Christian minorities forced out of their homes who manage to reach the United States and other Western nations sometimes encounter more trouble - so reports the Gatestone Institute International Policy Council.

In San Diego, California, for example, a group of over 25 Christians who fled the Islamic State (ISIS) in Iraq were detained for more than six months – until they were finally ordered deported earlier this month. Five of them were arrested for having provided false information, local KPBS Radio reported, but all of them were held at the Otay detention center even as family members protested that they would sponsor them. 

"They are being held without a real reason," said Mark Arabo, a spokesman for the Chaldean community in San Diego, at one of the protests. "They've escaped hell. Let's allow them to reunite with their families." 

Faith McDonnell, of the Institute on Religion & Democracy, said that the detainment of Iraqi Christians in San Diego "follows the disturbing pattern that we have seen from the State Department, of ignoring the particular targeting of Christians by ISIS - while giving preferential treatment for asylum to muslim refugees with expedited processing...some of whom could very well be members of jihadist movements."

In the United Kingdom, Christian leaders are accusing Prime Minister David Cameron of "turning his back" on Christians facing genocide in Syria and Iraq by failing to grant them refuge in the UK - even while thousands of Muslims have been allowed entry.

British publisher and philanthropist Baron Weidenfeld, who himself fled Nazi-occupied Austria in 1938 with the help of British Quakers, said, "Why is it that the Poles and the Czechs are taking in Christian families - and yet the British government stands idly by? Europe must awake and the Conservative British Government should be leading from the front. Most European governments, especially those that are Christian explicitly or implicitly, are failing in their duty to look after their fellow Christians in their hour of need."

Meanwhile, Gatestone reports, "many of those Christians who are granted asylum in Western countries arrive there only to be further persecuted by Muslim asylum seekers - indicating, once again, who does and who does not really need asylum; who does and who does not assimilate in Western culture."
[size=18pt]
Muslims abuse Christians[/size]

In Sweden, for instance, two families of Christian asylum-seekers from Syria were recently harassed and abused by approximately 80 Muslim refugees, also from Syria. Both groups resided in the same asylum house, but the Muslims were able to order the Christians not to wear their necklace crosses and not to use the communal areas when in use by Muslims. Finally, fearing the continued intimidation and threats, the Christians managed to leave. 

"Western nations are not merely ignoring Muslim persecution of Christians in the Middle East," concludes Gatestone, "they are actively supporting it by sponsoring 'moderate' rebels who in reality are as 'radical' and anti-Western as the Islamic State. And when these persecuted Christian minorities manage to flee the Islamic State and come to the West for asylum, they are imprisoned again. All the while, Muslims - in the Mideast and in the West - are being empowered and welcomed in the West with open arms."

Incidentally, the seven Gulf States – Kuwait, Bahrain,  Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as Iraq – have no plans to accept any Syrian refugees.

Kuwaiti researcher Fahd Al-Shelaimi, chairman of the Gulf Forum for Peace and Security, explained recently with a straight face that life is expensive in these countries, thus that it would be cheaper for them to go elsewhere. He also justified this no-entry policy by explaining that the refugees come from a different culture than they would find in the Gulf States.

Saudi Arabia reportedly has 100,000 standing air conditioned tents, empty most of the year, which could house three million people.

Glory Be To God.

Meanwhile, see why Hungary decided to not grant these Muslims passage through their country.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OHX8SZ7awg

They are shouting "F@$k You" and "Allah Akbar"

Can you imagine a bunch of Christians shouting "Fark you" and praise Jesus?

Empty Churches Go On Sale in Europe as Christian Faith Declines

In what the Orthodox Christian Network calls an "alarming trend," The Wall Street Journal featured a page one article this weekend– Europe’s Empty Churches Go on Sale as the number of attendees has diminished over many years.

