Statelessness & Citizenship Review 2021 C 3(2) Conduct through Co-optation: ‘You Have Not Cooperated’ International asylum regimes further require obedient behaviour. The procedures established by the SMA demand considerable efforts from the claimant to ‘collaborate’ 123 and to present proof of their identity, as well as proof of nondeportability; to make one’s story worthy of belief. 124 There is a need for certain behaviour in order to be granted, for example, allowances and accommodation. 125 Such rules of conduct create hierarchies between those who obey and those who do not, as people are forced to cooperate in their own governmentality. 126 For example, it is up to the claimant to present proof that he or she could not be deported, 127 and then to prove that practical impediments to removal exist, 128 and, further, that the individual has tried to remove those impediments. 129 Deportees are to cooperate in their own deportation procedure. 130 Claimants need to provide evidence that they would not be allowed to re-enter their previous countries of residence, which may, in practice, mean contacting embassies of Arab states to ask for evidence of a refusal of entry, which is rarely provided by Arab states. For Khalil (mentioned previously) to prove that he could not return to the UAE, he had to repeatedly contact the embassy in order to establish evidence for his claims. Like many others, Khalil explained how requests for such documents and evidence are systematically refused. ‘They told me that “we will not give that to you. The Swedish authorities need to contact us”’. 131 Leila, who was well established in Swedish society after seven years with work, friends and engagement with civil society, repeatedly visited the Lebanese embassy in order to acquire the documents that the SMA required. Although the Lebanese embassy told her that she would never be able to enter Lebanon, the SMA continued to request such documentation. 132 The disciplining thus appears meaningless. In the undermentioned decision concerning Khalil, it is determined that the approval of a temporary permit was contingent on his previous cooperation with the Agency: The Migration Agency finds … that the reason why the decision of removal could not be executed is due to reasons beyond your control. … Since you have cooperated in executing your previous decision of deportation, obstacles exist against announcing a new decision of removal. 133 One reason behind the positive decision was thus that Khalil had ‘obeyed’ the regime and obedience is a mechanism through which deserving and undeserving migrants are categorised. On the other hand, Abed, who arrived in Sweden as a young adult from Gaza from what he described as a dysfunctional family life and 123 MIG 2009:13 (2013) Case No UM2819-08 (Swedish Migration Agency). 124 Griffiths, ‘Anonymous Aliens?’ (n 22) 718. But see Rättsligt ställningstagande angående 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 praktiska verkställighetshinder m.m (2020) Case No SR 10/2020 (Swedish Migration Agency). (‘SMA 2020b’) Tazzioli, The Making of Migration (n 15). ibid. But see Griffiths, ‘Anonymous Aliens?’ (n 22). Rättsligt ställningstagande: Praktiska verkställighetshinder m.m. (2021) Case No RS/048/2021 (Swedish Migration Agency). SMA 2020b (n 124). Lundberg (n 23). Conversation with Khalil (Helena Lindholm, Gothenburg, August 2018). Conversation with Leila (Helena Lindholm, Zoom, May 2021). Swedish Migration Agency decision, Gothenburg (May 2020) (copy on hand with author). 282