Landsrettens dom om afslag på opholdstilladelse til forælder til indvandrer stadfæstes
Ret: Højesteret (3. instans)
Faggruppe: Civilsag — Almindelig civil sag
Sagsemner: Forvaltningssag;
Menneskerettigheder;
Udlændinge;

/

HØJESTERETS
DOM

afsagt tirsdag den 13. december 2022

Sag BS-13536/2022-HJR
(1. afdeling)

Appellant, tidligere Appelindstævnte
(advokat Camilla Ernst, beskikket)

mod

Udlændingenævnet
(advokat Paw Fruerlund)

I tidligere instanser er afsagt dom af Retten i Aarhus den 15. oktober 2020 (BS-
56770/2019-ARH) og af Vestre Landsrets 6. afdeling den 8. juli 2021 (BS-
44368/2020-VLR).

I pådømmelsen har deltaget fem dommere: Michael Rekling, Hanne Schmidt,
Oliver Talevski, Jan Schans Christensen og Søren Højgaard Mørup.

Sagen er behandlet skriftligt, jf. retsplejelovens § 387.

Påstande
Appellant, tidligere Appelindstævnte, har påstået stadfæstelse af byrettens dom.

Indstævnte, Udlændingenævnet, har påstået stadfæstelse af landsrettens dom.

Supplerende sagsfremstilling
Af en mail af 17. januar 2019 fra U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular
Affairs, Office of Overseas Citizen’s Services, fremgår bl.a.:



/

2

”Thank you for reaching out — and I'm happy to provide any sort of as-
sistance that I can. I have actually worked on several similar cases, but not
with all of the complications that you listed below.

Regarding assistance for her return to the U.S., if there is no private or
travel insurance, we would normally search for other private resources that
may be able to assist such as any family or friends who might be able to
assist to paying for the costs to her return to the United States. If we were
unable to find a private source of funds and an individual in this situation
were unable to receive adequate care in the host country, we could offer a
repatriation loan which could cover the costs of her re-turn to the U.S.,
including, if needed, costs of a medical escort. While this is technically a
loan, we pay heed to any compassionate aspects related to the original loan
application in which attempted collection of a debt incurred would be
against equity and good conscience. A repatriation loan to assist an
individual who I incapacitated and needs a medical es-cort may be a little
complicated and time consuming since there are several legal and technical
aspects that would need to be worked out, but definitely doable.

In regards to public assistance, one aspect of our repatriation program in
cases where it is required is resettlement assistance. This, by U.S. law, is
not handled by the Department of State, but by the Department of Health
and Human Services, typically through their contractor, International So-
cial Services (ISS). When we hear of a situation that may need resettle-
ment assistance, we typically engage with ISS so they can locate assis-
tance in the U.S. citizen's last state of residence. It is the individual state
government that will determine the level of support or assistance needed
and direct a U.S. citizen to those state resources. This can be from a
homeless shelter to an assisted living facility or hospice care, depending on
the need of the citizen. In terms of long-term assistance to a U.S. citi-zen, it
really depends on the resources available at the state level, and in some
cases, resources available with Social Security and Medicare to pro-vide
assistance. In the latter case, typically a state government will ap-point
some sort of individual case worker who will assist the incapaci-tated
individual to navigate benefits available to them. How exactly this is done,
however, is typically on a case-by-case basis and administered by state or
local governments.

We would arrange all of this through our Consular Officers at our Em-
bassy in Copenhagen with my office here in DC liaising with local agen-
cies that may be able to provide support. If you were interested in pursu-
ing this route to return this U.S. citizen to the United States, I could pro-
vide any additional information on to my colleagues in Copenhagen.



/

3

I hope this answers your question. Please let me know if you need any
additional information or if I can be of any further assistance.”

