Antalet asylansökningar ökade markant under år 2015 vilket ledde till stora påfrestningar på såväl asylsystemet som de centrala samhällsfunktionerna. Till följd av flyktingströmmen infördes lagen (2016:752) om tillfälliga begränsningar av möjligheten att få uppehållstillstånd i Sverige (TUtlL). Denna lag medförde att flertalet av utlänningslagens (2005:716) paragrafer begränsades till EU-rättens och internationella konventioners miniminivå. Uppehållstillstånd på grund av anknytning till en alternativt skyddsbehövande i Sverige får därmed numera endast beviljas i de ärenden då ett avslag skulle strida mot ett svenskt konventionsåtagande.    I MIG 2018:20 uttalade migrationsöverdomstolen att ett avslag gällande uppehållstillstånd till följd av anknytning till ett barn som beviljats tillfälligt uppehållstillstånd med status alternativt skyddsbehövande strider mot artikel 8 Europeiska konventionen om skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande friheterna och artikel 3, 9 och 10 Förenta nationernas konvention om barnets rättigheter. Syftet med uppsatsen är att utreda om det föreligger någon skillnad mellan rätten till uppehållstillstånd i Sverige för föräldrar som åberopar anknytning till sitt minderåriga eller myndiga barn, samt när ett myndigt eller minderårigt barn ansöker om anknytning till sin förälder. Uppsatsen avgränsar sig till att utreda situationer då anknytningspersonen i Sverige är alternativt skyddsbehövande. Genom att konstatera skillnader eller likheter i de ovan nämnda anknytningssituationerna önskar vi sedan påvisa huruvida MIG 2018:20 kan komma att ha inverkningar utanför dess kärnområde eller med hänsyn till internationella åtaganden. Vidare syftar uppsatsen till att ur ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv av professor Aleksander Peczenik redogöra för om TUtlL, gällande bestämmelserna om rätten till familjeåterförening, uppfyller kraven på en rättssäker tillämpning och i fall MIG 2018:20 kommer förbättra eller försämra rättssäkerheten. För att uppnå syftet kommer relevant gällande rätt i Sverige, EU och internationellt att studeras, speciellt ovan nämnda artiklar och artikel 16.3 Förenta nationernas allmänna förklaring om de mänskliga rättigheterna. Utöver dessa kommer även vilka kriterier en individ behöver uppfylla för att anses vara alternativt skyddsbehövande och principen om non-refoulement att studeras. Vi har i uppsatsen kommit fram till att rättstillämpningen mellan anknytningssituationerna påvisar stora rättsliga skillnader främst på grund av ålder, men även till följd av att det saknas relevant och analyseringsbar praxis. Det har således endast varit möjligt att konstatera att MIG 2018:20 kommer leda till en förbättring av rättssäkerheten gällande minderåriga barn då målet ökat BarnK:s status i svensk rätt. För att rättstillämpningen ej ska strida mot internationella åtaganden bör BarnK användas gällande omyndiga barn. Det är även möjligt att konstatera att de senaste årens tillämpning av bestämmelserna om rätten till familjeåterförening inte uppfyller kraven för en rättssäker tillämpning.

In 2015, the European Union (EU) was facing the largest migration crisis in modern history. In light of the high reception of asylum seekers in Sweden during the autumn of the same year, a temporary law (2016:752) was adopted which restricted the possibilities of obtaining a permanentresidence permit and of family reunification. The law has received criticism for being contrary to Swedish convention commitments, especially the right to respect for family life and the prohibition of discrimination according to Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention). Against the backdrop of this criticism, this thesis aims to examine whether the so-called Bosphorus presumption, also known as the presumption of equivalent protection, could be applicable in a hypothetic case where Sweden is brought before the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) for violating the Convention as a result of the temporary law. The criteria for the application of the presumption are firstly that the intrusive measure, here the restriction of the right to family reunification, can be said to fall within the scope of the strict international legal obligations of the state, meaning that the state can be said to have exercised a certain amount of discretion and to have enjoyed a certain margin of manoeuvre. The conclusion of this thesis is that likely would be considered to have exercised discretion as well as enjoyed a margin of manoeuvre when restricting the right to family reunification by adopting the temporary law. This conclusion is mainly based on the fact that the international legal obligations in this case flow from directives, which are binding on member states only as to the result to be achieved, and leave the choice of form and methods to the authorities of the member state. Furthermore, the directives which the temporary law is based on are so-called minimum directives, which allow for the member states to provide a higher level of protection.

No description available.

No description available.