. . . “the closing of Europe’s churches reflects the rapid weakening of the (Christian) faith in Europe, a phenomenon that is painful to both worshipers and others who see religion as a unifying factor in a disparate society.” By example, the Netherlands is projected to close 2/3 of its Roman Catholic churches in the next decade.
Pew Research Center data, presented by the Wall Street Journal, highlights the degree to which the European population reports no religious affiliation: France (28%), Germany (24.7%), Italy (12.4%), Netherlands (42.1%), and the United Kingdom (21.3%). By contrast, 16.4% of the United States population is unaffiliated with any religion.
The Netherlands at 42%! The former Roman Catholic church of St. Joseph in Arnhem, Netherlands, has been converted into, of all things, a skate board park. Skaters are inspired to execute backside flips under the watchful eye of a mosaic image of God's only Son. "Whoa, Dude!--who needs religion when you can see Jesus after a couple of tokes and a boardslide?"

The closing of Europe’s churches is a result of flagging faith and empty pews, but it is mostly Christians who are losing their faith. Several other religions have not experienced the same decline. Orthodox Judaism has remained relatively steady and primarily because of immigration, Islam has actually grown.

akanke79:
Empty Churches Go On Sale in Europe as Christian Faith Declines

In what the Orthodox Christian Network calls an "alarming trend," The Wall Street Journal featured a page one article this weekend– Europe’s Empty Churches Go on Sale as the number of attendees has diminished over many years.

. . . “the closing of Europe’s churches reflects the rapid weakening of the (Christian) faith in Europe, a phenomenon that is painful to both worshipers and others who see religion as a unifying factor in a disparate society.” By example, the Netherlands is projected to close 2/3 of its Roman Catholic churches in the next decade.
Pew Research Center data, presented by the Wall Street Journal, highlights the degree to which the European population reports no religious affiliation: France (28%), Germany (24.7%), Italy (12.4%), Netherlands (42.1%), and the United Kingdom (21.3%). By contrast, 16.4% of the United States population is unaffiliated with any religion.
The Netherlands at 42%! The former Roman Catholic church of St. Joseph in Arnhem, Netherlands, has been converted into, of all things, a skate board park. Skaters are inspired to execute backside flips under the watchful eye of a mosaic image of God's only Son. "Whoa, Dude!--who needs religion when you can see Jesus after a couple of tokes and a boardslide?"

The closing of Europe’s churches is a result of flagging faith and empty pews, but it is mostly Christians who are losing their faith. Several other religions have not experienced the same decline. Orthodox Judaism has remained relatively steady and primarily because of immigration, Islam has actually grown.

This should be of concern to you Muslims flooding Europe because sooner or later after your Arab Muslims begin to misbehave a pragmatic ultra right wing fascist party like that of the Nazi party will rise to take the vermin out.

By that time, you will look for Christian compassion and you won't see it because Europe will be led by atheist white SUPREMASCISTS!

CHRISTIAN COMPASSION ONLY EXIST IN YOUR DREAMS,WHERE WAS THE COMPASSION WHEN YOUR XTIAN BROTHERS KILLED THE RED INDIANS OF AMERICA AND THE ABORIGNES OF AUSTRALIA BY SPREADING DISEASE AND RAPE,ALCOHOLISM AMONG THE POPULATION TO STEAL THEIR LANDS FROM THEM AND PUTTING THEM ON RESERVATION.GOOGLE ABOUT THE CONDITIONS OF LIVING OF THE RED INDIANS
AND ABORIGINEES IN THE PRESENT DAY.WHERE WAS THE XTAIN COMPASSION DURING THE RWANDA WAR WHERE XTIANS WERE
MURDERED IN THEIR OWN CHURCH BECAUSE THEY CHURCH ALLOWED THE MASSACRE.

WHAT IS CURRENTLY HAPPENING IN THE WORLD IS BEYOND YOUR COMPREHENSION BUT YOU ARE ANGRY AND DONT UNDERSTAND HOW THESE THINGS CAME TO BE ,SO YOU CHANNEL YOUR ANGER ON PEOPLE WHO ARE ALSO VICTIMS OF THE EVILS OF THE WORLD.

IF YOU ARE JEALOUS OF MUSLIMS GETTING REFUGEE STATUS TO LIVE IN EUROPE PERMANENTLY,YOU CAN ALSO BRAVE THE JOURNEY TO COME THROUGH THE SAME ROUTE YOUR BLACK BROTHER COME TO EUROPE OR GET A VISA.I MUST ASSURE YOU YOUR XTIAN ROOTS WILL NOT BE USEFUL HERE BECAUSE THE EUROPEANS LOVE GAYS AND LESBIANS MORE THAN XTIANS.XTIANS IN IBOLAND ARE NOT AT RISK OF PERSECUTION AND DEGRADING TREATMENT. I KNOW SOME OF YOUR XTIAN BRETHREN WHO HAVE CLAIMED GAYS AND LESBIANS SO THEY CAN STAY IN EUROPE IMAGINE THAT.XTIANITY IS TERMED MENTAL ILLNESS CODEDLY.