Supplerende anbringender
Appellant, tidligere Appelindstævnte har supplerende anført navnlig, at
Udlændingenævnets skøn

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
er åbenlyst urimeligt som følge af den ringe vægt, som nævnet har tillagt den
aktuelle relation mellem hende og hendes søn. Selv om det kan tillægges betyd-
ning, at hun har opholdt sig ulovligt i Danmark i syv måneder, kan det ikke i sig
selv føre til, at hun ikke skal have opholdstilladelse. Nævnets afgørelse er endvi-
dere i strid med en lighedsgrundsætning, da omstændighederne i sagen er de samme
som i nævnets afgørelse af 16. marts 2017 i en anden sag. Nævnets syns-punkter
vedrørende udlændingelovens § 9 b om humanitær opholdstilladelse er irrelevante
for sagen, da Højesteret ikke skal tage stilling til afslaget på opholds-tilladelse efter
denne regel.

Udlændingenævnet har supplerende anført navnlig, at nævnets skøn ikke er
åbenbart urimeligt, og at afgørelsen ikke er i strid med en lighedsgrundsætning, da
afgørelsen er i overensstemmelse med praksis. Omstændighederne i denne sag er
ikke de samme som i nævnets afgørelse af 16. marts 2017, bl.a. fordi der i den sag
var spørgsmål om udsendelse til Afghanistan. Spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt Appellants,
tidligere Appelindstævnte helbredsmæssige tilstand kan begrunde opholdstilladelse,
hører hjemme under udlændingelovens § 9 b. De afgørelser, der er truffet efter
denne bestemmelse, er ikke til prøvelse i denne sag. I øvrigt er betingelserne for at
meddele opholdstilladelse efter denne bestemmelse ikke opfyldt, idet Appellant,
tidligere Appelindstævnte ikke er i fare for at lide en uoprettelig forværring af sit
helbred, som vil resultere i intens lidelse eller væsentlig reduktion af forventet
restlevetid, som følge af, at hun skal vende tilbage til USA.

Supplerende retsgrundlag
I Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstols dom af 7. december 2021 i sagen
Savran mod Danmark (sag nr. 57467/15) udtalte Domstolen bl.a.:

“1. Article 3: general principles

121. It is the Court’s settled case-law that Article 3 of the Convention en-
shrines one of the most fundamental values of a democratic society. It
prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment and its guarantees apply irrespective of the reprehensible
nature of the conduct of the person in question (see, among many other
authorities, Aswat v. the United Kingdom, no. 17299/12, § 49, 16 April
2013).
122. The prohibition under Article 3 of the Convention does not, how-ever,
relate to all instances of ill-treatment. Such treatment has to attain a



/

4

minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of that Article.
The assessment of this minimum is relative; it depends on all the circum-
stances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and
mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the
victim (see N. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 26565/05, § 29, ECHR
2008; Paposhvili, cited above, § 174; and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no.
23380/09, § 86, ECHR 2015).
123. An examination of the Court’s case-law shows that Article 3 has been
most commonly applied in contexts in which the risk of being sub-jected to
a proscribed form of treatment has emanated from intentionally inflicted
acts of State agents or public authorities. However, in view of the
fundamental importance of Article 3, the Court has reserved to itself
sufficient flexibility to address its application in other situations (see Pretty
v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 50, ECHR 2002-III, and Hristozov
and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 47039/11 and 358/12, § 111, ECHR 2012
(extracts)). In particular, it has held that suffering which flows from a
naturally occurring illness may be covered by Article 3 where it is, or risks
being, exacerbated by treatment stemming from
measures for which the authorities can be held responsible (see N. v. the 
United Kingdom, cited above, § 29). Moreover, it is not prevented from
scrutinising an applicant’s claim under Article 3 where the source of the
risk of proscribed treatment in the receiving country stems from factors
which cannot engage either directly or indirectly the responsibility of the
public authorities of that country (see Paposhvili, cited above, § 175).

