Falconpowers – A young man of Syrian nationality, who came to Sweden seeking protection and asylum, tells us his story that has now led to the rejection of his application by the Migration Agency and the Immigration Court, which also denied his appeal. Najdat explains that the reason for the rejection of his application is that the Migration Agency (Migrationsverket) considered him capable of securing the necessary funds (8000 dollars) to obtain an exemption from military service. However, the Immigration Court argues that there are important details to be taken into account, including the issue of the required cash amount. Let’s continue and see what the story is.
After arriving in Uppsala, Sweden, Najdat applied for international protection and declared his need for protection from danger. He submitted his personal documents to prove his identity. However, Najdat faced two problems: firstly, he submitted a passport that was not original (possibly forged), and secondly, he made many statements, some of which were contradictory and did not match the later established facts.
Regarding the first problem, Najdat presented another passport and complete documents, and although the Migration Agency announced that caution should be exercised in dealing with them, the new documents proved beyond doubt that he is of Syrian origin.
As for the issue of contradictory statements, it is clear that Najdat was afraid of being returned to Syria, so his words began to contradict out of fear, not out of falsehood. This is what Najdat’s lawyer stated in court.
But the main thing in the story, which Najdat affirms and claims to have proven with the most available evidence, is that his father is deceased, his mother does not have money, and he was wanted for military service, which is why he came to Sweden and sought protection.
Immigration Authority: “He has no proof”
The Migration Agency believes that the inconsistency and contradiction in the information provided by Najdat raises doubt and suspicion about everything he says, including his need for protection, whether due to military service or otherwise. Therefore, they had to apply the general rules of the country without considering his specific circumstances.
The Migration Agency confirms that the person’s forced military service in Syria is a reason to grant him protection and not return him to Syria. However, they add that Najdat failed to prove that he is liable for military service. Doubt was raised as to whether he had completed it or if he is not required to perform military service: “The surrounding circumstances of his story, its contradictions, and his departure to Europe raise doubts that he is liable for military service.”
The matter of possessing money
As mentioned earlier, according to Najdat, the Migration Agency rejected his application because he is capable of securing the necessary funds to pay for exemption from military service.
The Migration Agency does not agree with Najdat’s statement. Their position, as they explain, is based on an internal report on military service in Syria, which states that it is possible to avoid military service in Syria by paying a sum of money. Regarding Najdat’s specific case, he did not provide evidence to support his claims about financial hardship or his obligation to serve, nor did he provide the necessary documents to prove that. That’s why they did not consider Najdat’s financial situation in their decision.
The Migration Agency also adds that Najdat failed to prove his claims of a security threat to his life in Syria, which is an additional factor that casts doubt on all his claims.
