Swedish Court Rules Against Deportation of Eritrean Migrant Convicted of Raping 16-Year-Old Girl, Citing Short Duration of Assault

---

Shocking Ruling in Skellefteå Sparks National Outcry

Skellefteå, Sweden — A Swedish appellate court has upheld the conviction of a 19-year-old Eritrean man, identified as Yazied Mohamed, for the rape of a 16-year-old girl in a pedestrian tunnel—but decided against deporting him, ruling that the attack was not severe enough in duration to justify expulsion. The controversial decision has ignited widespread public debate over Sweden’s deportation laws and standards for defining “particularly serious crimes.”

The assault, which occurred on September 1, 2024, left the victim, Meya Åberg, traumatized. After leaving her evening shift at a local fast-food restaurant, Åberg missed her bus and took a pedestrian route home when Mohamed confronted her. He allegedly seized her phone, pulled her into a nearby tunnel, and forcibly assaulted her. The attack lasted several minutes before Åberg managed to escape and call for help.

Court Convicts Mohamed but Rejects Deportation

After an earlier acquittal in district court due to insufficient evidence, the Court of Appeal for Upper Norrland reversed the decision in September 2025, convicting Mohamed of rape and sentencing him to three years in prison. The court also ordered him to pay 240,000 Swedish kronor (about $21,000 USD) in damages to the victim.

However, the court declined to deport Mohamed, citing the brief duration of the assault and his young age as mitigating factors. According to the appellate court’s written decision, the offense, while severe, did not meet the criteria of being “extremely serious” under Swedish immigration law—standards that would justify expulsion even after serving a sentence.

The court emphasized that deportation can only be ordered if the convicted person poses a continued and significant threat to public order and safety. In this case, the judges concluded that Mohamed’s crime, though violent, did not establish a pattern of ongoing risk.

One of the lay judges on the panel dissented, stating that the gravity of the act itself warranted expulsion regardless of duration, and that protecting Swedish residents from sexual violence should take precedence over the offender’s immigration status.

Survivor Speaks About Lingering Trauma

Åberg, now 17, spoke publicly about how the experience continues to shape her daily life. In a local television interview, she revealed how her sense of security had been destroyed.

“I still feel sick when I think about it,” she said. “I have nightmares and dream that he is chasing me. I almost never go out alone anymore.” Her words underscored the long-lasting psychological damage sexual assault survivors often endure even after the legal process concludes.

She explained that she barely attended school in the aftermath and continues to seek counseling. Yet she hopes that sharing her story will encourage other victims to come forward. “I will always be affected by this,” Åberg said. “But if speaking out helps even one girl, it’s worth it.”

National Reactions and Legal Debate

The verdict sparked intense national discussion, with critics arguing that Sweden’s threshold for deporting non-citizens convicted of rape is too high. Advocacy groups for women’s safety condemned the ruling, describing it as a failure of the justice system to prioritize victims’ wellbeing and public safety.

Legal experts have weighed in, explaining that Swedish courts apply strict procedural guidelines when considering deportation for individuals with refugee or protected status. The European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Refugee Convention both limit deportation in cases where the individual could face persecution or inhumane treatment upon return.

Supporters of the court’s decision argue that it correctly followed Swedish and international law, ensuring consistent legal standards and proportional sentencing. However, many Swedes perceive the case as an example of leniency toward serious criminal behavior by asylum seekers.

Historical Context: Changing Deportation Standards

Sweden’s approach to deporting foreign nationals convicted of crimes has evolved over several decades. In the 1990s and early 2000s, deportations for violent offenses were relatively rare, partly due to the nation’s strong adherence to international human rights conventions. However, the influx of asylum seekers during the 2015 European migrant crisis prompted political debate about whether existing laws adequately safeguarded Swedish citizens.

Revisions to the Swedish Aliens Act in 2018 and 2021 expanded the range of crimes that could lead to deportation but maintained a distinction between “serious” and “extremely serious” offenses. Courts must assess factors such as the offender’s age, family ties to Sweden, risk of persecution in the home country, and the duration and brutality of the crime.

In practice, this means that while murders and prolonged or particularly violent assaults almost always result in deportation orders, lesser forms of rape or short-duration attacks often do not. Critics argue this nuanced distinction can appear arbitrary to the public, blurring the boundary between rehabilitation and accountability.

Comparative Perspective: Nordic Neighbors’ Stricter Policies

Compared to neighboring Nordic countries, Sweden’s deportation standards remain among the most restrictive. Norway and Denmark have introduced broader powers for immigration authorities to expel non-citizens following convictions for violent crimes, including sexual assault.

In Denmark, for example, courts can issue automatic expulsion orders for non-residents convicted of serious crimes, with only limited possibilities for appeal. Norway employs a balancing test but tends to interpret public safety more expansively. Consequently, public defenders and migration experts have noted that similar cases in those countries may have resulted in deportation.

Finland, meanwhile, follows a system closer to Sweden’s but has recently introduced legislative proposals to simplify deportation proceedings for violent offenders with temporary residence permits.

Broader Implications for Swedish Society

The case has reignited debate about the tension between humanitarian asylum policies and the perceived need for tougher criminal deterrence. It has become emblematic of the difficult balance between protecting human rights and addressing citizens’ concerns about safety and justice.

Economic and demographic analysts note that Sweden’s liberal asylum policies have historically played a key role in sustaining population growth and labor force expansion, particularly in remote northern regions like Västerbotten. However, isolated high-profile crimes involving migrants have increasingly influenced local attitudes toward immigration.

Sociologists emphasize that court decisions like this one shape public sentiment beyond their legal consequences, potentially eroding trust in the judiciary when outcomes seem misaligned with moral expectations. The ruling has sparked renewed calls from legislators across the political spectrum to re-examine the legal thresholds for deportation and the definitions of “particularly serious crimes” in Swedish law.

Rape Sentencing and Victim Rights in Sweden

Sweden remains one of the few countries in Europe where a rape conviction can lead to comparatively short prison terms. Under current sentencing guidelines, rape—without aggravating circumstances—generally results in between two and six years of imprisonment. Aggravated rape, involving sustained physical violence or threats with weapons, can result in up to ten years.

Critics of existing statutes argue that these punishments inadequately reflect the life-altering impact on victims. Women’s rights organizations, such as the National Organization for Women’s Shelters and Young Women’s Shelters (ROKS), have called for mandatory deportation for any non-citizen convicted of sexual violence, citing both deterrence and justice.

Government and legal authorities, however, have maintained that courts must preserve proportionality in sentencing and ensure that deportation decisions comply with Sweden’s international legal obligations.

Looking Ahead: Calls for Reform and Reflection

Public reaction to the Skellefteå ruling continues to build, with peaceful protests and heated social media debates highlighting deep divisions in Swedish society. Some citizens demand a reevaluation of how courts measure “duration” as a mitigating factor in violent crimes, while others caution against politicizing individual cases or weakening human rights protections.

Parliamentary committees are reportedly reviewing possible legal clarifications around deportation laws, aiming to reduce ambiguity in future cases involving convicted refugees or asylum seekers.

For Åberg, however, legal technicalities offer little consolation. Her focus remains on recovery and raising awareness. “I just want people to understand what it feels like,” she said quietly in a recent interview. “It doesn’t matter how long it lasted. It changed my life forever.”

The case of Yazied Mohamed stands as a stark reminder of the complex intersection between criminal justice, immigration policy, and public perception in Sweden—a nation still grappling with how to remain both compassionate and fair in an era of shifting social expectations.