2. Article 3: expulsion of seriously ill aliens

124. In its case-law concerning the extradition, expulsion or deportation of
individuals to third countries, the Court has consistently held that as a
matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty
obligations, States Parties have the right to control the entry, residence and
expulsion of aliens. Nevertheless, the expulsion of an alien by a State Party
may give rise to an issue under Article 3 of the Convention where
substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person con-
cerned faces a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or de-
grading treatment or punishment in the receiving country (ibid., §§ 172-73,
and the authorities cited therein).
125. In its judgment in the case of Paposhvili (cited above), the Court re-
viewed the applicable principles, starting with the case of D. v. the United
Kingdom (2 May 1997, Reports of Judgments and Deci-sions 1997-III).
126. The Court observed that the D. v. the United Kingdom case concerned
the intended expulsion to St Kitts of an alien who was suffering from AIDS
which had reached its terminal stages. It had found that the appli-



/

5

cant’s removal would expose him to a real risk of dying under most dis-
tressing circumstances and would amount to inhuman treatment (ibid., §
53). The case was characterised by “very exceptional circumstances” ,
owing to the fact that the applicant suffered from an incurable illness and
was in the terminal stages, that there was no guarantee that he would be
able to obtain any nursing or medical care in St Kitts or that he had fam-ily
there willing or able to care for him, or that he had any other form of moral
or social support (ibid., §§ 52-53). Taking the view that, in those
circumstances, his suffering would attain the minimum level of severity
required by Article 3, the Court held that compelling humanitarian con-
siderations weighed against the applicant’s expulsion (ibid., § 54).
127. It further observed that since the subsequent case of N. v. the United 
Kingdom (cited above), in which it had concluded that the applicant’s re-
moval would not give rise to a violation of Article 3, it had declared inad-
missible as being manifestly ill-founded numerous applications raising
similar issues lodged by aliens who were HIV positive or suffered from
other serious physical or mental illnesses. Several judgments had also been
adopted; in all of them – with the exception of the case of Aswat (cited
above, which concerned the extradition to the United States of a detainee
suffering from paranoid schizophrenia) – it had been found that the
applicants’ removal would not breach Article 3 of the Convention (see
Paposhvili, cited above, § 179).
128. The Court concluded from that recapitulation of the case-law that the
application of Article 3 of the Convention only in cases where the person
facing expulsion was close to death, which had been its practice since the
judgment in N. v. the United Kingdom (cited above), had de-prived aliens
who were seriously ill, but whose condition was less criti-cal, of the benefit
of that provision. Moreover, the case-law subsequent to N. v. the United
Kingdom had not provided any more detailed guidance regarding the “very
exceptional cases”
referred to in N. v. the United Kingdom, other than the circumstances con-
templated in D. v. the United Kingdom (see Paposhvili, cited above, § 181).
129. In that connection, the Court went on to elucidate what “other very
exceptional cases” could be so contemplated, while reiterating that it was
essential that the Convention was interpreted and applied in a manner
which rendered its rights practical and effective and not theoretical and
illusory (ibid., § 182):

“183. The Court considers that the ‘other very exceptional cases’
within the meaning of the judgment in N. v. the United Kingdom (§ 43)
which may raise an issue under Article 3 should be understood to refer
to situations involving the removal of a seriously ill person in which
substantial grounds have been shown for believing that he or she,
although not at imminent risk of dying, would face a real risk, on



/

6

account of the absence of appropriate treatment in the receiving coun-try
or the lack of access to such treatment, of being exposed to a seri-ous,
rapid and irreversible decline in his or her state of health result-ing in
intense suffering or to a significant reduction in life expectancy. The
Court points out that these situations correspond to a high thresh-old for
the application of Article 3 of the Convention in cases concern-ing the
removal of aliens suffering from serious illness.”