16 April 1994 - Massacres at Ntarama Catholic Church

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXKHBfsZvx4

Hutu Muslims saved Tutsis during Rwandan genocide

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSk6gqwokWw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vUmLGqqAsM

IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHY YOUR WORLD IS SO MESSED UP WITH NO SOLUTION IN SIGHT
READ THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND EUROPE, THE WORLD AN THE ENDGAME

THS IS A CASE OF ONE OF YOUR XTAIN BROTHER IN SWEDEN TRYING TO BE GAY INORDER TO LIVE IN EUROPE

Consideration on security grounds after the Migration Board's rendition of file under Chapter 5. § 20 Aliens Act concerning foreigner of general jurisdiction have been expelled because of crime. Ask if the alien has made it probable that he belongs to a group at risk of persecution because of their sexual orientation. Even the method for testing the issue of persecution on grounds of sexual orientation.

[b]A traveled by his own admission in Sweden in September 2011. He was sentenced on 21 February 2012 by Attunda District Court to imprisonment for one year and expulsion with prohibition to return to Sweden by 21 February 2017. The Court of Appeal upheld the District Court April 18, 2012, and the judgment became final when the Supreme Court 20 June 2012 decided not to grant leave to appeal.

A filed April 18, 2012 for permanent residence, status, explanation and travel documents in Sweden and stated that because refugees, alternatively or subsidiary protection because of their sexual orientation.

The Swedish Migration Board submitted the questions of residence and status declaration to the Migration Court in accordance with Chapter 4. § 6, and Chapter 5. § 20 Aliens Act (2005: 716). The Migration Board stated the opinion that there were certain circumstances in A's story that gave reason to question the credibility of the same, but held nevertheless that he had made it probable that he had lived as a homosexual, that his sexual orientation was publicly known that he risked abuse and that he could not be expected to avail himself of the protection authorities in the home country of Nigeria. Board judged because he was considered to be a refugee.

A had the Migration Board submitted photographs that he said was taken the same day he was attacked in 2009, certification from an organization for homosexuals at the university where he studied, membership cards in the same compound and five newspaper articles published during the years 2004-2010 which he said has either authored by himself or have been written about him and that was about his sexual orientation.[/b]
The Administrative Court in Stockholm Migration Court (2013-05-07, Chairman Aronsson and three lay judges'), the A's application for residence and work, and admitted no status declaration. Migration Court had allowed carry out a so-called Embassy of investigation into the existence of the current publications and on the articles were consistent with the version that the newspapers had on each occasion. The Court found that none of the submitted articles had been verified by the Embassy of the investigation and considered that there was reason to doubt that the submitted papers had been published in Nigeria on the way A claim, which also affected the assessment of his general credibility of asylum story. The Court considered with this in mind and given the limited probative value of the other documents submitted that A no documentary evidence been able to make its protection unlikely.

Furthermore, the Court considered that the fact that A has waited to apply for asylum until the date on which Svea Court of Appeal adopted the expulsion decision to Nigeria constituted a lack of credibility purposes, and that his explanation - that he wanted to await the criminalization of homosexual acts - further gave reason to question his credibility when the time of criminalization was not compatible with the available country information. Ignorance of the ban on homosexual acts in their home country was further remarkable in light of his stated commitment to gay rights. The Court also noted that he submitted different versions of their family situation. Migration Court found, inter alia, Against this background, the story A left was not credible and that he had therefore not been able

make it probable that he was considered to be a refugee, alternative or otherwise in need of protection.

A appealed to the Migration Court, claiming that he should be granted permanent residence and refugee status, alternative or otherwise in need of protection and that the general court on expulsion would be suspended. In support of its action, it argued, inter alia, following.

