Author
Adequate support during the interview
Although there is no specialised unit dealing with vulnerable groups at the Swedish Migration Agency, the issue of special needs of vulnerable asylum seekers is mainstreamed in the training of caseworkers. The Swedish Migration Agency conducts internal training in conducting investigations with particularly vulnerable asylum seekers. However, these trainings are not mandatory.
The Swedish Migration Agency has developed training courses for caseworkers who interview children, inter alia based on EUAA training modules, and those who have completed this training are designated as case workers especially for unaccompanied children. The case officers who investigate children must have child rights competence and child competence. They should also have investigative experience and have completed relevant child-related training.
Training courses have been carried out and instructions issued in relation to women refugee claimants and claimants with LGBTQI+ claims.[1]
The Swedish Migration Agency has guidelines and legal positions that apply to asylum investigations involving children, LGBTQI cases, persecution on the basis of gender, and suspected human trafficking.
The Swedish Migration Agency has guidelines for handling children’s cases, such as how interviews with parents and asylum investigations with children are to be conducted. The latter guideline provides guidance on what the Swedish Migration Agency needs to take into account when investigating children. Among other things, it addresses issues about the interpreter and the interview environment, how children’s ability to recount can vary depending on age, what information should be given to the child, and appropriate ways to initiate the investigative conversation. There are also routines for handling cases of suspicion that a child is being harmed and for detecting whether a child is married or living in marriage-like conditions.[2]
The Swedish Migration Agency has published a legal position regarding the investigation and assessment of persecution based on gender related to women. The legal position provides guidance for the investigation and assessment of the risk of women who invoke persecution on the basis of gender, and addresses gender as a basis for refugee status, as well as other factors that are to be taken into account in the asylum investigation, such as confidentiality and the significance of trauma.[3] The Swedish Migration Agency also has a procedure that provides support in how the Swedish Migration Agency should detect and handle cases where the applicant is subjected to gender-based violence. [4]
On 20 October 2025, the Swedish Migration Agency published a legal comment to clarify how the judgment of the CJEU in case C-646/21 should be interpreted.[5] The legal comment provides guidance in the handling of cases concerning issues related to the assessment of membership of a particular social group and the examination of the best interests of the child.[6]
The Swedish Migration Agency has published a legal position intended to provide guidance for the investigation and assessment of the forward-looking risk for individuals who invoke grounds for protection based on their actual or imputed sexual orientation, transgender identity, or gender expression.[7]
Examples of measures given in an internal guideline regarding vulnerable applicants and applicants with special needs include prolonging the procedure to allow time for the applicant to put forward their claims; choosing a suitable residence for the applicant; as well as flagging medical care needs to the health authorities. It is stressed that employees of the Swedish Migration Agency should refrain from making any medical assessment but that they should note what the applicant states about their medical condition. If the applicant states that they have suffered torture, then the veracity of that statement must not be investigated by agency employees. A suitable measure in such cases can be to lengthen the time for the procedure and, if necessary, book a medico-legal investigation.[8]
Persons with special needs are generally channelled in the regular procedure, in particular where there are indications that an age assessment is needed or indications of human trafficking, torture, or issues of sexual orientation or gender identity. If special reports are needed to verify trauma of various kinds, the Swedish Migration Agency can grant an extension of the normal procedure time to accommodate this need and to collect additional documentation.
The Swedish Migration Agency has developed a guideline for measures to be taken in the event of suspicion of human trafficking and cooperates with social services and the police. The Swedish Migration Agency has also produced support material for legal guardians.[9]
New caselaw relating to procedural guarantees
The Migration Court of Appeal ruled in May 2022 in case MIG 2022:4,[10] that the Migration Court’s investigative responsibility becomes relevant when the appellant has communication difficulties which may have affected both the appellant’s ability to explain his reasons for asylum and the assessment of the appellant’s credibility. The appellant in the case was deaf and his sign language was very limited.
Vulnerability questions pertaining to children
Children do not have the legal capacity to submit an individual application. An application for residence permit/international protection must be submitted by a person with the legal capacity to represent the child, such as parents/legal caregivers or in the case of an unaccompanied minor, a legal guardian. Children have the right to have their asylum claims examined individually. The child has a right to be heard, but no obligation. The case officers who investigate children must have child rights competences and child-related competences as well as have investigative experience and have completed relevant child training. For the Swedish Migration Agency to be able to hold an investigative interview with a child, the child must want to talk to the Swedish Migration Agency themselves. Children are asked if they want to talk to the case officer and if the child wants this to happen without the presence of the parents/legal guardians. It is also required that the parents/guardians have given their consent for the Swedish Migration Agency to talk to the child. The Swedish Migration Agency must inform the parents, as well as the children, that children may have specific grounds for protection, the child’s right to express his or her views and the Swedish Migration Agency´s obligation to investigate the child’s case individually. The consent of at least one of the guardians is required in order to hear a child. Children have, as mentioned above, the right to be heard and the right to an individual assessment. However, as the Swedish Migration Agency needs the consent of the parents/legal caregivers to conduct an interview with a child, without consent, the child cannot be heard by the authorities. The requirement of parental consent for children’s interviews can create barriers for children to disclose sensitive or individual asylum claims. If the Swedish Migration Agency considers that an accompanied child should be heard and there are conflicting interests, a legal guardian and a public counsel separate from that of the family can be appointed. The Swedish Migration Agency has published a legal position on conflicts of interest between children and the children’s important adults, such as parents, legal guardians, and public counsels.[11]
In the situation where there is a conflict of interest, a legal guardian can be appointed according to the Parental Code section 11 paragraph 2. It is then the legal guardian and not the parents/caregiver that has the legal capacity to represent the child in the migration process. However, according to a recent national inquiry proposing, inter alia, that Sweden ratifies the Third Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communication procedure, in practice this solution is insufficient.[12] The Inquiry has identified several shortcomings and problems that make it more difficult and sometimes impossible for children to exercise their rights. This include both procedural obstacles as well as shortcomings in terms of accessibility and information. The inquiry proposes several legal amendments to ensure the opportunity of children to exercise their rights under the CRC. The inquiry also suggests clarification of the child’s right to be heard in the migration process.