In the autumn of 2022 Sweden stands before a pivotal moment in its migration policy. A new government intends to impose significantly stricter requirements on immigration to the country and thereby adapt the regulatory framework to the minimum level provided by EU law. Yet action towards this adaption was taken already in 2016, when an extended maintenance requirement for family reunification was introduced in Law 2016:752 concerning temporary restrictions on the granting of permanent residence permits for asylum seekers. The requirement meant that a third country national living in Sweden, who wanted a family member to live in the country, had to be able to financially support both themselves and the family member. They would also have to provide a home of sufficient size and standard for them all to live in.  In 2021 the extended resources requirement was introduced as a permanent feature in the Swedish Aliens Act. At that time several referral institutes had advised against this implementation in the preparatory works before the law, raising questions as to whether the requirement would be so strict that it would effectively prevent family reunification and reinforce marginalization. Even the government conceded that the extended resources requirement would affect women and men differently, potentially causing women sponsors to fail to live up to the requirement and women migrants to become more financially dependent on their partners. From this conflict of interests sprung the purpose of this thesis, which is to examine the relation between the extended resources requirement in the Aliens Act and the right to family life for adult sponsors and their adult family members from a gender law perspective.  The thesis finds that the introduction of the extended resources requirement in the Swedish Aliens Act marks a permanent adaption of the provision to a level close to the minimum standard provided in the Family Reunification Directive. According to article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Member States wanting to limit the right to family life need to undertake a proportionality analysis before imposing such restrictions on individuals. For limitations in family reunification to be justified, they thus need be to be duly motivated. While no negative obligation to enable family reunification for Member States can be ascertained through this article, it still ascribes a certain positive duty for Member States to ensure the reunion of families. In this respect the extended resources requirement does not appear to be entirely satisfactory. The implementation of the requirement in 2021 was motivated by a will to adapt the requirement to the minimum level provided in the Family Reunification Directive, to encourage integration and to lower public costs. While the adaption of the requirement to the minimum level provided by EU law seems correctly executed, queries can be raised whether it causes the prohibiting of family reunification to such an extent that it undermines the purpose of the directive. This contention is supported by research suggesting that reuniting with one’s family is a key factor behind immigrants’ motivation to integrate in a society. In this respect, the extended resources requirement does not appear to fully comply with article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.  Research also indicates that women are disproportionally affected by the extended resources requirement. Women sponsors work temporary and insecure jobs to a greater extent than men, and thereby risk failing to comply with the extended resources requirement. Simultaneously, women relatives risk becoming financially dependent on their partners when they immigrate to Sweden and are supported by them from the start, causing these women to stand even further away from the job market and other integrational measures. In its essence, the extended resources requirement enforces existing dichotomies between the state and the individual, the public and the private, notions of “us” and “them” and the inherent meaning of “man” and “woman” that contribute to enforcing gender roles and disintegration. This implies that the requirement does not live up to its proposed integrational effects and subsequently, that the extended resources requirement is not entirely purposeful.

No description available.

No description available.

Some expulsion decisions cannot be executed due to the existence of deportation impediments, which in this case means that foreigners are in a legal limbo in such a way that they have neither the right to stay nor the opportunity to leave Sweden. The regulation of deportation impediments is found in Aliens Act (2005:716), but it is the application of these regulations that determine how specific cases are assessed, why it is highly relevant to study said cases.  The essay deals with political, practical and medical impediments, found in Chapter 12 of the Aliens Act, in order to establish the applicable law, and by analyzing ten court cases from the Migration Court of Appeal, study how the court assesses the Swedish Migration Agency's application of these legal barriers. The provisions being studied are chapter 12 1-3 §§ Aliens Act, concerning political impediments, chapter 12 18 § Aliens Act, concerning practical and medical impediments, and also chapter 12 19 § Aliens act which establishes the possibility of a new trial in a case. The applicable law is established through a legal dogmatic method, and the legal cases from the Migration Court of Appeal are analyzed using a legal sociological method.  The study concludes that political impediments are weighed heaviest in comparison to medical and practical impediments, due to the latter two not being derived from international conventions or instruments as opposed to political impediments. Furthermore, it is easier to present evidence when invoking political impediments, as evidentiary requirements are set lower than those for practical and medical impediments. At the same time the individual has an opportunity to be granted a new trial if he or she invokes a new condition that concerns political impediments, while a new trial cannot be granted if the individual invokes medical or practical impediments. The provisions concerning practical and medical impediments should therefore be developed or amended in such a way that they are adapted to the circumstances that may arise in these cases. It is also concluded that the Swedish Migration Agency's investigation and interpretation of these impediments must be more comprehensive. It must be adapted to the conditions referred to in the case, due to the application of these provisions being complex and requiring the Swedish Migration Agency's staff to be well trained and accurate in each individual case.

No description available.

No description available.