The applicant, A, is an Afghan national who arrived in Norway as an unaccompanied minor in 2012 and was granted international protection. The applicant received a permanent residence permit in 2017 and thereafter applied for Norwegian citizenship. The Norwegian Directorate of Immigration (UDI) conducted several investigations, including searches of open sources, and invited the applicant to an interview based on its findings which revealed that the applicant provided false information during the asylum procedure. The applicant confirmed to have provided false information on his father's death and family situation, in his asylum claim.

The UDI revoked the applicant's residence permit in 2020 under Section 63 of the Immigration Act as he had knowingly provided incorrect information of material significance to the administrative decision. The applicant appealed the decision to the Immigration Appeals Board (UNE), which upheld the UDIs decision to revoke his residence permit. The applicant further petitioned to the UNE to review the request, arguing that if he was returned to Afghanistan, he would be considered too westernised and thus he was in need of  international protection. The UNE declined to reconsider the decision; therefore, the applicant filed an appeal before the Oslo District Court, which also dismissed the appeal. 

The applicant appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal which determined that the revocation of the residence permit was lawful since  the applicant had lied about significant aspects concerning his request for protection. Moreover, the court found that the outcome can not be different due to the fact that the applicant was a child and under the age of eighteen when he provided false information. The Court of Appeal noted that the applicant, when he applied for asylum, was above the criminal minimum age, and as such it must be assumed that he understood the significance of the information he gave and the consequences of this. The Court of Appeal also noted that the statement of the applicant in the district court confirmed that the applicant was aware that he would risk not getting a residence permit if he was to tell the truth during the asylum procedure. The Court of Appeal stated that the information that A gave was of significant importance for him to be granted a residence permit based on asylum. 

Furthermore, the court found that there were no grounds for international protection and concluded that he would not be at risk upon return to Afghanistan.