The Migration Court of Appeal ruled that the choice of lawyer by the applicant must be respected even if the lawyer is located at a distance or is not available at the preferred time of the Migration Agency for an interview.

An applicant requested a specific public legal assistant. The Swedish Migration Agency (SMA), denied the request, stating that the person was fully booked for some time. The SMA gave another opportunity for the applicant to request another public assistant. The applicant requested a specific person named PH, but the request was once again rejected for the same reason, the person was fully booked.

The applicant appealed the decision to the Migration Court, which rejected the appeal. The court stated that the asylum process would have been delayed by around 4 months if the applicant would have been granted PH as a public assistant.

The applicant therefore appealed the decision to the Migration Court of Appeal. The applicant claimed that his wish for a specific public assistant must be of great significance, since they had already been in contact, and that the applicant accepted the potential delay.

The Office of the Chancellor of Justice filed a statement in the case, stating that the SMA should have a possibility to reject applicant's wishes for a specific public assistant, namely in cases where the appointment would entail a substantial delay which would be detrimental for the individual's right to a fair trial.

The Migration Court of Appeal stated that the principle of being able to freely choose one's public assistant is of great importance, and that this principle should only be restricted if there are compelling reasons for doing so. The court noted that the applicant had waited for over a year to have his asylum application tried when The Swedish Migration Agency wanted to know about his wishes for public assistance. The Migration Agency could, through a special online service, see bookable times for an asylum investigation with the desired public assistant, PH. The SMA found that PH had no free times during four to five months and that he was appointed as counsel in a large number of cases which were still pending. However, the court also noted that the SMA had not contacted PH. The court stated that it must be assumed that a public assistant will only accept clients which he or she can be expected to assist in a satisfying manner.

The court stated that, in view of this, combined with the facts that the applicant had already been in contact with PH and had accepted any potential delay, there were not sufficient reasons to justify a rejection of the public assistant. The Migration Court of Appeal thus granted the applicant's appeal.