32 ANNUAL REPORT 2011 sion in 2007 and that he had lived with his mother’s brother and his family until he left for Denmark. He had no other family in Iraq. Subsequently he had been informed that his uncle was no longer alive either. In summer 2009, the Immigration Service and subsequently the Refugee Appeals Board rejected the boy’s asylum application. Soon after, the Immigration Service also rejected his application for residence under the special rules applying to unaccompanied refugee children on the grounds that in the Immigration Service’s opinion the boy would not be in an actual emergency situation when he returned to Iraq. The boy’s lawyer appealed the rejection of residence to the then Ministry of Integration, which in January 2010 upheld the decision by the Immigration Service. In the Ministry’s opinion, it had not been documented or rendered likely that the boy’s uncle was dead or that the boy had no family network in Iraq. The Immigration Service had made no attempt to search for the boy’s uncle while the case was being processed. The boy’s lawyer then lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman. Among other things, he argued that the Immigration Service should have searched for the boy’s uncle, as he was the boy’s only surviving relative in Iraq after his parents’ death. If the uncle was not found, the lawyer believed the boy would be in an actual emergency situation if he returned to Iraq. Problem not confined to this boy As mentioned at the start, the Immigration Service had been under an obli­ gation to initiate a search for the parents of unaccompanied minors seeking asylum since 2003 and for the parents of all unaccompanied children since 2007. This obligation was included in the Aliens Act for the sake of the child. The purpose of the rule was to help the child find its parents and – if possible – be reunited with them. However, the problem was that the Immigration Service did not attempt to find the parents before the child was about to be repatriated, and then only to ensure a safe repatriation. Moreover, the Immigration Service had not yet established a well-functioning search arrangement even as part of the procedure intended to ensure a safe repatriation. As a result, any attempt by the Immigration Service to find the child’s parents might not be made until a long time after the child’s arrival in Denmark. How-