Inquiries have identified that despite the explicit provision on the best interests of the child in the Aliens Act, assessments are often not based on the situation of the individual child. There are often references to statements in preparatory work rather than an evaluation of the best interest in the specific case. Several investigations and reports have also shown shortcomings in accompanied minors’ right to be heard in asylum cases and having their claims assessed individually.[13]
On 1 January 2020, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) was incorporated into Swedish national law and entered into force.[14] The government in the preparatory work stated that in addition to incorporation, continued incorporation of the CRC is required and highlighted the importance of the principle of the best interest of the child being used as a rule of procedure.[15]
Other than legislative measures, there have been developments to strengthen the rights of children. The Swedish Migration Agency published a legal position on the examination of the best interest of the child in June 2020.[16] Sweden has recurrently received criticism from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child regarding the provision in Chapter 1 Section 11 of the Aliens Act, which advises refraining from hearing a child if the authority deems it inappropriate. There has been no amendment in the legislation according to the Committee´s recommendations. The Swedish Migration Agency, however, has revised its legal position on hearing children.[17] The provision must, according to the Swedish Migration Agency, be interpreted in the light of the Convention and it shall only be considered inappropriate to hear a child if the child themselves declares that they do not wish to be heard. However, the legal position is only a document guiding the personnel at the Swedish Migration Agency, with no particular legal standing.
An internal quality review of the processing of accompanied children in the asylum process was presented by the Swedish Migration Agency in December 2022.[18] According to the review, findings show that measures taken by the authority regarding children seem to have had an effect in some aspects, but shortcomings were identified. In general, the best interests of the children are taken into account during the processing, the investigations are of a high level, the children are treated well and receive relevant questions about their reasons for asylum.
The report however identified shortcomings in documentation and that some cases had not been sufficiently investigated. The children’s individual reasons and other relevant factors are highlighted in several decisions – but not in all. The review furthermore showed that in a clear majority of the cases, the best interest of the child is not identified and the balance against opposing interests often done in an unclear manner. A majority of the decisions reveal examples of shortcomings in the application of the method – how the examination of the child’s best interests should be carried out, justified and clearly form an integral part of the assessment. The shortcomings occur regardless of whether it is an approval or rejection case. However, the authors concluded that in the majority of the cases, the outcome was regarded as legally acceptable.
In a comment to the report published by the Swedish Refugee Law Center, criticism was put forward regarding the conclusion made by the authors and that the examination of children’s own reasons for asylum had been overlooked in the review. The report identifies shortcomings in the conditions for children to talk about their own reasons for asylum, and it is not clear from the review how many of the decisions granting asylum are based on the child’s own reasons for asylum. The Swedish Refugee Law Center notes with concern that, despite the serious shortcomings that have been identified, the Swedish Migration Agency considers that the outcome of the reviewed cases has been legally acceptable.[19]
As part of the quality review, a questionnaire was sent to decision-makers at asylum units. The findings from the questionnaire are published in a separate report.[20] When respondents are asked what makes it difficult to consider the best interests of the child, lack of resources, unclear legislation and/or conflict with other legal provisions seem to pose the greatest challenges. Lack of resources primarily referred to lack of time.
At the beginning of 2023, an assignment was given within the Swedish Migration Agency to develop an action plan to increase the legal and procedural quality in the parts where the quality follow-up identified deficiencies. The action plan proposes an educational initiative with a focus on writing and justifying the position (in decisions) on the best interests of the child and is aimed at all employees in the asylum process and administrative process. One of the measures proposed in the quality follow-up was that, after the measures had been introduced, it should be decided whether a new quality follow-up is needed.
As mentioned in the 2022 AIDA report, during 2022 a review of asylum cases where the issue of the risk of genital mutilation was assessed showed quality deficiencies in the processing. Since the review revealed shortcomings, lectures have been conducted within the authority’s asylum examination to raise the level of knowledge. A training case has been developed and a processing support has been published.[21]
The Swedish Migration Agency carried out a follow-up review of 160 asylum cases in 2024. In the cases that led to granting of international protection, the legal quality was assessed to be consistently high, while in the rejection decisions, in a significant part and especially for children, shortcomings of such a nature were noted that the follow-up group could not assess with certainty whether the outcome was correct. However, according to the Swedish Migration Agency, the deficiencies occurred in a lower proportion of the cases and were of a less pervasive nature than in previous quality follow-up in 2022.
Within the framework of a previous government assignment to combat and prevent genital mutilation, the Swedish Migration Agency has taken action. Some examples are processing support for case officers, routines concerning reporting to the police and training initiatives. [22]
Regarding unaccompanied minors and adequate reception in 2022, the Swedish Migration Agency published a legal comment on the authority´s interpretation of the ruling by the CJEU in case C-441/19 regarding Member states’ duty to carry out a general and in-depth assessment of the situation of unaccompanied minors, taking due account of the best interests of the child and to ensure that adequate reception facilities are available for the unaccompanied minor in question in the State of return, before issuing a return decision. Despite criticism from lawyers and civil society, the Swedish Migration Agency assessed that the proceedings in Sweden are in compliance with the ruling.[23]
In 2021, UNICEF published a review of court cases from 2020 pertaining to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.[24] It found that in court cases where the CRC was brought up, assessments of the best interest of the child were rarely clearly documented and it was often unclear how the assessment had been carried out. However, there were positive outcomes in cases where the child was granted a residence permit based on particularly distressing circumstances, with reference being made to the best interest of the child. The author however cautioned that it was too early to draw certain conclusions.
