The document, which was ordered by the Migration Agency’s Legal Affairs chief Carl Bexelius, is intended to counter accusations that the agency has been unreasonably strict in its interpretation of Swedish and EU law to post-Brexit residency applications.

It was obtained through a Freedom of Information request by David Milstead, who told The Local that the agency’s justifications for the disproportionately high number of UK citizens in Sweden denied residency “doesn’t survive even the slightest bit of scrutiny”.

The statistics, drawn from the agency’s databases on February 24th 2024, show just how many of those whose applications were rejected in fact met the applications deadline of December 31st 2021. 

Fully 1,607 of the 2,096 people whose applications for post-Brexit residency were rejected applied on time, with only 489 applying after the deadline had passed. 

Of the people who applied on time and were rejected, the main stated reason for rejection was that they were not judged to have fulfilled the requirements for a right of residency, or uppehållsrätt, under EU law. Some 623 were recorded as not meeting the requirements, although the real number may be significantly larger due to the large number of cases tagged “unknown” or “other” in the agency’s system.  

Several lawyers specialising in EU law have told The Local that in cases they have seen, the Migration Agency has tended to apply much tougher requirements for employment or savings for EU residency than they consider justified under EU rules.  

When applications from family members of British citizens who are not themselves British are included, the number of rejections is slightly higher, with a total of 2,286 applications for post-Brexit residency rejected, of which 537 applied after the deadline of December 31st 2021.

Of those who applied on time, 663 were rejected because they didn’t meet the requirements for EU uppehållsrätt.

The study does not assess in detail any of the applications which were rejected despite having been submitted on time, instead only focusing of the late applications, selecting 92 to analyse in detail. 

What were the justification for late applications?

Of the 92 cases analysed, the most common justification for applying late was ignorance, followed by poor health and being misinformed by the Migration Agency, Swedish Tax Agency or Swedish Social Insurance Agency. 

The “other reason” category includes people who said they missed deadline “by mistake”, those who said they didn’t know the rules, and those who said that they believed that they had residency. 

The document does not explain why these cases were not included in the “ignorance” category. 

What happened to those who were rejected? 

A total of 49 people, 44 of which were British citizens and five their family members, were issued with deportation orders when their applications for post-Brexit residency were refused. 

As part of the analysis, the agency looked at the current outcome in 88 cases and found that 28 had applied for residency and/or a work permit as a third-country national (and hadn’t yet received a decision), 16 had been granted such residency, and 12 already had such permanent residency before Brexit.

In five cases, the person had been granted a right of residency under EU law because they are married to a citizen of another EU country. 

In 19 cases, the person has not yet applied for residency on any other grounds. 

In an analysis of 90 cases, the agency found that 26 had appealed the rejection of their application for post-Brexit residency. Of those, 14 had already been heard by the Migration Court, with courts supporting the Migration Agency’s decision in 13 cases. 

In just one case, the Migration Court had referred the case onward for further examination of the relevant EU law.