AA applied for asylum in Sweden and the Swedish Migration Agency rejected the application and decided to expel him from Sweden, without mentioning a time limit by which he had to leave voluntarily. After the expulsion decision had become final, AA applied for a residence permit for work on the basis of Chapter 5, Section 15a of the Aliens Act, which provides that an alien who has been refused asylum may, under certain conditions, be granted a temporary residence permit for work by means of a so-called change of track. The Migration Agency also rejected that application. Later on, the Swedish Migration Agency decided to suspend the execution of­ the expulsion decision with reference to the situation in AA's home country and AA then applied for a daily allowance. His request was rejected as the Migration Agency considered that he no longer belonged to the personal scope of the Law on the reception of asylum seekers and others and was therefore not entitled to assistance under that law.

He appealed the decision and the Administrative Court of Karlstad rejected the appeal and the applicant lodged a second appeal before the Administrative Court of Appeal. This court allowed his appeals and took the view that that the fact that the applicant applied for a residence permit for work under Chapter 5, Section 15a of the Aliens Act had no bearing on the assessment and found that AA did not cease to belong to the personal scope of the law when he applied for a residence permit for work.

It noted that the Act on the Reception of Asylum Seekers and Others does not contain general provisions on when a foreign national who belongs to the personal scope of the Act ceases to be covered by the Act.

The Administrative Court of Appeal therefore overturned the decisions of the lower instances.

On a further appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court agreed with the judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal and ruled that the fact that the applicant applied for a residence permit for work does not mean that he ceased to be an asylum seeker and that it was therefore wrong for the Migration Agency to reject his application for daily allowance on that basis.