on 3 December 2008. The Court stated that there was no scope, within the assessment of the lasting impediments, to consider humanitarian aspects such as the health of the complainants’ mother or their adaptation to Sweden. As to the internal flight alternative, the Court relied on a judgment rendered by the Migration Court of Appeal in a similar case (see para. 6.14, above) and pointed out that the complainants were young, healthy and capable of working, and that Kabul was a reasonable alternative for internal flight. The complainants did not appeal against the Migration Court’s judgment, and as a result the judgment gained legal force on 29 December 2008. 6.16 The complainants submitted their complaint to the Committee in November 2008, i.e. before the Migration Court had rendered its judgments. On 26 January 2009, the Migration Board decided to stay the enforcement of the expulsion orders regarding the complainants, as requested by the Committee. 8