[b]He has provided a coherent and credible story about his background and what he has endured in his homeland. He has made it probable that he because of his sexual orientation has been subject to protection foundation treatment in Nigeria, he has not been able to receive adequate official protection against abuse and to well-founded fear that if they returned again subjected to similar or worse punishment form of persecution, abuse, discrimination, harassment, or in the worst case death. With the new bill that was voted in late 2011, he can expect a harder life in their home country with powers to authorities to punish him in a way they have not previously done.

He was and is versed in the laws of Nigeria and know that homosexuality is forbidden since many years. His view is that Nigerian authorities are very negative towards homosexuals. However, he has experienced law as "quiet" and that is why the voices have been raised in Nigeria for tougher penalties against homosexuality. That is how he has been talking about the teams during the proceedings. Although authorities have not been properly or fully made use of the possibility to award long prison sentences or sentence to death because of homosexuality, they have not had either the will or ability to protect him against abuse.

When he came to Sweden was his intention to wait for the new bill which he thought was a necessity for him to get protection. After some time, however, he jailed and his public defender explained that he was under those circumstances could not seek asylum. During the court hearing, he learned that he could not be deported if he did, probably because he was gay. He therefore immediately into an asylum application.

The asylum investigation and subsequent calls to the Migration Board were held in English, which is not his native language. Therefore, misunderstandings have arisen about his view on whether homosexuality is illegal in Nigeria or not. He was not confronted with information that there has long been laws against homosexuality until the country information was communicated to him. Then he straightened immediately question marks.

The Migration Board considered the Migration Court that he had done its protection unlikely, and that he was considered to be a refugee. He was given the opportunity during the Migration Board's management as soon as possible to submit evidence. He contacted a friend at home who sent the articles to Sweden. It is impossible that the friend would have had time to produce counterfeit articles and unreasonable to believe that he would have made them before he left Nigeria.

Migration Court did not accept his explanation that it is commonplace in Nigeria that articles or magazines that can be uncomfortable for the government to be removed to avoid reprisals from the very gayfientliga government. This is, however, consistent with available country information on Nigeria and the corrupt society there. It is also noteworthy that the migration court without further support in the country information have accepted what that emerged from newspaper vendors that recent newspaper only published sporadically and that court for that reason considered it natural that a newspaper in an ongoing series of in each case four days not to be have published a day due to internal and financial problems. More likely is that these problems meant that the newspapers published in installments with longer intervals than one day's loss newspaper. He has also provided credible explanations on how publications begins and ends.

He is not meant to invoke their political affiliation as a basis for protection, but has wanted to emphasize that he was expelled from the party because of their sexual orientation. At some point, he has entered the mother of his children as his wife. During the investigation, he corrected this, stating that they are not formally married, which he maintains. If a man has a child with a woman he is regarded in Nigeria is no longer being single, even if they are not married. Homosexuality is illegal throughout Nigeria's why an internal flight alternative is not possible. The documents he submitted should have greater probative value than the Migration Court considered that they have.

Appeal in Stockholm, the Migration Court, ordained May 29, 2013 that the execution of the Svea Court of Appeal April 18, 2012 to expel A until further would be set. Migration Court held October 7, 2013 hearing in the case. At the hearing did A particular the following additional information.

It was when he was in high school that he first heard about homosexuality, but then he did not understand what it was. He had his first homosexual partner in 1995. He has had about three to four partners. Then he began to write articles about gay, he has, inter alia, been attacked and lost his job.

When he came to Europe was to attend a conference in Italy on human rights, which was the reason he got the Schengen visa. At that time, the draft law regarding homosexuality in Nigeria and he then traveled to Sweden to await the decision on whether the law would be adopted. He was unsure how the new law would look like and that was why he applied for an extension of the permit to reside in Sweden. If it was decided that people could live as they wanted, he needed not to be afraid to return, but it was a criminal offense to be gay, he would seek asylum. In his application for extension of residence permit he stated that he was working to sell used cars, which is true. To finance the trip to the conference in Italy he took orders in four to five cars. He has been married to the children's mother accordance with custom, but has not legalized marriage. He was introduced to her during 2002-2003. The first child they had in April 2007, since they were a child who is now four years. The first child they had died. The second child, who is alive, was born in 2008. The baby was born in January 2006, died. He has another baby who was born in 2010.
[/b]

He began studies in physics and electronics at the University in 1993/94. Teaching is conducted in English. He finished his education in 1999 and then did a year of military service. After that he started his own company and then he was involved in a lot. In the years 2004-2005 he worked as an assistant for a man who today is ambassador in Uganda, and in 2007 he was hired by the governor.