130. As to whether those conditions were satisfied in a given situation, the
Court stressed that the national authorities were under an obligation under
Article 3 to establish appropriate procedures allowing an examina-tion of
the applicants’ fears to be carried out, as well as an assessment of the risks
they would face if removed to the receiving country (ibid., §§ 184-85). In
the context of those procedures,
(a) it is for the applicants to adduce evidence capable of demonstrating that
there are substantial grounds for believing that, if the measure com-plained
of were to be implemented, they would be exposed to a real risk of being
subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (ibid., § 186); (b) where such
evidence is adduced, it is for the returning State to dispel any doubts raised
by it, and to subject the alleged risk to close scrutiny by considering the
foreseeable consequences of removal for the individ-ual concerned in the
receiving State, in the light of the general situation there and the
individual’s personal circumstances; such an assessment must take into
consideration general sources such as reports of the World Health
Organisation or of reputable non-governmental organisations and the
medical certificates concerning the person in question (ibid., § 187); the
impact of removal must be assessed by comparing the applicant’s state of
health prior to removal and how it would evolve after transfer to the
receiving State (ibid., § 188);
(c) the returning State must verify on a case-by-case basis whether the care
generally available in the receiving State is sufficient and appropri-ate in
practice for the treatment of the applicant’s illness so as to prevent him or
her being exposed to treatment contrary to Article 3 (ibid., § 189); (d) the
returning State must also consider the extent to which the appli-cant will
actually have access to the treatment, including with reference to its cost,
the existence of a social and family network, and the distance to be
travelled in order to have access to the required care (ibid., § 190); (e)
where, after the relevant information has been examined, serious doubts
persist regarding the impact of removal on the applicant – on ac-count of
the general situation in the receiving country and/or their indi-vidual
situation – the returning State must obtain individual and suffi-cient
assurances from the receiving State, as a precondition for removal, that
appropriate treatment will be available and accessible to the persons



/

7

concerned so that they do not find themselves in a situation contrary to
Article 3 (ibid., § 191).
131. The Court stressed in the above connection that the benchmark was
not the level of care existing in the returning State; it was not a question of
ascertaining whether the care in the receiving State would be equiva-lent or
inferior to that provided by the healthcare system in the returning State.
Nor was it possible to derive from Article 3 a right to receive spe-cific
treatment in the receiving State which was not available to the rest of the
population (ibid., § 189). In cases concerning the removal of seri-ously ill
persons, the event which triggered the inhuman and degrading treatment,
and which engaged the responsibility of the returning State under Article 3,
was not the lack of medical infrastructure in the receiv-ing State. Likewise,
the issue was not one of any obligation for the re-turning State to alleviate
the disparities between its healthcare system and the level of treatment
existing in the receiving State through the pro-vision of free and unlimited
healthcare to all aliens without a right to stay within its jurisdiction. The
responsibility that was engaged under the Convention in cases of this type
was that of the returning State, on ac-count of an act – in this instance,
expulsion – which would result in an in-dividual being exposed to a risk of
treatment prohibited by Article 3 (ibid., § 192). Lastly, the Court pointed
out that whether the receiving State was a Contracting Party to the
Convention was not decisive. 132. There has been no further development
in the relevant case-law since the Paposhvili judgment (cited above).

3. General considerations on the criteria laid down in the Paposhvili
judgment

133. Having regard to the reasoning of the Chamber and the submis-sions
of the parties and third parties before the Grand Chamber, the lat-ter
considers it useful with a view to its examination of the present case to
confirm that the Paposhvili judgment (cited above) offered a compre-
hensive standard taking due account of all the considerations that are rel-
evant for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention. It maintained the
Contracting States’ general right to control the entry, residence and ex-
pulsion of aliens, whilst recognising the absolute nature of Article 3. The
Grand Chamber thus reaffirms the standard and principles as established in
Paposhvili (cited above).
134. Firstly, the Court reiterates that the evidence adduced must be “ca-
pable of demonstrating that there are substantial grounds” for believing that
as a “seriously ill person” , the applicant “would face a real risk, on
account of the absence of appropriate treatment in the receiving country or
the lack of access to such treatment, of being exposed to a serious, rapid
and irreversible decline in his or her state of health resulting in in-



