CAT/C/48/D/391/2009 Asylum proceedings in Sweden 2.13 The first complainant and family went by car from Oman to Qatar, flew from there to an unidentified country and entered Sweden by car on 13 September 2007. On the same day, the family applied for asylum at the Migration Board’s asylum examination unit in Gävle. Their applications included residence and work permits. 2.14 On 14 September 2007, the Migration Board held short application interviews with the complainants. During the application interview before the Migration Board, the first complainant presented his story as summarized in paragraphs 2.1–2.8 above. The third complainant stated that he had been a student at a university in Egypt when his father had told him on the phone to urgently book a ticket. His father explained to him that the family had to leave Oman as soon as possible. The third complainant further stated that his father had had problems in Egypt and was unable to return to that county. He added that he was also wanted in Egypt on account of his father. Every time he entered Egypt, he was stopped at the airport, taken to an interview room and questioned about his father. He was assaulted during the interviews, released and allowed to enter the country. When asked by the Migration Board about the problems his father had in Egypt, the third complainant replied that his father had been arrested several times, because he was a human rights advocate who defended people and dared to stand up to the Government and those in power. During the application interview before the Migration Board, the second complainant stated that her grounds for asylum were related to those of her father. 2.15 On 28 October 2007, the Migration Board appointed Per Andersson, as a legal aid counsel for all family members. On 26 December 2007, the counsel filed petitions, including statements and request for refugee status together with the travel documents for all family members. On 3 June 2008, the Migration Board summoned seven family members (all but the youngest, Am.M.A.M.A.) to separate new application interviews. The family was assisted by their counsel and an interpreter. 2.16 On 24 July 2008, the Migration Board rejected the complainants’ applications for residence permits, refugee status and travel documents and decided to expel them to Egypt. In the case of the third complainant, the Migration Board acknowledged his torture but said that it did not believe that the reason for the third complainant’s torture was his father. It further stated that his frequent travels to and from Egypt from 2004 to 2007 disclosed that the authorities were not very interested in him. It also noted that the third complainant failed to exhaust any Egyptian domestic remedies with regard to the alleged torture. 2.17 On 29 July 2008, the legal aid counsel, Per Andersson, received powers of attorney from the first, second and third complainants, S.S.Y. and S.M.A.M.A. (the fourth complainant). Thereafter, he was also the legal representative of the family members. 2.18 On 6 August 2008, the decision of the Migration Board was appealed to the Migration Court. Counsel supplemented the appeal with a petition on 11 November 2008, requesting an oral hearing. In a further submission of 8 December 2008, counsel stated who would be examined at the hearing and about what. For example, the first complainant would be examined about what happened when he was arrested by the security police in Egypt, what he was asked about while being subjected to torture and whether in his own view he was still of interest to the security police in Egypt. In addition, he would also be questioned about his family, presenting and going through his family tree from the Internet site geni.com and Facebook correspondence. Before the oral hearing, the Migration Board issued an opinion dated 12 January 2009, in which it considered, inter alia, that the evidence cited by the family before the Migration Court could probably be rejected as superfluous. It argued that the evidence value of pages from Facebook and the Internet site geni.com was neither stronger nor weaker than if the person concerned gave the information directly. The Migration Board was prepared to attest that there were instances 6