As presented in previous AIDA reports, there have been positive outcomes from the Migration Court of Appeal in asylum cases where the best interests of the child was explicitly mentioned; regarding a 14-year-old child born and raised in Sweden,[25] and regarding a three-year-old boy with a serious health condition.[26] Both rulings are important as a ruling from the Migration Court of Appeal is indicative and the rulings offer guidance on how to assess the best interest of the child, and on the proportionality test when balancing different interests, such as the best interest of the child vis-à-vis for instance the interest of the state to uphold regulated migration.
In a decision of 17 February 2023, the Migration Court of Appeal found, with reference to, among other things, the principle of the best interests of the child and the right to be heard, that the Migration Court should not have rejected a child’s request for an oral hearing.[27]
In October 2023, the Migration Court of Appeal referred a case back to the Migration Court. The court had granted a child and one of the parents’ refugee status and residence permit in Sweden but had rejected the other parent´s application for residence permit. Referring to, inter alia, the CRC, the Migration Court of Appeal found that the Migration Court had not made any assessment of the best interests of the child and the consequences of the expulsion of the parent for the child. This was considered a serious deficiency in the court’s handling of the case.[28]
A report by the Swedish Ombudsman for children, published in October 2025, highlights the legal developments that have taken place and the existing case law concerning the application of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.[29] The report states that, following the incorporation of the CRC into Swedish law, the Swedish Ombudsman for children is aware of nine decisions by the Migration Court of Appeal addressing various aspects of migration law in which the Convention is mentioned. The report highlights the rulings mentioned above, and a ruling from 2018,[30] (i.e., before the CRC was incorporated). The Convention is referred to in different ways in these decisions, in some cases only in the context of summarising the arguments of a party. The Ombudsman has not observed any more developed or substantive engagement with the Convention in decisions other than the three cases mentioned above (MIG 2018:20, MIG 2020:24 and MIG 2021:18). The Children’s Ombudsman states that these rulings are important and can provide guidance in other cases and matters. They concern decisions that are clear and methodical in determining what constitutes the best interests of the individual child and how those interests should be weighed against other considerations. In addition, the court has identified deficiencies in the handling of cases, linked to children’s rights, which have led the court to remit cases to the lower instance for renewed processing.
Although not elaborating on the rights under the CRC, two of the decisions made by the Migration Court of Appeal are mentioned below. In September 2024, the Migration Court of Appeal ruled in a case concerning the significance of a child not holding permanent residence when determining whether the child should acquire Swedish citizenship in connection with a parent’s naturalisation. The Court found that there was no circumstance in the case that would justify imposing a requirement of permanent residence on the child. According to the Court, the decisive factor is the child’s actual connection to the applicant and that the assessment must be carried out from the child’s perspective.[31]
In December 2025, the Migration Court of Appeal held that an unaccompanied refugee child’s unconditional right to family reunification with their parents entails that minor siblings must also be granted residence permits when the parents are granted residence permits, unless there are specific circumstances showing that the siblings are not dependent on their parents. Denying residence permits to the siblings would effectively deprive the unaccompanied child of the right to family reunification. The Court referred to the EU Charter and the best interest of the child. The case was remitted to the Swedish Migration Agency for further examination of identity requirements and possible evidentiary relief.[32]
As mentioned in previous AIDA reports, on 1 July 2022, 31 civil society organisations working with children’s rights, including the Swedish Refugee Law Center, submitted an alternative report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child as a basis for the ongoing review of Sweden. The report is an appendix to the main report Hör barnens röst (Hear the Children’s Voice) produced by children themselves, without adult analysis or interpretation.[33]
Concerns that were raised concerned, inter alia, that there is not yet a systematic approach to the use of the Convention in the application of law in municipalities, regions and by national authorities. Despite the Committee’s recommendations, there is still no legislation regarding child-specific persecution. Several investigations and reports have shown that there are major shortcomings in the child’s right to be heard in asylum cases when children seek asylum together with parents or guardians, and having their claims assessed individually.
The Committee issued its recommendations and comments to Sweden in February 2023.[34] The Committee welcomes the fact that the Convention on the Rights of the Child has become Swedish law. However, the Committee expresses great concern about areas where it believes that immediate action needs to be taken, including the situation of refugee children and children in legal proceedings. The review reveals several systemic shortcomings regarding assessments of the best interests of the child, children’s participation in legal processes and the lack of child-impact assessments in the legislative process. The audit also shows that it is difficult for children to obtain redress when their rights under the Convention are violated.
With regard to children who are in Sweden as asylum seekers, refugees or in the migration process, the Committee welcomes the work carried out by the Swedish Migration Agency regarding, among other things, assessments of the best interests of the child. However, the Committee is deeply concerned about the restrictions that have been introduced in legislation and the consequences this has had for children in terms of family reunification, access to permanent residence permits and social security. The Committee is also deeply concerned about the proposals for further restrictions presented in the Tidö Agreement, which will also have consequences for children.