/

8

tense suffering or to a significant reduction in life expectancy” (ibid., §
183).
135. Secondly, it is only after this threshold test has been met, and thus
Article 3 is applicable, that the returning State’s obligations listed in par-
agraphs 187-91 of the Paposhvili judgment (see paragraph 130 above) be-
come of relevance.
136. Thirdly, the Court emphasises the procedural nature of the Con-
tracting States’ obligations under Article 3 of the Convention in cases in-
volving the expulsion of seriously ill aliens. It reiterates that it does not
itself examine the applications for international protection or verify how
States control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens. By virtue of
Article 1 of the Convention, the primary responsibility for implementing
and enforcing the guaranteed rights and freedoms is laid on the national
authorities, who are thus required to examine the applicants’ fears and to
assess the risks they would face if removed to the receiving country, from
the standpoint of Article 3. The machinery of complaint to the Court is
subsidiary to national systems safeguarding human rights (ibid., § 184).”

I Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstols afgørelse af 18. november 2014 i
sagen Senchishak mod Finland (sag nr. 5049/12) fandt Domstolen, at der ikke var et
beskyttelsesværdigt familieliv mellem klageren og dennes voksne datter, der i en
årrække havde passet klageren. I dommen hedder det bl.a.:

“7. The applicant had a husband and two daughters in Russia.
In 1988 one of the daughters moved to Finland and has lived there per-
manently since then. She is a Finnish citizen. The other daughter went
missing in 2003 and is probably dead. The applicant raised her grand-
daughter, who was born in 1986, from the age of 3 or 4, when the child’s
mother went missing.

8. In November 2006 the applicant suffered a stroke in Rus-sia. Apparently
her right side was then paralysed. At the time, she lived with her husband,
until he died in 2007. Thereafter the applicant appar-ently lived with her
granddaughter and her family near Vyborg.

9. On 7 December 2008 the applicant arrived in Finland with a tourist visa
issued for a period of 30 days, without having lodged a prior appli-cation
for a residence permit at a Finnish Representation. Since then she has been
living with her daughter in Espoo.
…

49. The applicant complained that her removal to Russia by the Finnish
authorities would violate Article 8 of the Convention.



/

9

…

51. The Government contested that there existed such a close family tie or
dependency between the applicant and her daughter that refusing the
applicant’s residence permit or deporting her to Russia would constitute an
interference within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention. The
applicant arrived in Finland only on 7 December 2008, prior to which she
had lived in Russia. Her daughter had moved permanently to Finland in
1988. Thus the family life between the applicant and her daughter had been
interrupted for more than 20 years. There was thus no interference and
Article 8 did not apply to the case.

52. Were the Court of another opinion, the Government argued that, in any
event, the impugned measure was in accordance with the law and pursued
the legitimate aims of public safety, economic well-being of the country
and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. As to the necessity
in a democratic society, the Government noted that the appli-cant could not
be considered a settled migrant. The impugned measure was thus necessary
in a democratic society. There was thus no violation of Article 8 of the
Convention.

53. The applicant argued that during the previous five years she had had a
close family relationship with her daughter and her family. In Russian
culture the grandparents were considered as family members who needed
protection. It was impossible to obtain a place in an elderly peo-ple’s home
in Russia if a person had even one living child, as it was the child’s
responsibility to take care of the parents.

54. The Court notes that, in the Convention case-law relating to expul-sion
and extradition measures, the main emphasis has consistently been placed
on the “family life” aspect, which has been interpreted as encom-passing
the effective “family life” established in the territory of a Con-tracting
State by aliens lawfully resident there, it being understood that
“family life” in this sense is normally limited to the core family (see Sli- 
venko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 94, ECHR 2003-X; and, mutatis
mutan-dis, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 45, Series A no. 311). The
Court has, however, also held that the Convention includes no right, as
such, to
establish one’s family life in a particular country (see, inter alia, Ab- 
dulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, §
68, Se-ries A no. 94; Gül v. Switzerland, 19 February 1996, § 38, Reports
of Judg-ments and Decisions 1996-I; and Boultif v. Switzerland, no
54273/00, § 39, ECHR 2001-IX).



