An Afghan man told the Swedish Migration Agency that he had left his family in Afghanistan to take revenge on another man. After encountering the man’s son, he allegedly shot and killed him. Now, three lay judges—including a Green Party member who wants to have the Sweden Democrats (SD) labeled as terrorists—have decided the man should be granted asylum, citing the murder, which he later claimed was committed in self-defense. The presiding judge, however, wanted to deport the man because he had committed murder.

The most common reason men from Afghanistan are granted asylum is by claiming they have become homosexual, converted to Christianity, or become atheists.

A man currently living in Sundsvall has, in a recent case, found a more unusual way to obtain asylum. In his statements to the Swedish Migration Agency, he describes what sounds like a planned revenge killing against someone who allegedly wronged him in some way.

The Migration Agency recounts the man’s story as follows:

In your previous application, you described that you left your family and returned to the village to get revenge, to show that people cannot get away with everything, and to show that you were a living human, a man, who could not be humiliated in the way they humiliated you. You also stated that you did not tell your family about your intentions when you left because you didn’t want your mother or the man driving the car to persuade you not to kill them. All these circumstances, in the Migration Agency’s assessment, indicate that your purpose when leaving the car to return to your home village was to take revenge on Razoul and his men by killing Razoul because of what they did to you and your family.

The Migration Agency further notes that the agency assesses the man’s story as meaning he has committed premeditated murder. The agency’s decision states, among other things:

“Several factors, all of which support and reinforce each other, describe a sequence of events in which you intentionally and premeditatedly killed Razoul’s son (even though Razoul was the intended victim) to avenge what Razoul and his men did to you and your family.”

READ ALSO: Center Party’s Judgment: Disabled Afghans are Entitled to Asylum 

In the end, the Migration Agency decided not to grant the man asylum because he is a murderer. In its final reasoning, the agency states:

The Migration Agency has further determined that you are personally responsible for a premeditated act, committed while of sound mind and not in a self-defense situation. Regarding the harassment you and your family suffered from Razoul and his men, the agency has found that this does not justify your actions, nor have any extenuating circumstances emerged that would exempt you from responsibility for the murder.

The Murder Means the Killer Gets to Stay

After appealing to the Migration Court, the man chose to tell a somewhat different story, claiming that he had been forced to shoot the son of a man named Razoul. He also blamed an earlier interpreter for doing a poor job.

READ ALSO: Afghans with Hepatitis B ARE ENTITLED to Asylum

Three lay judges at the Administrative Court in Stockholm consider this new account credible. The judgment justifies the decision to grant the man asylum in Sweden as follows:

According to the Migration Court, NN provided an acceptable explanation as to why the claim of self-defense was not made earlier. The Court also finds that during the oral hearing, he sufficiently demonstrated that his actions occurred in self-defense. Therefore, he should be granted immunity. As no reasons have emerged to counter this, he should also be granted alternative protection status.

Furthermore, it is explained that the man is granted status as an “alternative protection beneficiary”:

Because of threats against him in Afghanistan related to the fact that he shot the son of a high-ranking Taliban leader in his home area.

The Judge Wanted Deportation – Overruled

The presiding judge in the case, Victoria Ollén, wanted the man to be deported due to the murder he claims to have committed. She did not find the self-defense claim credible.

This is partly because the information he provided in court was brief and lacking in detail, making it seem not self-experienced. His account during the hearing was also perceived as internally contradictory.

Given this, there is therefore every reason to believe that he is guilty of a crime that excludes him from the right to protection as an alternative protection beneficiary.

As residence permits for connection may be refused when the person of connection constitutes a danger to public order and safety (cf. MIG 2021:6) and as no weightier reasons have emerged, he also cannot be granted such a permit on that basis.

– Dissenting opinion from the presiding judge

The three lay judges who nevertheless ensured the Afghan man can stay in Sweden as an “alternative protection beneficiary” are Green Party member Tiina Sarlin, Abdullahi Hassan (party affiliation unknown), and Erik Hellström (party affiliation unknown).

Wants to Classify SD as Terrorists

Green Party member Tiina Sarlin, who serves as a lay judge in Swedish courts, has for several years expressed strongly negative views about the Sweden Democrats on social media.

A review of her posts shows recurrent and harsh criticism of the party. Sarlin has, among other things, argued that the Sweden Democrats should be labeled as terrorists and described the party as both Nazi and racist.

She has also called immigrants who vote for SD “morons.” Additionally, she has implied that senior SD figure Björn Söder wears a Nazi armband in reference to his statements about wanting to “clean up in Swedish government agencies.”

READ ALSO: Court: Women in Afghanistan ARE ENTITLED to Divorce Asylum