CCPR/C/130/D/3246/2018 contradicted by his claim of openly wearing a cross for a year. The Migration Court found his account of his conversion and thoughts about Islam and Christianity to be vague, noting his inability to elaborate on his conviction behind the alleged conversion. The Migration Court concluded that he had not plausibly demonstrated that his conversion was based on a genuine, personal and religious conviction and, on 15 June 2017, rejected the appeal. The removal decision became final when the Migration Court of Appeal refused to grant leave to appeal on 25 August 2017. Subsequently, the author travelled to Austria to apply for asylum, but was sent back to Sweden on 16 May 2018 pursuant to the Dublin III Regulation. 6 4.6 Third, regarding the author’s claimed need for protection due to his sexual orientation, the State party notes that the author has claimed to identify as a homosexual and that information about his sexual orientation has spread on the Internet, along with his name and photograph. The author has also claimed that he had a romantic relationship with a boy in the Islamic Republic of Iran and had been subjected to traumatizing events there related to his sexual orientation that negatively affected his mental health. Explaining why he had not invoked these circumstances earlier, he stated that, since arriving in Sweden, he has perceived that homosexuality is associated with shame and has thus not dared to tell anyone. However, he had encountered a spirit of solidarity with respect to his sexual orientation and gender identity in the detention centre. 4.7 The State party observes that the Migration Agency, in its decision of 28 June 2018, noted that the author had invoked his sexual orientation and gender identity only after the removal order had become non-appealable and only one day before his planned removal,7 in an application to the Migration Agency for a residence permit pursuant to chapter 12, section 18 of the Aliens Act and a re-examination pursuant to chapter 12, section 19 of the same Act citing impediments to the enforcement of the removal order. 8 The Migration Agency found that this lateness, similarly to that of his conversion claim, negatively affected his credibility, and did not consider his explanation for the lateness satisfactory. It found that he had been living in Sweden for three years and had been attending a Swedish school, meaning that it could hardly have escaped him that the situation of homosexuals in Sweden is different from that in Afghanistan. His stated shame was implausible also because of his ability to invoke his conversion despite the stigma and shame associated with it. As for his claim of having been subjected to traumatic events in the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning his sexual orientation and their effect on his mental health, the Migration Agency found that he had stated to be in good health during the asylum proceedings, had provided no documentary evidence of mental health issues and was informed early in the process about the importance of invoking all possible grounds for protection. As he had not mentioned his sexual orientation until his detention and in the absence of an acceptable explanation, the Migration Agency did not consider his account credible, and concluded that no impediments to the enforcement of the removal order had emerged. It therefore decided not to grant a residence permit nor a re-examination. 4.8 On appeal before the Migration Court, the author added to the aforementioned grounds that he no longer identified as a man, claiming that his non-conforming gender identity was an impediment to the enforcement of the removal order. The Migration Court found that he could have invoked his sexual orientation and gender identity earlier, and that the tardy invocation constituted strong grounds for doubting the veracity of the claim. The Court additionally considered that his claimed gender identity was an escalation of previously invoked asylum grounds and was insufficiently substantiated. It rejected the appeal on 20 6 7 8 4 Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person. It is indicated in the file that the author’s removal was scheduled for 26 June 2018. The State party comments that the matter of a residence permit can only be examined if new circumstances are submitted that can be assumed to constitute a lasting impediment to the enforcement of the removal, i.e. a risk of being sentenced to the death penalty or of being subjected to torture or persecution. No new circumstances have been invoked in prior proceedings that would warrant a new examination. A new examination requires that the new circumstances could not have been invoked previously or that a “valid excuse” is provided.