/

10

55. The Court also reiterates the principle that relationships between
parents and adult children do not fall within the protective scope of Arti-cle
8 unless “additional factors of dependence, other than normal emo-tional
ties, are shown to exist” (see Emonet and Others v. Switzerland, no
39051/03, § 35, 13 December 2007; and, mutatis mutandis, Kwakye-Nti
and Dufie v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 31519/96, 7 November 2000).
Therefore, the existence of “family life” cannot be relied on by ap-plicants
in relation to their elderly parents, adults who do not belong to the core
family, unless the latter have been shown to be dependent on the members
of their family (see Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], cited above, § 97).

56. The Court finds it established in the present case that the applicant
came to Finland on 7 December 2008, before which she lived in Russia.
Her daughter moved permanently to Finland in 1988. As the Govern-ment
pointed out, the family life between the applicant and her daugh-ter was
thus interrupted for at least 20 years. The fact that the applicant has spent
the last five years in Finland does not create a relation-ship between the
applicant and her daughter which could amount to “family life” within the
meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. This is-sue cannot be decisive as
the applicant has not been lawfully resident in Finland during this time and
she must have been aware of her inse-cure situation created by the fact that
she was not regularised in Finland.

57. As to dependency, the Court notes that the applicant had a stroke in
November 2006 in Russia after which she lived in Russia for two years
before coming to Finland with a tourist visa in December 2008. After the
expiry of her visa, her legal status in Finland was not regularised. Even
assuming that the applicant is dependent on outside help in order to cope
with her daily life, this does not mean that she is necessarily de-pendent on
her daughter who lives in Finland, or that care in Finland is the only option.
As mentioned earlier, there are both private and public care institutions in
Russia, and it is also possible to hire external help. Moreover, as noted by
the Government, the applicant’s daughter can support her financially and
otherwise from Finland, in particular as her place of residence is not very
far from the applicant’s place of residence in Russia. With a view to the
Court’s case-law, the Court therefore con-siders that no such “additional
factors of dependence other than normal ties of affection” exist between the
applicant and her daughter, and that there is thus no “family life” between
them within the meaning of Article 8. This Article is therefore not
applicable in the instant case due to the lack of family life.’



/

11

58. Accordingly, the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention must be
rejected as incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the
Convention and be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a)
and 4 of the Convention.”

Højesterets begrundelse og resultat
Appellant, tidligere Appelindstævnte, der er amerikansk statsborger, indrejste den
17. april 2015 i Danmark, hvor hun tog ophold hos en af sine voksne sønner, der er
dansk stats-borger.

Hun søgte første gang om opholdstilladelse den 15. juli 2015. Den 26. februar 2016
meddelte Udlændingestyrelsen afslag på opholdstilladelse i medfør af ud-
lændingelovens § 9 c, stk. 1. Den 5. december 2016 stadfæstede Udlændingenæv-
net styrelsens afgørelse.

Den 21. juni 2016 meddelte Udlændinge-, Integrations- og Boligministeriet
Appellant, tidligere Appelindstævnte afslag på en ansøgning om humanitær
opholdstilladelse i medfør af udlændingelovens § 9 b, stk. 1. Den 25. april 2019
meddelte Udlændinge- og Inte-grationsministeriet på ny afslag på humanitær
opholdstilladelse i medfør af ud-lændingelovens § 9 b, stk. 1, efter at hun havde
anmodet om genoptagelse af sa-gen. I afgørelsen tog ministeriet stilling til bl.a., om
afslaget ville være i strid med artikel 3 i Den Europæiske
Menneskerettighedskonvention og praksis fra Den Europæiske
Menneskerettighedsdomstol, herunder Domstolens dom af 13. de-cember 2016 i
sagen Paposhvili mod Belgien (sag nr. 41738/10). Ministeriets afgø-relse er ikke til
prøvelse under denne sag.

Den 19. juni 2019 meddelte Udlændingestyrelsen på ny afslag på opholdstilla-delse
i medfør af udlændingelovens § 9 c, stk. 1, efter at Appellant, tidligere
Appelindstævnte den 1. december 2018 havde indgivet en ny ansøgning om
familiesammenføring. Den 21. oktober 2019 stadfæstede Udlændingenævnet
styrelsens afgørelse.

