The Migration Board granted AA a temporary residence permit for higher education studies. BB and the children CC and DD were granted residence permits as family members of AA. After entering Sweden they requested international protection and applied for daily allowances and housing assistance. The Migration Board rejected the applications for assistance on the ground that the family already had a valid residence permit, and they did not belong to the category of persons entitled to assistance. The family appealed before the Administrative Court of Gothenburg, which allowed the appeal and held that the applicants belonged to the category of persons entitled to assistance considering the State’s responsibility for the reception of asylum seekers even if, at the time of the application for asylum, that person holds a valid residence permit for the purposes of employment or study. The Migration Board appealed against this judgment to the Administrative Court of Appeal in Gothenburg, which made the same assessment and dismissed the appeal.

Before the Supreme Administrative Court, the Migration Board argued that a foreign national can only hold a residence permit for a specific period of time and that in this case, there were already valid residence permits. It further argued that an application for a declaration of status does not mean that the foreign national is to be regarded as an asylum seeker.

The Supreme Administrative Court noted that under Chapter 4, Section 3c of the Aliens Act, a foreign national who has been granted a residence permit in Sweden may apply for a declaration of status and the examination of such an application may result in the applicant being declared to be a refugee or beneficiary of subsidiary protection. In addition, the court noted that in order for a foreigner to be covered by Section 1 (1) (1) of the Act on the reception of asylum seekers and others, and be entitled to accommodation, housing allowances, daily allowances and special allowances, the person must apply for a residence permit as a refugee or as a beneficiary of subsidiary protection.

The court held that persons who have already been granted a residence permit and subsequently apply for a declaration of status do not fall within the personal scope referred to in Section 1(1)(1) of the Act on the reception of asylum seekers and others. Thus, considering that when the Migration Board examined the applications for assistance under the Act on the reception of asylum seekers and others, AA had already been granted temporary residence permits for studies in higher education and BB, CC and DD as family members of AA. The court concluded that they did not fall within the ratione personae scope of the Act on the reception of asylum seekers and others. The court annulled the judgments of the lower courts and confirmed the decision of the Migration Board.