{
  "attribution": {
    "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/mig-2007-31",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision",
    "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
    "proof": "sha256:64e5a91433ee09d6b09ca25474345bdc742e49074c5459fb928d7182193827ec",
    "jurisdiction": "eu"
  },
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "SoftwareApplication",
  "applicationCategory": "LegalService",
  "name": "MIG 2007:31, beslutsagent",
  "identifier": "avgorande-mig-2007-31",
  "url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/mig-2007-31",
  "inLanguage": "sv",
  "about": "MIG 2007:31, beslutsagent",
  "abstract": [
    "Vad som hände: Genom att först i migrationsdomstolen yrka uppehållstillstånd på grund av anknytning till sin svenska hustru har sökanden inte ändrat sin talan utan den avser fortfarande samma sak, nämligen frågan om sökanden är berättigad till uppehållstillstånd i Sverige.",
    "Varför det spelar roll: Publicerat som vägledande avgörande från Migrationsöverdomstolen, 2007. Tillämpar Utlänningslagen."
  ],
  "isBasedOn": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/mig-2007-31",
  "softwareVersion": "c164d667fbf4a52d",
  "citation": "avgorande-mig-2007-31, MIG 2007:31, beslutsagent. ExploreWorld Legal, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/mig-2007-31 (hämtad 2026-08-29, bevis sha256:ef6af804007ba7d1, bygge legal-2026-08-25).",
  "disclaimer": "Källhänvisning med officiell identifierare. Ingen juridisk rådgivning och inget efterlevnadsbeslut.",
  "potentialAction": {
    "@type": "SearchAction",
    "target": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/node-agents/avgorande/mig-2007-31/run?{&samma_lagrum,samma_instans,avgorande_ar_senare}"
  },
  "language": "sv",
  "source_language": "sv",
  "text_language": "sv",
  "available_languages": [
    "sv",
    "en",
    "no",
    "de"
  ],
  "translated_views": [
    "manifest.json",
    "ai.json"
  ],
  "source_only_views": [
    "script.json",
    "run",
    "monitor.json",
    "verify"
  ],
  "translated": false,
  "hash": "sha256:64e5a91433ee09d6b09ca25474345bdc742e49074c5459fb928d7182193827ec",
  "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
  "expires": "2026-08-31T00:00:00.000Z",
  "dependency": {
    "index_version": "legal-2026-08-25+legal-2026-08-25+2026-08-25T10:00:00",
    "content_hash": "sha256:64e5a91433ee09d6b09ca25474345bdc742e49074c5459fb928d7182193827ec",
    "revalidate_after": "2026-08-30T07:12:28.526Z",
    "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600,
    "policy": "revalidate-required; live-fetch-per-answer; attribution-required; no-derived-index",
    "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency",
    "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify",
    "stale_copy_invalid": true
  },
  "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/mig-2007-31",
  "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering"
}