In addition to the evidence on which A relies in previous instances, he lodged in the Migration Court, inter alia, A newspaper article from June 6, 2013 from the newspaper The Network, a newspaper of Saturday Mirror June 8, 2013, both in its original form and printed from the Internet, a certificate of exclusion from the Peoples' Democratic Party (PDP), dated 13 October 2010, a certificate from the University and a certificate from the military service.

The Migration Board denied approval of the appeal, arguing, inter alia, following. Migration Court has made a correct assessment. The explanations A has given to many of the circumstances that the Migration Court has made the cornerstone of its judgment bears unlikely sake of touch and appears after the event. That a newspaper would dare publish content with anti-government articles and give them spread, but do not dare to keep copies of the newspaper which has already been published in the newspaper's own name does not appear credible because the risk of the newspaper is reasonably publishing articles in their own name. That a newspaper would use a different kind of font for a particular article rather gives the impression that the article never published in the magazine.

Appeal in Stockholm, the Swedish Migration Court of Appeal (2013-12-19, Linder, Landelius, peer and Axelsson), said:

1. Residence permits for those sentenced to deportation

A has the public court expelled because of crime. Migration Court in the contested decision applied to Chapter 8. § 14 third paragraph of the Aliens Act as in force, under which the Court could annul such an expulsion order and granting a residence permit under Chapter 5. § 1 of the Aliens Act if the alien was considered a refugee under Chapter 4. 1 § or in need of protection under Chapter 4. 2 or 2 a § same team.

The provision in Chapter 8. § 14 third paragraph of the Aliens Act has had its main counterpart in the current Chapter 12. 16 b § third paragraph of the Aliens Act, which entered into force on 1 September 2013. The provision follows that what is stated in Chapter 5. § 1 of the same Act applies if the Migration Court or the Migration Court finds that a foreigner, who by court expelled because of crime, is a refugee under Chapter 4. 1 § or in need of protection under Chapter 4. 2 or 2 a §.

In the preparatory work is recalled that the general courts have been expelled on grounds of crime has, as the regulatory system is built, have been asked for protection proceedings already in the criminal proceedings (prop. 2012/13: 151 p. 52).

Before the amendment, September 1, 2013 missing counterparty in these cases in the migration courts. During the process, the Migration Court, the Court had therefore to a greater extent than in other types of migration cases investigate the A's credibility. Nowadays, the Swedish Migration Board counterparty in these cases (16 Ch. 6 § of the Aliens Act).

2. Residence at the persecution on grounds of sexual orientation

2.1. Applicable provisions, etc.

A claim that he is considered as a refugee, subsidiary protection or otherwise in need of protection because he risks persecution because of their sexual orientation if they returned to their home country Nigeria.

An alien who is outside the country of the person's nationality, because the alien has a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of sexual orientation, and is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to avail himself of his homeland protection refugee, unless certain uteslutandegrunder exists (4 Ch. 1 § of the Aliens Act). Both with subsidiary protection as other protection status means an alien who is outside the country of the alien's nationality and of various specified reasons can not return to that country (§ 2, first paragraph, and 2 a § first paragraph of the same chapter). Refugees, subsidiary protection and other protection status who are in Sweden are entitled to a residence permit (5 Ch. 1 § first paragraph of the Aliens Act).

In the government bill on refugee status and persecution on grounds of gender or sexual orientation pronounced among others following. In situations where the persecution is due to the subject's sexual orientation, it is often stated quite clearly that he or she belongs to a particular social group. For example considered homosexuals in many countries of their environment as a particular social group and it is precisely their sexual orientation who are subject to persecution. The Government wishes to emphasize that sexual orientation should be regarded as a fundamental characteristic of the individual that there can never be considered to require that he or she waives. Sexual orientation is thus such property that can define a social group in flyktingbestämmelsens sentence. This also applies if a person in their home country have concealed their sexual orientation, or have lived in a way that minimized the risk of persecution. [...] If a person in the home country has been living in a way that minimized the risk of persecution, for example, by hiding their sexual orientation, this circumstance can be important in the risk assessment. [...] The risk assessment must be made on the basis of the circumstances of the individual case and the detailed distinctions for consideration in this regard asylum reasons relating to persecution on grounds of gender or sexual orientation shall be left to the right application to do. (Prop. 2005/06: 6, pp. 26-27.)

