CCPR/C/128/D/2984/2017 5.5 The author notes that the State party concluded that he was a national of Rwanda, because it considered the passport to be the only credible document that he submitted. However, he reiterates that his voting card, his refugee documents and the copy of the new Congolese passport have the same date of birth and country of origin, and constitute evidence of his Congolese nationality. As he already explained several times to the State party’s migration authorities, he only got the Rwandan passport for “illegal purposes”. 5.6 The author further notes that the State party did not deny the credibility of the reports he had provided concerning the recruitment of soldiers by the M23 rebels in Rwanda and Uganda. He further submits that he did not get a stamp on his passport when he left Rwanda in November 2012 because he used his voting card, and he cannot use his Rwandan passport to go back to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. At that time, he did not have a Congolese passport, which was only issued in 2017. In order to travel between Rwanda and Uganda, he used his student card and his Rwandan passport, as Rwandan nationals do not need a visa to enter Uganda, whereas Congolese nationals have to pay 100 United States dollars to get one. The author confirms that his Rwandan passport contains few stamps compared with the number of times he travelled to Rwanda because he was using his student card to enter the country. 5.7 Concerning the written evidence of his work experience with the non-governmental organization, the author reiterates that he did not have a permanent contract and that he was paid on a daily basis. Consequently, he did not have evidence of that work experience. He explains that all the threatening letters he and his family received were given to the police for investigation. He also questions if the authorities would believe him even with the letters, considering that they continue arguing that even his identity documents could have been manipulated. In addition, the author argues that he already submitted the Ugandan police report, demonstrating his insecurity in Uganda, to the authorities of Sweden. 5.8 Finally, the author explains that the decision to return to Goma, after his family started receiving threats from the M23 rebels in Rwanda, was not his decision. It was a decision made by his family, because they did not have anywhere else to go, other than back home. The author states that at that time, Goma was controlled by government forces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, not by M23 rebels as the State party affirms. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 9 October 2019, the State party reported that the decision to expel the complainant would become statute-barred on 15 April 2020. It submits that on 5 June 2018, the author submitted an application to the Swedish Migration Agency for a residence permit or a new examination of the issue of a residence permit pursuant to the Aliens Act, citing impediments to enforcement. The author presented his Congolese passport in original in order to prove his identity and nationality and claimed that there were strong grounds for granting him international protection against his country of origin, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and that those grounds had not been previously assessed. 6.2 On 20 September 2019, the Swedish Migration Agency decided not to grant the complainant a residence permit or a new examination of the issue of the residence permit. The decision explains that the order to expel the author is final. For this reason, new assertions can only be examined pursuant to the provisions of the Aliens Act regarding impediments to the enforcement of the refusal-of-entry and expulsion orders. In making such an assessment, the Agency takes into consideration only new exceptional circumstances that have arisen in the case. In this regard, the Swedish Migration Agency considered that the claim that the author is a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been previously assessed by the Agency and cannot be considered to constitute a new circumstance under the Swedish Aliens Act. 6.3 The fact that the author had submitted a Congolese passport to the Agency was, however, considered to constitute a new circumstance. The Agency furthermore noted that both the Agency and the Migration Court had previously found that the author was a citizen of Rwanda. It considered that, according to available country of origin information, Rwanda recognizes dual citizenship. In view thereof, the author was still considered a citizen of Rwanda and therefore the Agency found no reason to assume that Rwanda would not be willing to accept the author upon his return there. An assessment of the complainant’s grounds for asylum concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo was 7