To strengthen the rights of children in asylum or migration, Sweden is encouraged to take measures to ensure that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in asylum processes. The Committee maintains its previous recommendation that the unsuitability requirement in the Aliens Act, i.e. that children must be heard unless it is deemed inappropriate, be removed. In addition to guidance and training for relevant actors, the Committee recommends that the Aliens Act be amended in order to clarify the assessment of the best interests of the child, and that child-specific persecution and the assessment of the best interests of the child be integrated into the legislation. The Committee also calls on Sweden to ensure that children who have been taken into care by society after being subjected to violence by their parents are not deported along with their parents. Sweden is also urged to take measures to make it easier for children to be reunited with family members by removing the maintenance requirement. With regard to unaccompanied minors from Ukraine, Sweden is urged to take measures to maintain or enable contact with the children’s family members.
However, rather than taking measures to make it easier for children to be reunited with family members by removing the maintenance requirement, as the Committee urged, on 1 December 2023 further restrictions regarding family reunification was introduced (see: Family reunification).
On 1 December 2023, restrictions were also introduced on the possibility for both adults and children to be granted a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. For children, the amendment means a return to the wording of the Aliens Act’s provision on humanitarian grounds before 2014. That provision was amended in 2014 with the purpose of facilitating assessments concerning children, to highlight the children’s rights perspective and to emphasise the principle of the best interests of the child.[35] The legislative change has been criticised because of the lack of child impact assessment. In addition, the Convention became Swedish law in 2020. Civil society has pointed out that removing improvements made to ensure children’s rights is in contrast to the CRC and the purpose of the Swedish Children’s Rights Act.
A civil society review by 25 organizations regarding the development and the government’s work since the Committee’s recommendations, published in June 2025, reveals that while some progress has been made over the past two years on a number of recommendations, too little progress can be noted. Sweden is largely stagnating or moving in the wrong direction regarding children’s rights. The most severe criticism is directed at the government for presenting proposals that directly contradict 14 specific recommendations from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, particularly concerning children in migration, socio-economic vulnerability and the justice system.
In a general overview, a regression of rights is identified, as the principle of “progressive implementation” is being violated. Civil society is concerned that political rhetoric linking migration to criminality fosters racism, polarization, and stigmatization. The area of migration is described as having the most significant negative development for children’s rights. Key points of criticism include restricted conditions for family reunification, proposals to abolish permanent residency and for introducing stricter requirements for citizenship, which creates instability for children. There is strong opposition to inquiries proposing expanded possibilities to place children in detention for longer periods. While the number of medical age assessments has decreased, the government’s decision to discontinue a review of the system is criticized for maintaining legal uncertainty for asylum-seeking children.[36]
Vulnerability questions pertaining to women
As mentioned in previous AIDA reports, the Council of Europe Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO) in its report on Sweden’s implementation of the Istanbul Convention, noted limitations regarding gender-specific interviews with case managers, (i.e., the difficulty to build trust and be able to tell traumatic experiences). Additionally, GREVIO noted that asylum-seeking women are unaware of the importance and relevance that their accounts of gender-based violence and persecution may have on the asylum procedure.
As highlighted in previous AIDA reports, critique has been directed regarding the reference to a so-called male network in cases concerning women applicants. Asylum claims made by female applicants are often rejected as they are assessed to be able to rely on a ‘male network’ in the home country (i.e., male relatives such as brothers, the father, male relatives from the woman’s husband etc.) in their home country.
Such concerns were, inter alia, raised in a report concerning Sweden’s compliance with the UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) prepared by the Swedish CEDAW network, a report that was submitted to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (see AIDA report 2023).
The reference to a male network and the weight that was attributed to it, in many cases regardless of the woman´s individual situation and asylum claim, was identified as a noteworthy area of concern in a report published by the Swedish Refugee Law Center on 8 March 2023. The report was based on a study of 41 cases concerning gender-based asylum claims; Kvinnor i asylprocess – vikten av ett genusperspektiv (“Women in the asylum procedure – the importance of applying a gender perspective”).[37] In a number of cases, shortcomings regarding the procedural guarantees were noted, preventing women from disclosing gender-based asylum claims. Identified areas of concern regarding the assessments were: insufficient gender sensitive considerations when assessing the oral account, failure in applying the benefit of the doubt, and a lack of due consideration to factors leading to late disclosure. Failings in the future risk-assessments were furthermore identified, where the migration authorities assessed each of the grounds for protection separately and did not sufficiently take into account that several factors and combined grounds could aggravate the risk for the woman having a well-founded fear of persecution.
Although limited in scope, the shortcomings in the assessments of the Swedish Migration Agency and the Migration Courts that were noted in the cases analysed in the study may be indicative of shortcomings on a general level and warrant further investigations. In the report, recommendations are directed to the Swedish Migration Agency and the Migration Courts (see AIDA report 2023).
It should be noted that the cases concerning women from Afghanistan included in the study predated the Taliban takeover.
On 6 December 2022, the Swedish Migration Agency, in an updated legal position regarding applicants from Afghanistan,[38] stated that the situation of women in Afghanistan is considered to be such that their fundamental human rights are violated, and that this is done, inter alia, through legal, administrative, policy and/or judicial measures that are in themselves discriminatory or implemented in a discriminatory manner, cf. Article 9(2)(b) of the Qualification Directive. The Swedish Migration Agency considers that it is likely that women and girls in Afghanistan in general, including women and girls in families with a male family member, through the accumulation of various measures, risk being subjected to discrimination at such a level and with such severe restrictions on their fundamental rights and freedoms that, in a forward-looking assessment, this will reach persecution, cf. Article 9(1)(b) of the Qualification Directive. This means that an asylum-seeking woman or girl from Afghanistan must be assessed to be a refugee as belonging to a particular social group, i.e., gender, according to Chapter 4. Section 1 of the Aliens Act.