EU Member States must when assessing the reasons for persecution including take into account that a group shall be considered to form a particular social group where in particular members of the group have a common innate characteristic, or a common background that can not be changed, or consisting of people who share a characteristic or belief that is so fundamental to identity or conscience they should not be forced to renounce it. The group may further have a distinct identity in the relevant country, because it is perceived as being different by the surroundings. Depending on the circumstances in the country of origin, a particular social group might include a group based on a common characteristic sexual orientation. (Article 10.1 di Directive 2004/83 / EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and on the personal status and the content of the granted protection - the Qualification Directive.)

2.2. Method for examination of persecution on grounds of sexual orientation

2.2.1. UNHCR Handbook

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) issued "Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee status" (manual) is an important source of law regarding the procedure to determine whether there is protection (see the ME 2006: 1). As a supplement to the manual is UNHCR has issued guidelines on the assessment of claims of persecution based on sexual orientation (UNHCR, "Guidelines on International Protection No. 9: Claims to Refugee Status Based on Sexual Orientation and / or Gender Identity within the context of Article 1A ( 2) of the 1951 Convention and / or its 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees ", October 23, 2012, HCR / GIP / 12/09). The guidelines (p. 12, 26, 27, 31, 62-64) states, inter alia, following.

Sexual orientation is a fundamental property of an individual who is either innate or immutable and that a person can not be required to waive or hide. Many gay applicants from countries where such relationships are criminalized. It is generally accepted that such criminalization is discriminatory and contrary to international human rights standards. In case a person at risk of persecution or punishment such as the death penalty, imprisonment or severe physical punishment is the character of persecution particularly clear. Although these laws irregularly, rarely or never applied a ban on homosexual relationships lead to an unacceptable situation that reach up to the level of persecution. The fact that an applicant could avoid persecution by hiding or be discreet about their sexual orientation or have acted this is not a valid reason to reject an asylum application.

To assess an applicant's sexual history is essentially a question of credibility. The assessment of credibility must be made on an individual and considerate way, by examining the circumstances surrounding the applicant's personal opinions, feelings and experiences of inequality, stigma and shame more than a focus on sexual activities. The applicant's own story is the main and often only source of evidence. Both general and specific questions that are designed in a non-judgmental way possible for the applicant to explain its duties. That the applicant is married, divorced or have children does not mean that the applicant is not gay. It may be appropriate to ask any questions regarding the reason for the marriage. If the applicant can provide a coherent and reasonable explanation of marriage and / or their children should be part of the story is accepted. It may also be helpful to ask questions about the applicant's knowledge of homosexual contacts, groups, and activities at home, such as meeting places for homosexuals.

2.2.2. Swedish Migration Board the right manager's legal position

Right head of the Migration Board in a legal position on 13 January 2011 presented a method for the investigation of the forward-looking risk for persons seeking protection grounds on the basis of sexual orientation (RCI 03/2011). The statement is based, inter alia, in a ruling by the Supreme Court in the United Kingdom July 7, 2010, HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31. The guidelines provide, inter alia, following.

The applicant must initially make it probable that he or she belongs, or in their home country is deemed to belong to a group at risk of persecution because of their sexual orientation. If the applicant can show that he belongs to that group, he can not be judged to be refugees. The next step is that, based on relevant and current country information, determine whether the group in question in the applicant's home country are abused as its nature and its scope is the protective founding persecution and about the group can get an effective protection of the authorities or other organization. Then it should be assessed whether the applicant's story has made it probable that he / she before departure have suffered persecution or protection foundation treatment and whether the applicant in this case has sought protection from the authorities. It should be noted that it is not necessary that the person has already suffered persecution.