Sagen angår for Højesteret, om Udlændingenævnets afgørelse af 21. oktober 2019
skal ophæves, således at sagen hjemvises til fornyet behandling i nævnet.

Efter udlændingelovens § 9 c, stk. 1, 1. pkt., kan der efter ansøgning gives op-
holdstilladelse til en udlænding, hvis ganske særlige grunde, herunder hensynet til
familiens enhed og, hvis udlændingen er under 18 år, hensynet til barnets tarv, taler
derfor.

Det fremgår af forarbejderne, at bestemmelsen blev indført som led i en ændring af
udlændingeloven, der havde til formål at begrænse og kontrollere adgangen til
Danmark med henblik på at sikre den nødvendige ro og frigøre de nødven-dige
ressourcer til en bedre integration af de udlændinge, som allerede er i Dan-mark.
Ved ændringen blev den hidtidige adgang til familiesammenføring med



/

12

forældre over 60 år ophævet. Ifølge forarbejderne kan det ved afgørelser efter § 9 c,
stk. 1, indgå bl.a., om ansøgeren har et særligt pleje- eller behandlingsbehov. Der
skal meddeles opholdstilladelse efter bestemmelsen, hvis det vil være i strid med
Danmarks internationale forpligtelser, herunder navnlig artikel 8 i Den Eu-ropæiske
Menneskerettighedskonvention, at meddele afslag, medmindre der er mulighed for
at tillade familiesammenføring efter andre bestemmelser.

Afgørelsen af, om Appellant, tidligere Appelindstævnte skal meddeles
opholdstilladelse efter ud-lændingelovens § 9 c, stk. 1, beror således på et skøn med
hensyn til, om der fore-ligger ganske særlige grunde.

Udlændingenævnet har i overensstemmelse med lovens ordlyd og forarbejder bl.a.
vurderet tilknytningen mellem Appellant, tidligere Appelindstævnte og hendes
sønner og ind-draget hendes pleje- og behandlingsbehov.

Højesteret tiltræder, at der som anført af landsretten ikke er grundlag for at til-
sidesætte Udlændingenævnets skøn eller for at fastslå, at afgørelsen er i strid med
en forvaltningsretlig lighedsgrundsætning.

Højesteret tiltræder endvidere, at der efter oplysningerne om relationerne mel-lem
Appellant, tidligere Appelindstævnte og hendes sønner, udviklingen af hendes
helbredstil-stand og mulighederne for hende for at vende tilbage til og få pasning og
pleje i USA ikke er grundlag for at fastslå, at afgørelsen er i strid med artikel 8 i
Den Eu-ropæiske Menneskerettighedskonvention, jf. herved Den Europæiske
Menneske-rettighedsdomstols dom af 18. november 2014 i sagen Senchishak mod
Finland.

Højesteret stadfæster herefter landsrettens dom.

Det bemærkes, at det ved håndhævelse af pligten for Appellant, tidligere
Appelindstævnte til at udrejse af landet påhviler myndighederne at påse
overholdelsen af Danmarks forpligtelser ifølge artikel 3 i Den Europæiske
Menneskerettighedskonvention og praksis fra Den Europæiske
Menneskerettighedsdomstol. Myndighederne skal i den forbindelse iagttage de
processuelle og materielle krav, der fremgår af præ-mis 129-130 i Den Europæiske
Menneskerettighedsdomstols dom af 7. december 2021 i sagen Savran mod
Danmark med hensyn til inddragelse af aktuelle oplys-ninger om bl.a. de
konsekvenser, som udsendelsen vil have for hendes helbreds-tilstand, og de
udgifter, der vil være forbundet med hendes pleje i USA.

THI KENDES FOR RET:

Landsrettens dom stadfæstes.



/

13

I sagsomkostninger for Højesteret skal statskassen betale 30.000 kr. til Udlæn-
dingenævnet.

Sagsomkostningerne skal betales inden 14 dage efter denne højesteretsdoms afsi-
gelse.



/