TV4’s coverage of 13-year-old Sandra, who recently left Sweden with her mother following a deportation decision, is now facing sharp criticism from the government. The criticism centers on the omission of key facts regarding the family’s long migration case and illegal stay in Sweden, which creates a misleading picture of the background behind the decision.

TV4, in several segments and articles, has featured 13-year-old Sandra, born in Sweden, who recently traveled to Mongolia with her mother Sarnai Jambaldorj after the family lost their right to remain in the country. The reporting has provoked strong emotions and led to criticism from representatives of the Centre Party, Green Party, and Social Democrats, who have questioned the legislation and the deportation decision.

In the segments, Sandra describes her anxiety about moving to a country where she has never been and where her language skills are limited. TV4 also points out that the family no longer meets the requirements for a residence permit and that the Migration Agency found no sufficient grounds to allow them to remain in Sweden.

Government: Important Background Missing

The government’s criticism is directed at the reporting, which they say gives the impression that the deportation is a direct result of recently changed rules or a new decision, while the lengthy history of the case is omitted.

Niklas Gillström, Chief of Staff at the Ministry of Finance, describes TV4’s reporting as “a prime example of misleading journalism” and notes that viewers are not made aware of crucial circumstances in the case.

Gillström details that the current migration process began back in 2008 when Sandra’s mother Sarnai applied for asylum in Sweden. The application was rejected the same year, and the subsequent appeal was also denied as there were no grounds for asylum. The following year, she claimed impediments to enforcement, which was also rejected.

She should have left the country at that point but did not. Instead, she had children in Sweden despite staying illegally in the country.

Multiple Rejections Over a Decade

After several years underground without a new hearing, a new asylum application was submitted in 2013, which included Sandra as well. This application was also denied, as were subsequent appeals.

In 2014, impediments to enforcement were reported again. This application was also denied, and the case was then transferred to the Police Authority for enforcement of the deportation.

In 2018, yet another asylum application was filed. This too was rejected, as was the appeal. Nevertheless, Sarnai did not leave Sweden, remaining as an illegal resident.

READ ALSO: European Parliament Votes for Tougher Measures – Illegal Immigrants to be Deported Faster

The only exception during the lengthy process came after an application for so-called track switching in 2019. The Migration Agency rejected the application, but the Migration Court granted the family the right to stay for a limited period between 2020 and 2022.

When the family later applied for an extension in summer 2022, they were once again denied. The appeal was also rejected.

Gillström explains that the case has thus been tried repeatedly by both authorities and courts for more than a decade, with the same outcome. Sarnai has chosen not to respect the decisions of the Migration Agency and the migration courts.

The Minister for Migration Also Critical of TV4

Migration Minister Johan Forssell commented on the case on TV4 and said that while he understands the situation stirs emotions, it also illustrates the consequences of previous migration policy.

He emphasized that Sandra’s mother has resided illegally in Sweden for a long time despite repeated rejection decisions and noted that it does not become easier to return to one’s homeland the longer one delays it.

– There is nothing humane, in my view, about that old policy where people with rejection decisions, year after year, have not been required to return home. Delaying it for many years does not make going home any easier—very often, it makes it much harder, Forssell told TV4.

Gillström also criticizes TV4’s headline for its interview with the migration minister. According to him, the headline gives the impression that Forssell referred to Sandra when he said the family should have left earlier, even though the minister, as per Gillström, clearly referred to the mother’s first rejection several years before Sandra was born.

The Sweden Democrats also criticize TV4’s misleading reporting. Party parliamentary candidate Pontus Persson had this to say:

Opposition Critical

At the same time, the case has sparked political reactions from the opposition, who likewise have not reviewed the facts of the case.

The Centre Party’s economic policy spokesperson Martin Ådahl has criticized the income requirement for work permits and stated that the family should have been able to remain in Sweden.

The Green Party’s spokesperson on migration policy, Annika Hirvonen, has argued that a child born and raised in Sweden should be allowed to stay, even if the child is a minor and the parents are residing illegally.

READ MORE: Ekeroth: “It’s not that hard to deport”

Social Democrats’ spokesperson on migration policy, Ida Karkiainen, has also called for a review of migration legislation, referencing what the party describes as “unreasonable deportation cases.”

Government representatives, however, argue that the criticism ignores the fact that the family’s right to stay in Sweden has been examined on numerous occasions over many years, and that most decisions were made long before the latest changes in migration policy took place.

About Staying Without a Residence Permit

According to the government, the core issue is that Sandra’s mother has stayed in Sweden illegally and without a valid residence permit for long periods after previous applications and appeals were rejected.

The criticism of TV4 is that its coverage has not presented the extensive history of rejections, appeals, and previous deportation decisions that preceded the final enforcement.