The next question is how the applicant will manifest their affiliation to the group on a return. Thereby, as support for future risk assessment including considered how far the person has lived in the home and how the person has acted in the country where he is seeking asylum, for example, by investigating whether the applicant is living openly as a homosexual in the country of application, or if he even there hide their sexual orientation. If the applicant can show that he / she will choose to publicly display their affiliation to the social group, the question is how others will act on this approach and about the reactions will reach up to protect founding persecution. The assessment must take into account that the applicant can not and must be expected hide parts of their sexual orientation which he / she is not willing to hide. If the applicant states that he / she will select discrete documents the next step is to find out why the person will choose this way of life. If it emerges that the reason is that it is so he / she wants to live or that it is due to social pressure, the person is not in need of protection when the social pressure of this kind does not constitute persecution. If the reason that the applicant will choose a discreet existence, however, is that he faces a real persecution must instead be assessed if the fear is well founded.

If the applicant is deemed to be in need of protection because of their affiliation to the group at risk of persecution on grounds of sexual orientation, should it finally be an assessment of whether there is an official protection under existing law to bring in a return to their home or a internally displaced within their home country.

2.2.3. European Court

The European Court of Human Rights, the European Court, has the case MKN v Sweden, judgment 27 June 2013 (appl. no. 72413/10), examined the question whether the applicant had made likely that he, because of his sexual orientation, risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the European Convention. The Court noted first that the applicant had expressed an intention to stay with his wife and children. More important, however, was that he was in the national process had waited to claim that he was gay until he appealed the Migration Board's negative decision, which was more than a year after his arrival in Sweden. He mentioned neither his homosexual relationship during the execution of the European Court until a year and a half after the process had begun. In the application, he stated that there were threats from Al-Tawahid and Al-Jihad, but he made no threats from Mujahideen. The European Court therefore agreed that the migration court's assessment that the applicant had not provided a reasonable explanation as to why he waited to talk about their sexual orientation in the national process. The Court therefore considered that the applicant's claims about his homosexual relationship was not credible. Because of these shortcomings credibility Court held that it was unnecessary to consider whether the situation in their home country for homosexuals was such that removal there would be in breach of Article 3 of the ECHR.

2.2.4. EU court

European Court November 7, 2013 announced its decision after preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the Qualification Directive, inter alia, in terms of what constitutes persecution because of his homosexual activities (Case C199 / 12, C-200/12 and C-201/12, X, Y and Z). Cases concerned asylum seeker from Sierra Leone, Uganda and Senegal, where the national courts had been established that the persons in question were gay. The judgment stated, inter alia, following.

A person's sexual orientation is a characteristic that is so fundamental to identity that he or she should not be forced to renounce it (p. 46). The fact that there exists such a criminal law which the national targets, with provisions targeted specifically to gay people, means that these people can be considered as a separate group that is perceived as being different by the surroundings (p. 48). Article 10.1 di Qualification Directive should therefore be interpreted as meaning that the fact that there exists such a penalty legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, with provisions targeted specifically to gay people, allow these individuals to be considered a particular social group ( p. 49).

A law criminalizing homosexual acts can not in itself be considered to have such a significant impact on the asylum seeker to the seriousness required for the criminalization shall constitute persecution under Article 9.1 of the Directive has been reached (p. 55). However, the very term of imprisonment provided in connection with a particular legal provision criminalizing homosexual acts constitute persecution under this Article, provided that it is actually applied in the country of origin which has adopted penal bid (p. 56). It is for the national authorities in the assessment of facts and circumstances, in particular examine whether the custodial sentence under the legislation of the applicant's country of origin applied in practice. These aspects should be taken into account when the national authorities assess whether the applicant actually harboring well-founded fear of persecution on return to the country of origin (p. 58-60). A prison sentence provided for homosexual acts, and that is actually applied in the country of origin that have adopted such legislation as a punishment which is disproportionate or discriminatory and therefore constitute persecution (p. 61).

A requirement that members of a social group that has the same sexual orientation shall keep secret their sexual orientation is contrary to the recognition of the existence of a characteristic that is so fundamental to identity that the persons concerned must not be forced to renounce it. Thus, it is not permissible to expect that an asylum seeker conceal his homosexuality in the country of origin to avoid persecution (p. 70-71).