If a woman or a girl has received an expulsion decision, the situation in Afghanistan mentioned above is to be considered a new circumstance according to the rules regarding impediments to enforced return. If it is not deemed possible to grant a residence permit the case shall be re-examined since it can be assumed that the Taliban regime’s approach to women and girls and the generally worsening situation constitute permanent obstacles to enforcement. For national legislation concerning impediments to enforced return, see Subsequent applications.
The Swedish Migration Agency’s legal position was updated in November 2024.[39] The situation for women and girls is reiterated, where the situation of women in Afghanistan is assessed to be such that their fundamental human rights are violated that, in a forward-looking assessment, this reaches the threshold of persecution on grounds of gender within the meaning of Chapter 4, Section 1 of the Aliens Act. However, it is added that even though the Swedish Migration Agency is not required to take into account other circumstances relating to the applicant’s personal situation than those linked to the applicant’s gender and nationality (see the judgment of the CJEU of 4 October 2024 in Joined Cases C-608/22 and C-609/22), there may in rare exceptional cases be individual circumstances which mean that the discrimination does not reach the level required to constitute persecution. The examination is described as being carried out in accordance with the ordinary assessment framework, and an individual assessment of the need for protection shall be made taking into account the applicant’s personal status and circumstances, where, for example, grounds for exclusion must also be considered.
ECRE and a number of its partner organizations carried out a study visit to Stockholm in June 2025. The specific aim of the visit was to assess how Sweden’s legal framework, asylum procedures, reception systems and civil society structures respond to the specific needs of self-identified women and girls. ECRE published a report on the study visit which highlights several strengths in Sweden’s approach, including the legal recognition of gender and sexual orientation within the refugee definition, individualized and gender-sensitive asylum interviews, and the possibility to request the gender of interviewers, interpreters or legal counsel.[40] The report also documents the central role played by civil society organizations in providing legal assistance, psychosocial support, anti-trafficking and services for people who underwent female genital mutilation, as well as inclusion programs.
At the same time, the report also identifies a number of significant challenges. For example, recent and planned reforms under the Tidö Agreement, including proposed reductions in first instance legal aid, stricter reception rules tied to assigned housing, expanded control measures, limitations on repeat applications and moves toward temporary residence permits, or the risk of weakening gender-sensitive safeguards. The report also reveals gaps in interpretation quality, consistent gender-based violence-informed training, safe accommodation for single women, access to documentation and the sustainability of NGO services amid shrinking funding and limited engagement in the implementation of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum. The report underscores that even though Sweden continues to host a strong ecosystem of actors committed to supporting asylum-seeking and refugee women and girls, the restrictive policy climate is increasingly shaping the extent to which these protections can be upheld in practice.
The following challenges were also identified during the study visit:
- the fact that the purpose of the right to request a female or male interviewer, interpreter, and public counsel is not always explained,
- the quality of interpretation services affecting gender-sensitive asylum procedures,
- the Swedish Migration Agency requires parental consent for children’s interviews, which can create barriers to disclosure in sensitive cases such as FGM,
- the impact of trauma on communication and testimony can significantly affect the applicants ability to navigate the asylum procedure as well as their capacity to give a coherent or detailed account of their experiences during the interview,
- language barriers, trauma-related stress, and cultural factors may hinder their expressiveness, potentially affecting the outcome of their claims, and
- access to specialized health and psychosocial support is not uniformly guaranteed.
Another challenge that was identified was the inconsistent training on gender-based violence (GBV). Although the Swedish Migration Agency offers training opportunities on GBV, civil society representatives highlighted that the level and consistency of such training varies. There are no formal requirements for all legal representatives or the Swedish Migration Agency staff to have specialized knowledge in gender-related asylum claims. Legal professionals are not required to demonstrate specific expertise in GBV or related protection needs, even in cases where such issues are central to the applicant’s claim.
Another challenge that was identified concerns the significant evidentiary burden on applicants in GBV cases. Even when presenting credible claims, some applicants are denied protection without support from external institutions. Legal professionals and civil society representatives highlighted that the perceived credibility of claims frequently depends on language proficiency, emotional expression during interviews, and external corroboration. Applicants who struggle to clearly communicate their experiences –due to trauma, language barriers, or cultural norms- may be disadvantaged. Moreover, intersectional vulnerabilities are often overlooked. Lawyers noted that cumulative factors are rarely recognized, and intersectional approaches are not systematically applied in case assessments. Legal professionals highlighted that the new restriction on repeat asylum applications is seen as particularly harmful to survivors of gender-based violence, who often need considerable time before disclosing their experiences and may now lose the chance to seek protection after an initial rejection.[41]
Following the CJEU judgment in case C-646/21, on 20 October 2025 the Swedish Migration Agency published a legal commentary in order to provide support in the handling of cases relating to the assessment of membership of a particular social group and the assessment of the best interests of the child. [42]
As reported in the previous AIDA report, restrictions were introduced in 2023 on the possibility for both adults and children to be granted a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. Under this provision adults could previously also be granted a residence permit if they had resided in Sweden with a residence permit for a longer period of time but did not meet the requirements for a permanent residence permit and there were no other grounds for an extended residence permit. Explicitly mentioned in the preparatory work was the situation when a temporary residence permit had been granted under Chapter 5, Section 16 of the Aliens Act after a relationship has ended, e.g., because the foreigner had been subjected to violence or other serious violation.
Questions of concern that were, inter alia, further highlighted by CEDAW in its observations in November 2021 concerned the availability of specialised, inclusive and accessible shelters for women and girls who were victims of gender-based violence, taking into account their specific needs. There was also concern regarding the identification and protection of women and girls being trafficked for purposes of sexual exploitation, forced labour or forced criminal activities, and the presence of preventive measures concerning them.
