KS was granted temporary protection under Chapter 21 of the Aliens Act (2005:716). The Migration Agency rejected his application for an extended residence permit arguing that KS was not covered by the right to temporary protection under the EU Temporary Protection Directive (TPD) because, in addition to being a citizen of Ukraine, he was also a Canadian citizen and he has not presented anything that would prevent him from returning to Canada.

KS appealed the decision to the Administrative Court in Gothenburg, which overturned the decision and referred the case back to the Migration Agency with the following reasons, arguing that KS meets all the requirements for temporary protection and neither EU law, nor Swedish legislation, provides any express exclusion from temporary protection for Ukrainian citizens with dual citizenship.

The Swedish Migration Agency (SMA) appealed the judgment and argued that a person who can return to the country of origin, or one of the countries of origin, should not be covered by the right to temporary protection under the TPD. Furthermore, SMA argued that it has not been established that KS cannot return to Canada.

The Migration Court of Appeal noted that the question in the case is whether a person who, in addition to being a Ukrainian citizen, is a citizen of another third country is covered by the right to temporary protection under the TPD.

The court noted that KS is a Ukrainian citizen and was resident in Ukraine before 24 February 2022. He was expelled from Ukraine after 24 February 2022. The court considered that it is clear from the wording of Article 2(1)(a) that the Implementing Decision applies.

The court further observed that neither the TPD nor the Implementing Decision contain any provision stating that citizenship of another third country affects the right to temporary protection for a person covered by Article 2(1)(a). The court therefore considered that the fact that KS is a citizen of another third country is irrelevant to the question of whether he is covered by the right to temporary protection under the TPD.

Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal and held that the Migration Court was correct in its assessment that there was no basis for rejecting KS's application temporary protection pursuant to Chapter 21, Section 2 of the Aliens Act.