Asylum seekers should be granted refugee status once it is established that he or she will run a real risk of persecution because of their homosexuality if they returned to their country of origin. In that respect, account should be taken of the applicant could avoid the risk by observing greater restraint than a heterosexual person do when he or she expresses her sexual orientation (p. 75). It is only those homosexual acts that are criminal in accordance with national laws that are excluded from its scope. The competent authorities can not, when considering an application for refugee status, reasonably expect that an asylum seeker to avoid persecution conceal his homosexuality in the country of origin or observe restraint when he or she expresses her sexual orientation (p. 76).

2.3. The Migration Court

It is common ground that A's protection needs to be examined against the conditions in Nigeria. It is the applicant who will do their needs for international protection is likely (see the ME 2006: 1). That means in this case that A will make it probable that he belongs to a group at risk of persecution because of their sexual orientation.
Migration Court considers that there is no reason to make any other assessment of previously filed documents other than the immigration court has done. As regards tidningsartiklarnas validity notes Migration Court that the A at the hearing that in 2004, he got a job with a man who today is ambassador to Uganda and that he in 2007 started a job with a governor. The articles A by his own admission has written or dealing with him and his sexual orientation, according to his own statement published inter alia, 2004, 2006 and 2007. It stands under the Migration Court opinion, not likely that he was a relatively short time after the publication of such articles would be relatively high positions in society, but he because of his sexual orientation should have been expelled from the PDP in 2010 .

The Migration Court has A, inter alia, submitted two newspaper articles, a certificate of exclusion from the PDP, a certificate of military service and a certificate from their university studies. The submitted newspaper articles from The Network June 6, 2013 and Saturday Mirror of 8 June 2013 cited a person with identical names A as an example of a gay man who has been harassed and attacked in Nigeria. The information was reported to have come from activists working for the rights of homosexuals. How and where these in turn had received the data, and the latter was founded is not clear from the articles. In its view, they can now filed Articles only be accorded limited probative value in terms of A's cited security grounds. It is also unclear which spread these newspapers have in Nigeria. The certificate of expulsion from the PDP are simple in nature and thus has a limited probative value. As for the certificate of military service and the certificate from the university studies extraneous to the invoked security reasons. Migration Court finds at an overall assessment of the alleged documentary evidence that A not only through this has been able to make it probable that he is gay, and thus risk protection foundation treatment at home.

An assessment must be made of the A's story. The asylum seeker's story should be accepted if it appears credible and plausible. In assessing the credibility of the applicant's affidavit should be attached weight including when the story is coherent and not marked by conflicting information and that the story of its main features remain unchanged during the examination of asylum requests once in different instances. (See MIG 2007: 12 and MIG 2011: 29th)

At the Migration Court of Appeal hearing before A has not to any significant extent been able to answer general questions about their sexual orientation and how this has affected his life. He has also otherwise during the process left remarkably vague information about their personal perception and feelings related to sexual orientation, which seems strange since the sexual orientation must be considered a fundamental characteristic of an individual (cf. UNHCR guidelines reproduced above and Prop. 2005/06: 6 p. 26). In this case, it is particularly noteworthy in light of what he observes about the attitude to homosexuals in Nigeria.

A has instead mainly described the abuse he says he has been subjected to because he is gay. In this respect he has for the process in some parts contradictory statements. During the Migration Board asylum investigation he stated example, that the attack after he participated in a TV program in 2009 were carried out by local people, while at the Migration Court's oral hearing stated that the attack was carried out by members of the PDP.

Migration Court also notes that A has provided conflicting information about why he left his homeland and traveled to Sweden. According to the information he left the Migration Court of Appeal hearing before he traveled to Italy on a Schengen visa to attend a conference on human rights, after which he traveled to Sweden. In court, he said that he traveled to Sweden to seek care. During the Migration Board asylum investigation, he stated that he left Nigeria because of his health and that he needed protection and asylum. The residence permit application for the extended visit to Sweden shows that his intention to stay in the country was to buy used cars and then sell them on to Nigeria. At the hearing, the Migration Court maintains the A that was the case and that this was done in order to finance the flight to the conference in Italy.

Above all, it is of course very remarkable that A has waited to apply for asylum to the day that the Svea Court of Appeal upheld the deportation order against him. At this time he had been in Sweden for more than six months.