The Swedish Migration Agency can offer an asylum seeker who has been subjected to or threatened with violence accommodation in another location and mark the address as confidential. However, the Migration Agency cannot offer sheltered housing. This must according to the Migration Agency be offered under municipal auspices.[43] (see also Reception of women).
In 2025, a total of 2, 811 women (including accompanied girls) applied for asylum for the first time and the recognition rate was 40%, compared to 3,951 women (including accompanied girls) and 41% recognition rate in 2024.[44] A total of 35 unaccompanied girls applied for asylum.[45]
A total of 2,855 women applied for an impediment to enforced return in 2025 (from 2,696 in 2024). The approval rate was 14% in comparison with 16% in 2024.[46]
Vulnerability questions pertaining to LGBTQI+ asylum seekers
In November 2020, RFSL[47] published a report[48] in which they had examined more than 2,000 asylum decisions from the Migration Agency and judgments from the Migration Courts in LGBTQI+ cases during the period 2012–2020. The report finds that that several explicit requirements are put upon the asylum seeker by the migration authorities within the credibility assessments in LGBTQI+ cases and that the migration authorities have a number of preconceptions about and expectations on LGBTQI+ people, that have a great impact on whether or not asylum seekers are considered as having made their claims credible. Asylum seekers are expected to have gone through an inner process leading up to their realisation about their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. They are expected to have felt, or at least reflected upon, feelings such as a sense of being different, stigma and shame. The requirements are based on the erroneous and stereotypical notion that LGBTQI+ people share certain universally common experiences that can be investigated and assessed. LGBTQI+ people eligible for protection who do not share or cannot describe these experiences are deemed non-credible. The report also found that late disclosure of LGBTQI+ asylum claims are often deemed non-credible and non-reliable.
In 2020 RFSL Ungdom (Queer Youth) published a legal review based on nine cases concerning LGBTQ youths. In 2022, the report was translated into English.[49]
In 2023, RFSL published a follow-up report to the 2020 report.[50] A further 1,360 asylum decisions and judgements were examined during the period 2020-2023. Although some positive changes were noted, for instance a few positive rulings, the critics raised in the 2020 report were reiterated. It was however noted by RFSL that the Swedish Migration Agency has started a process of change in order to improve decision-making where the conclusions of the previous report from RFSL are taken into account.
In September 2024, a version in English was published by RFSL.[51] The Swedish Agency for Public Management (Statskontoret) has, on behalf of the government, reviewed the asylum process to strengthen quality, consistency, and legal certainty in the field. The assignment included assessing the extent to which consistency and legal certainty are maintained in the assessment of asylum cases at the Swedish Migration Agency and whether the agency has the governance and working methods required to achieve this. In October 2024, Statskontoret published its review of the asylum process.[52]
In the analyses of governance, support, and internal follow-up, as well as in interviews and surveys, Statskontoret has specifically focused on LGBTQI and convert cases.
Statskontoret’s overall analysis shows that the Swedish Migration Agency is having difficulty maintaining uniformity and legal certainty in the asylum process. The proportion of approval and rejection decisions differs between the regions in a way that cannot be reasonably explained. The Swedish Migration Agency’s internal governance, control and follow-up are assessed to be weak, and the agency does not follow up the legal quality of asylum processing in a systematic manner.
With regard to LGBTQI and convert cases, both external organisations and the Swedish Migration Agency’s own reports show that there are shortcomings in the legal quality of the Swedish Migration Agency’s assessments. Statskontoret‘s analysis also supports the view that LGBTQI and convert cases are difficult to examine in a uniform and legally certain manner. In the analysis of governance for LGBTQI and convert cases, it was assessed that formulations in the legal positions published by the Swedish Migration Agency make the positions difficult to interpret and use, and that the discretionary margin partly counteracts the purpose of the positions to provide support in the assessment.
It is also noted that governance may have difficulty having an impact. Additionally, previously there were specialists involved in several case types, for example as quality assurance in LGBTQI cases. However, this function was removed during the reorganization in 2021. Nowadays, all case officers are expected to be able to process all types of asylum cases and asylum grounds. It is further noted that when case volumes vary greatly over time it is difficult to retain accumulated expertise.
Statskontoret concluded that the Swedish Migration Agency has working methods, but not guidance and follow-up, to maintain uniformity and legal certainty in the asylum process, and left suggestions for improvements.
Based on the findings and recommendations in the report from Statskontoret, the Swedish government gave the Swedish Migration Agency the task in its appropriation directive for 2025 to improve the uniformity and legal quality in decision-making and assessing LGBTQI asylum claims.[53] On 23 September 2025, the Swedish Migration Agency reported back to the government with what measures had been taken during 2025 and are planned for the future in order to fulfil this task.[54] In its report, the Swedish Migration Agency briefly described that they have adopted a plan to implement the EUAA Practical Guide on applicants with diverse sexual orientations, gender identities, gender expressions and sex characteristics (SOGIESC). They describe that this plan includes measures that will be taken to address the conclusions made by Statskontoret, as well as the external criticism against the legal assessments of SOGIESC asylum claims. The Swedish Migration Agency also reported that they will investigate the possibility of doing a thematic follow-up of the quality of decision-making in SOGIESC asylum cases, including examining whether a method can be developed to keep statistics in these cases.
