CAT/C/68/D/860/2018 2.6 The Migration Agency further noted that the complainant’s alleged collaboration with Chechen rebels occurred a relatively long time ago. The Migration Agency considered that his claim that Ramzan Kadyrov’s forces had become suspicious of his collaboration with the rebels was vague and based on speculation. It found his account that in 2002, the complainant’s car had been seized and the chauffeur taken for interrogation insufficient for the conclusion that the complainant would be of interest to Ramzan Kadyrov and his forces. The Migration Agency also noted that the complainant’s wife and children had returned to Chechnya four or five times after 2002 for family visits, although his wife stayed inside to avoid being noticed. Almost everyone knows about her father-in-law and that she was married to his son. Once, one of Kadyrov’s men asked one of her relatives who she was and why she wore a veil. On a few other occasions, people asked her who the father of her children was. Thereupon, she left Chechnya as soon as possible. The Migration Agency concluded that the complainant had not plausibly demonstrated that either his father or the complainant himself would be of interest to the Chechen authorities. 2.7 In his appeal, lodged before the Migration Court at the Stockholm Administrative Court, the complainant submitted two original certificates, one allegedly issued by the “Plenipotentiary representative of the President of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria in Europe” and the other allegedly concerning the cancellation of his visa in Dubai. The complainant also referred to a number of websites containing articles about his father. The Migration Court held an oral hearing with the complainant on an unspecified date, during which a witness testified in support of the complainant’s claims about the political activities of his family and the arrest of his father. 2.8 On 28 March 2014, the Migration Court rejected the complainant’s appeal. The Court deemed that the documents submitted did not plausibly demonstrate his stated need for international protection. Further, the Court considered the complainant’s oral account vague and lacking in a reasonable explanation for credibility gaps. In particular, the complainant had not reasonably explained how he and his wife had been able to obtain a marriage certificate, birth certificates for the children and passports without problems, following his departure from the Russian Federation. As for the complainant’s political activities, the Court noted that he had allegedly carried these out a long time ago and that nothing suggested that he had held a prominent role in the opposition. Information on the situation in the Russian Federation did not support his claimed need for international protection on this ground either. Further, the complainant had opted to remain in the Russian Federation for three years following his father’s flight and nothing during this period suggested that he had been subjected to treatment constituting grounds for international protection. The Court also rejected the complainant’s argument that his affiliation with the Wahhabi faith constituted a ground for international protection, noting that he had neither had a prominent nor an active religious role. The Court concluded that the complainant had failed to demonstrate that he would be of particular interest to the authorities in his country of origin, or that he would in some other way risk treatment constituting grounds for protection upon return. 2.9 On an unspecified date, the complainant and his family appealed against the judgment of the Migration Court, but the Migration Court of Appeal decided on 12 June 2014 not to grant leave to appeal. The decisions to expel the complainant and his family thereby became final and non-appealable. 2.10 On 20 March 2015, the Migration Agency granted the complainant’s wife and children permanent residence permits based on medical impediments to expelling the complainant’s eldest son, who was suffering from so-called resignation syndrome. 2 The complainant was not granted such a permit, because he was suspected of serious criminal offences, including murder and blackmail, and because he lacked a valid passport. Instead, he was granted a 12-month temporary residence permit valid until 4 June 2016. 2 The complainant’s eldest son was fed through a tube for 10 months, did not react when spoken to and was essentially unresponsive during this time. In autumn 2015, it was observed that the complainant’s eldest son was fully conscious, eating independently and had returned to school. 3