Refusing Refusal socioeconomic hardships, recalled that he did not understand what was required of him in the process; 134 what he was to prove to the SMA. His application for asylum was denied, but he appealed. Twice during a 13 year period of waiting, he left Sweden for other EU countries in order to try to seek asylum there, actively trying to change his future. He was sent back both times, in accordance with the Dublin Regulation. 135 This was interpreted as a sign of non-‘cooperation’ with the authority. In the decision of the original case, it is stated: You have not in any way cooperated in expediating the decision of deportation. … Since you have not cooperated in executing the previous decision, you cannot obtain a residence permit as your previous decision on deportation has ceased to be valid. 136 Thus, there are cases where the factual issues are glossed over and focus is instead placed on the behaviour of the claimant. For Palestinians who arrive to Sweden from the Gulf countries, where they may have held temporary residence permits related to employment and a sponsor (kafala), 137 it is also a requirement that they repeatedly seek work and a new sponsor in the Gulf during the process of asylum. Thus, the SMA considers impediments to enforcement to exist only if the claimant can prove that a new sponsor and employment cannot be found. Khalil, who had been deported and lost his sponsor in the UAE, told me how he had to repeatedly contact potential sponsors in the UAE and prove that they would not employ him. In a Court of Appeal decision concerning a man who previously lived in the UAE, it was concluded that since the applicant had not tried to return or show the SMA that he could not find a new sponsor, there were no impediments to enforcement. No reason to why [AQ] should not have the possibility to obtain a new sponsor has been revealed and neither has it been invoked that he has made any attempts to obtain a new work and a new sponsor. He has not himself tried to return and neither have there been any concrete attempts to execute him to the UAE. Thereby, it has not been shown that any concrete impediment to enforcement exists due to a lack of sponsor. 138 Surrendering yourself to cooperation and passivisation may thus be crucial to the final decisions of the Court of Appeal. Thus, managing the regime also includes creating or demanding a certain behaviour, that of the compliant and submissive asylum seeker, the ‘good’ and ‘well-behaved’ refugee, whose agency is only supposed to facilitate bureaucratic decisions against their own interests and will. Although my interlocutors were exhausted and frustrated by the inconsistencies in the regime, many also actively sought to use the requirements on behaviour to 134 Interview with Abed (Helena Lindholm, Gothenburg, March 2020). 135 Regulation (EU) No604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 Establishing the Criteria and Mechanisms for Determining the Member State Responsible for Examining an Application for International Protection Lodged in One of the Member States by a Third-Country National or a Stateless Person [2013] OJ L 180/31. 136 Swedish Migration Agency decision, Gothenburg (March 2019) (copy on hand with author). 137 Palestinier i Mellanöstern uppehållsrätt och dokument (Report, Lifos 31 October 2018) 99; Rättslig kommentar angående prövningen av statslösa som tidigare haft sin vanliga vistelseort i Förenade Arabemiraten, Quatar och Saudiarabien (2020) Case No SR 16/2020 (Swedish Migration Agency). 138 Swedish Migration Agency decision, Gothenburg (2016) (copy on hand with author). 283