Both RFSL and RFSL Ungdom welcomed that the Swedish Migration Agency has chosen to implement the EUAA’s Practical Guide in SOGIESC/LGBTQI asylum cases and that they have developed an implementation plan to improve legal certainty and address the criticism that RFSL, RFSL Ungdom, Statskontoret and others have expressed.[55] RFSL Ungdom highlighted that a thematic quality follow-up that also concerns children and young people and includes children’s rights and youth perspectives is necessary, as RFSL Ungdoms audits have shown that children and young LGBTQI people are extra exposed to unjustified assessments and discrimination within the framework of the asylum process.[56]
In the same report, the organizations note, at the same time, that no improvement has yet taken place. RFSL is currently conducting new research on SOGIESC asylum law, examining decisions and judgements in 2025, showing that no change or improvement has happened compared to what the previous legal investigations showed. RFSL’s experience from SOGIESC case law 2025 is that discretion-reasoning has been found in cases concerning applicants from countries that are having various forms of criminalising laws that are applied to arrest LGBTQI+ people. The credibility assessments still rely on stereotyped notions of LGBTQI+ people. RFSL concludes that the Swedish migration authorities’ assessments of SOGIESC asylum cases are still contrary to national and international law. There are no official statistics over the Swedish Migration Agency’s SOGIESC asylum decisions. From 1 January to 31 December 2025, RFSL gathered altogether 448 judgements from the Swedish Migration Courts in asylum cases where SOGIESC claims were assessed. In 418 of the cases (93,3%) the court rejected the SOGIESC asylum claims. Out of the 418 denied SOGIESC asylum claims, 313 of them were based on the credibility assessment, where the applicant’s sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and/or sex characteristics were not assessed as credible. The remaining 105 judgements were rejected based on sufficiency; most often when the country of origin was assessed as a so-called “safe country of origin” for LGBTQI+ people.[57]
RFSL has furthermore observed a significant increase in cases where refugee status and residence permits are revoked for individuals who were granted protection on SOGIESC-related asylum grounds. RFSL considers this development to be a consequence of the Government’s 2025 appropriation directive, which instructed the Swedish Migration Agency to prioritize revocation cases. A frequent basis for revocation is that the Swedish Migration Agency receives anonymous tips or discovers that individuals granted refugee status due to their sexual orientation have had children or are cohabiting with a person of a different legal gender, regardless of the other person’s gender identity or the nature of their relationship. RFSL, Civil Rights Defenders and other civil society organizations reported an increase in revocation cases affecting LGBTQI+ persons and warned that investigations increasingly involve intrusive and privacy-violating questioning about SOGIESC, contrary to UNHCR Guidelines No. 9, CJEU case law and the Swedish Migration Agency’s own legal position (RS015/2021).[58]
Exemption from special procedures
When implementing the Asylum Procedures Directive, Sweden saw no need to change or modify existing legislation, due to the new Article 24 on applicants in need of special procedural guarantees, even though many authorities and organisations, including the Swedish Migration Agency, Swedish Red Cross and UNHCR, expressed the need to do so.[59]
Unaccompanied children and other vulnerable groups are not per se exempted from the accelerated procedure, although individual assessments of the appropriate track to be applied may be made continuously. “Track 4” may be applied to an unaccompanied child who has an unfounded claim and who can be accommodated in reception facilities in the country of origin.
[1] Information provided by the Migration Agency, February 2023.
[2] Swedish Migration Agency; Rutin: Genomföra barnfokuserat samtal, Rutin: Genomföra asylutredning med
barn, Rutin: Anmäla till socialtjänsten vid kännedom eller misstanke om att barn far illa, Rutin: Identifiera och
hantera ärenden där barn är gifta eller lever under äktenskapslika förhållanden.
[3] Swedish Migration Agency, RS/069/2021, available here.
[4] Swedish Migration Agency, Rutin: Upptäcka och hantera könsrelaterat våld.
[5] CJEU, Judgment of 11 June 2024, available: here.
[6] Swedish Migration Agency, Rättslig kommentar, EU-domstolens avgörande i mål C-646/21, RK/004/2025, available in Swedish here.
[7] Swedish Migration Agency, Utredning och prövning av den framåtsyftande risken för personer som åberopar skyddsskäl på grund av sexuell läggning, könsöverskridande identitet eller könsuttryck, RS/015/2021, available in Swedish here.
[8] Swedish Migration Agency, Rutin: Ta ställning till särskilda behov, initialt and Rutin: Insatser för asylsökande med särskilda behov.
[9] Swedish Migration Agency, ‘Människohandel. Information till dig som är god man för ensamkommande barn.’; available in Swedish here.
[10] Migration Court of Appeal, Decision MIG 2022:4, 31 May 2022, available in Swedish here.
[11] Swedish Migration Agency; Rättsligt ställningstagande, Motsättningar mellan asylsökande barn, god man, offentligt biträde och vårdnadshavare, RS/060/2021, 21 April 2021, available in Swedish here.
[12] Swedish Government Official Report SOU 2023:40, Förbättrade möjligheter för barn att utkräva sina rättigheter enligt barnkonventionen, 23 August 2023, available here.
[13] Swedish Government Official Report, SOU 2016:19 Barnkonventionen blir svensk lag. Available in Swedish here; Swedish Government Official Report, SOU 2020:63, Barnkonventionen och svensk rätt. Available in Swedish here.
[14] Lag (2018:1197) om Förenta nationernas konvention om barnets rättigheter, available here.
[15] Government Bill, prop. 2017/18:186 Inkorporering av FN:s konvention om barnets bästa, 20 March 2018, available in Swedish here 95f.
[16] Swedish Migration Agency, Rättsligt ställningstagande, Prövning av barns bästa, 009/2020, 24 June 2020, available in Swedish here.
[17] Swedish Migration Agency; Rättsligt ställningstagande, Att höra barn, 010/2020, 24 June 2020, available in Swedish here.
[18] Swedish Migration Agency, Tematisk kvalitetsuppföljning avseende asylsökande barn i familj, dnr: 1.3.4-2022-26331, 19 December 2022, available in Swedish here.
