The applicant, PY, entered Lithuania with a work permit. Upon termination of the employment contract he remained in Lithuania illegally, without requesting the Migration Department the extension of the timeframe for return and, after a court decision he was detained by the State Border Guard Service in order to proceed with the expulsion procedures. After three months, while in detention, the third country national applied for asylum.

The Migration Department claimed the applicant aplied for asylum only to delay the expulsion and, in this context, a pre-trial investigation has been initiated against him. During the hearing the applicant claimed to have been accused of Salafism in the country of origin, which is considered illegal, and to have been linked to terrorist activities. Thus, he argued that it would be dangerous for him to be returned. Moreover, he asked for alternatives to detention to be applied in his case.

The court, after having assessed that the grounds for detention were satisfied, decided to detain the applicant until his return, due to the risk of absconding. 

The applicant appealed the decision before the regional court, claiming the lower court did not investigate the country of origin circumstances, having decided on the basis of administrative law without taking into consideration the asylum claim. The regional court, after having assessed the applicant's file, agreed on an alternative to detention.

The State Border Guard Service appealed the decision asking the Supreme Administrative Court to issue a detention order based on the applicant's risk of absconding.

The Supreme Administrative Court, having assessed the applicant's file, upheld the regional court decision to grant the applicant an alternative to detention in the alien centre without restriction of movement.