CAT/C/47/D/365/2008 6.4 The complainants lodged applications for asylum on 7 June 2005. Interviews were held on 14 December 2005 in the presence of their counsel and an interpreter. The first complainant stated that he was born in the Islamic Republic of Iran but he is an Afghan citizen. He has lived in Iran his entire life, with the exception of a few years when he lived in Pakistan. Being a national of Afghanistan, he could not get a work permit in Iran and he was not allowed to go to school. In Iran, he was arrested twice due to lack of a residence permit. On both occasions he spent a few months in a refugee camp in Iran, where he was maltreated, and on both occasions he was sent to Afghanistan and spent a few weeks there. He never had any problems with Afghan authorities. He had no problems entering the country. The only question posed by Afghans was whether he was Afghan and whether he had been to Iran. He cannot return to Iran or Pakistan. He cannot return to Afghanistan since he has no connection to that country. He went to Sweden because his family is there. 6.5 The second complainant stated that he was born in Afghanistan and that he left Afghanistan for the Islamic Republic of Iran together with his family when he was six months old because of the war against the former Soviet Union. He has lived in Iran his entire life, with the exception of six years when he lived in Pakistan. He had a temporary residence permit in Iran and he worked there under harsh conditions. The Iranian authorities interned him and his brother in a refugee camp, where a soldier hit him on one of his knees. Since then, he has had problems with the knee. He does not know anyone in Afghanistan and he does not speak the language. He cannot return to Iran or Pakistan since he will not be given a residence permit. The reason for giving false information about his identity was that he wanted to join his family in Sweden. 6.6 On 19 December 2005, the Migration Board rejected the complainants’ applications for residence permits, work permits, declarations of refugee status and travel documents, and ordered that they be expelled to Afghanistan, unless they could show that some other country was willing to receive them. They were prohibited to return to Sweden without the permission of the Migration Board for a period of two years from the date of the decision. The Migration Board initially stated that the complainants’ applications were to be considered in relation to Afghanistan due to their Afghan citizenship. It found no reasons to examine their applications in relation to Pakistan or the Islamic Republic of Iran, since they had allegedly no residence permits there. According to the Board, the general situation in Afghanistan was not in itself sufficient reason for granting residence permits in Sweden. The complainants had failed to substantiate that they were to be regarded as refugees or aliens otherwise in need of protection and therefore entitled to asylum. Furthermore, the Board found no reasons to deviate from the assessment previously made by both the Board and the Aliens Appeals Board regarding residence permits based on their relationship to their mother and siblings residing in Sweden. There were no humanitarian or other reasons to grant the complainants residence permits. Due to the fact that they had appeared under different identities, used false documents, withheld important information and stated reasons for residence permits that were substantially incorrect, the expulsion orders were combined with a prohibition to return to Sweden for a period of two years. The decision was appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board. On 28 March 2006, the Appeals Board decided to strike the case from its list after the complainants had withdrawn their appeals. The Migration Board’s decision thereby gained legal force. 6.7 On 31 March 2006, the Migration Board decided to grant the complainants temporary residence permits valid for one year according to the temporary amendments to the 1989 Aliens Act, on grounds that, due to the situation in Afghanistan, Sweden did not expel people there by force. However, it was envisaged that it would likely be possible to expel single men in the foreseeable future since they would have good chances of reintegrating into the Afghan society. The Board also stated that UNCHR did not oppose forcibly expelling persons to Afghanistan. Therefore, the orders to expel the complainants were not repealed. 6