[19] Swedish Refugee Law Center, Migrationsverkets rapport visar stora brister i prövningen av asylärenden som rör barn i familj, 4 May 2023, available in Swedish here.
[20] Swedish Migration Agency, ’Kvalitetsuppföljning asylsökande barn, del 1, enkätundersökning om hur barnets bästa och barnets rätt att uttrycka sin åsikt tolkas och tillämpas’, dnr: 1.3.4-2022-26331, November 2021, available in Swedish here.
[21] The Swedish Migration Agency, Annual Report 2022, Dnr: 1.3.2-2023-2262.
[22] The Swedish Migration Agency, Annual Report 2024, Dnr: 1.3.2–2025-1844, p.116
[23] The Swedish Migration Agency, Rättslig kommentar, Tolkning av EU-domstolens dom C-441/19, RK/002/2022, available in Swedish here.
[24] UNICEF, Barnkonventionen som lag i praktiken – En granskning av domar från 2020, 2021, available in Swedish here.
[25] Migration Court of Appeal, Decision MIG 2020:24, 22 December 2020, available here.
[26] Migration Court of Appeal, Decision MIG 2021:18, 17 December 2021, available here.
[27] Migration Court of Appeal, Decision UM 3741-22, 17 February 2023
[28] Migration Court of Appeal, Decision UM 6238-23, October 2023
[29] Barnombudsmannen, Barnkonventionen i rättspraxis, 2 October 2025, p. 73-77, available in Swedish here.
[30] Migration Court of Appeal, Decision UM 5407-18, MIG 2018:20, 13 November 2018, available here.
[31] Migration Court of Appeal, Decision MIG 2024:10, 12 September 2024.
[32] Migration Court of Appeal, Decision UM 13683-24, MIG 2025:14, 9 December 2025
[33] Hör barnens röst, Appendix 1: Report from Civil Society Organisations working with Child Rights, 2022, available in English here.
[34] Concluding observations on the combined 6th and 7th periodic reports of Sweden, 7 March 2023, available in English here.
[35] Government Bill 2013/14:216, pages 18–19.
[36] Civilsamhällets granskning, Barn är också människor och har rätt till rättigheter precis som vuxna, June2025, available here.
[37] Swedish Refugee Law Center, ‘Kvinnor i asylprocess – vikten av ett genusperspektiv’, 8 March 2023, available in Swedish here.
[38] Swedish Migration Agency, Legal position Prövning av skyddsbehov m.m. för medborgare från Afghanistan, RS/089/2021, updated 27 November 2023, available in Swedish here.
[39] Swedish Migration Agency, Legal position, Prövning av skyddsbehov m.m. för medborgare från Afghanistan,, RS/089/2021, updated 11 November 2024, available in Swedish here.
[40] ECRE, Study visit to Sweden on good practices in upholding the rights of asylum seeking and refugee women and girls, December 2025, available here.
[41] ECRE, Study visit to Sweden on good practices in upholding the rights of asylum seeking and refugee women and girls, December 2025, available here, p.12-13.
[42] Swedish Migration Agency, Rättslig kommentar EU-domstolens avgörande i mål C-646/21, RK/004/2025, available in Swedish here.
[43] Swedish Migration Agency, Rutin: Skyddat boende/ skyddad adress/ sekretessmarkering för asylsökande utsatta för våld eller hot om våld; Rättsutredning angående Migrationsverkets ansvar för frågor rörande så kallat skyddat boende, dnr 1.3.4 -2018-38994.
[44] Swedish Migration Agency, ‘Annual Report 2025’, Dnr: MVA-2026-00711, 20 February 2026, available in
Swedish here.
[45] Swedish Migration Agency, information received via emal January 2026.
[46] Swedish Migration Agency, ‘Annual Report 2025’, Dnr: MVA-2026-00711, 20 February 2026, available in
Swedish here.
[47] Riksförbundet för homosexuellas, bisexuellas, transpersoners, queeras och intersexpersoners rättigheter (the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex Rights)
[48] RFSL, Avslagsmotiveringar i HBTQI-asylärenden, available in Swedish, with a summary in English, here.
[49] RFSL Ungdom, I want to be free, available here.
[50] RFSL, Avslagsmotiveringar i hbtqi-asylärenden – en uppföljning av rättsutredningen, 2023, available in Swedish here.
[51] RFSL; Rejection motivations in SOGIESC asylum cases in Sweden: A Case Law Analysis of the Migration Agency’s, the Migration Courts’ and the Migration Court of Appeal’s Assessments of Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Gender Expression Asylum Claims, September 2024, available here.
[52] Statskontoret, Många öar små – Migrationsverkets styrning och uppföljning av den rättsliga kvaliteten i asylprocessen, 2024.14, October 2024, available here.
[53] Regleringsbrev för budgetåret 2025 avseende Migrationsverket, 2024-12-19, available in Swedish here.
[54] Swedish Migration Agency, Rapport: Ökad enhetlighet och rättslig kvalitet i ärendeprövningen, dnr 1.3.1-2025-11985,p.16, available in Swedish here.
[55] Information provided by RFSL and RFSL Ungdom via email, 27 January 2026.
[56] RFSL Ungdom, analysis of the report from the Swedish Migration Agency to the government on 30 September 2025, available in Swedish here.
[57] Information provided by RFSL via email, 26 January 2026.
[58] RFSL, Consultation response on the Migration and Asylum Pact (Ds 2025:30), 29 December 2025, p.7-8, available in Swedish here.
[59] Genomförande av det omarbetade asylprocedurdirektivet (Travaux préparatoires to the transposition of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive), 2016/17:17, available in Swedish here.