FRAN Quarterly. Quarter 4 October December 2013 Q3 Q4

Transcription

1 FRAN Quarterly Quarter 4 October December 2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2

3 FRAN Quarterly Quarter 4 October December of 26

4 Frontex official publications fall into four main categories: risk analysis, training, operations and research, each marked with a distinct graphic identifier. Risk analysis publications bear a triangular symbol formed by an arrow drawing a triangle, with a dot at the centre. Metaphorically, the arrow represents the cyclical nature of risk analysis processes and its orientation towards an appropriate operational response. The triangle is a symbol of ideal proportions and knowledge, reflecting the pursuit of factual exactness, truth and exhaustive analysis. The dot at the centre represents the intelligence factor and the focal point where information from diverse sources converges to be processed, systematised and shared as analytical products. Thus, Frontex risk analysis is meant to be at the centre and to form a reliable basis for its operational activities. European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union Rondo ONZ Warsaw, Poland T F frontex@frontex.europa.eu Warsaw, April 2014 Risk Analysis Unit Frontex reference number: 4778/2014 OPOCE Catalogue number: TT-AF EN-N ISBN ISSN DOI /33607 DISCLAIMERS This is a Frontex staff working document. This publication or its contents do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of Frontex concerning the legal status of any country, territory or city or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. All maps and charts included in this report are the sole property of Frontex and any unauthorised use is prohibited. Frontex disclaims any liability with respect to the boundaries, names and designations used on the maps. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The FRAN Quarterly has been prepared by the Frontex Risk Analysis Unit. During the course of developing this product, many colleagues at Frontex and outside contributed to it and their assistance is hereby acknowledged with gratitude. 2 of 26

5 Table of contents Executive summary #5 1. Introduction #7 2. Methodology #8 3. Summary of FRAN indicators #10 4. Statistical annex #12 3 of 26

6 Frontex FRAN Quarterly q List of abbreviations used BCP CIRCA CIREFI EDF-RAN EPN EU FRAN border-crossing point Communication and Information Resource Centre Administrator Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the Crossing of Frontiers and Immigration European Union Document-Fraud Risk Analysis Network European Patrols Network European Union Frontex Risk Analysis Network FYR Macedonia former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ICJ International Court of Justice ICONet Information and Coordination Network for Member States Migration Management Services ID identity document IOM International Organization for Migration ISO International Organization for Standardization JO Joint Operation MS Member State n.a. not applicable Q/Qtr quarter of the year RAU Frontex Risk Analysis Unit SAC Schengen Associated Country SIS Schengen Information System UK United Kingdom UNSCR United Nations Security Council Resolution USA United States of America 4 of 26

7 Executive summary The fourth quarter of 2013 was characterised by the highest number of detections of illegal border-crossing of all fourth quarters since Specifically, the number of detections in the Central Mediterranean was more than four times higher than in Q However, as in most previous years, detections on this route decreased between Q3 and Q4 due to the onset of the winter season rendering sea crossing more difficult. In a tragic accident on 3 October 2013, more than 360 migrants died when a wooden boat capsized near Lampedusa. The tragedy took place when migrants lit a fire to draw the attention of nearby vessels after the satellite telephone provided by the facilitation network had failed to work. The fire got out of control and panic erupted onboard. A search-and-rescue operation initiated by an emergency call of a nearby fishing boat mobilised all maritime on-duty assets in the region. Emergency services managed to rescue 158 migrants, but the remaining passengers, mostly Somalis and Eritreans, died during the accident. According to the investigations, the country of embarkation of the migrant boat was Libya. A Tunisian national, the alleged captain of the boat, was later arrested by the Italian police. The accident did not deter other migrants staying in Northern Africa to set sail to the EU, as in October, the number of migrants from sub-saharan Africa detected in the Central Mediterranean remained comparable to the level in September. After a temporary decrease in November 2013, figures in December were again substantially higher than usually during the winter season, although weather and sea conditions in the Central Mediterranean were not encouraging to cross on that route. According to reports, deteriorating living conditions particularly in Libya acted as a pull factor for migration to Italy. The majority of African irregular migrants detected along the Central Mediterranean route were Eritreans. A relatively new phenomenon is the growing presence of Gambian irregular migrants, detections of whom increased for the sixth consecutive quarter and exceeded in Q4 2013, while back in Q there had been no Gambians detected in the Central Mediterranean. Many of the nationalities detected in the Central Mediterranean in Q were subsequently also detected on intra-schengen flights leaving Italy towards northern Europe, most commonly on the route from Malpensa to Copenhagen. The most commonly detected nationalities included migrants from Eritrea, Somalia and Syria, many of whom then submitted asylum claims in Sweden. In comparison to last winter, Syrians had also significant impact on the situation on the Central Mediterranean route. The number of Syrians escaping the armed conflict in their country and detected on this route grew from just 96 in the last quarter of 2012 to a massive a year later, thus closely following Eritreans as the most detected nationality in the Central Mediterranean. Migrant interviews conducted during the JO Hermes suggest that the increasing pressure on Syrian refugees in Egypt may prompt them to consider departure from the country via Libya to Europe. Overall, Syrians were the most commonly detected nationality, both at the sea and land border of the EU. With over detections, the largest share of Syrians illegally crossing the EU external border was reported between Turkey and Bulgaria. This section of the green border has not only seen four consecutive increases since Q4 2012, but also the largest rise in absolute numbers. Simultaneously, Syrian migrants represented the highest share of persons detected for illegal stay and clandestine entry. Moreover, Syrians showed to be the largest group 5 of 26

8 Frontex FRAN Quarterly q among migrants submitting asylum applications in the EU. The armed conflict in Syria has for example resulted in Bulgaria increasingly becoming a destination country. Since Q overall applications in Bulgaria have increased fivefold, and over three-quarters of all applications made there in Q were submitted by Syrians. Hence, except for a few seasonal short-term variations, all indicators have been showing a clear upward trend since 2011 and made Syrians the most commonly reported nationality regarding irregular migration to the EU. Overall number of asylum applications was steadily increasing throughout 2013, reaching almost in the final quarter of the year, which was the highest number since the FRAN data collection began. Remarkable in this regard is a growing concentration of applications submitted by some of the most represented nationalities: if the asylum seekers from Syria and the Horn of Africa were excluded, the numbers in Q would be lower both in comparison to the previous year and to the previous quarter. 2012, numbers of asylum seekers from Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro decreased by almost 10%, with Serbian nationals alone submitting over 500 fewer applications. On the other hand, asylum applications submitted by nationals of Albania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia grew by 76% and 20%, respectively. Since 2009, a rising share of asylum seekers from the Western Balkans has been choosing Germany as a host country. While in 2010 a third of the visa-free nationals targeted Germany, during the reference period more than three-quarters submitted their asylum application in that country. This is particularly true for asylum seekers from Serbia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, of whom 86% and 91%, respectively, sought international protection in Germany in Q There was a general increase in the share of applications received by the current top asylum destinations. The proportion of EU overall asylum applications registered by Germany, Sweden and the UK grew from 35% in Q to 60% in Q * This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence. Of all nationalities in the Horn of Africa, Eritreans had the largest effect on the total number and the percentage increase of asylum applications. In the fourth quarter of 2013, the number of Eritreans applying for asylum reached a record number of more than applicants. Moreover, Member States reported a 14% increase in Somali asylum applicants in comparison to Q Western Balkan nationals seeking international protection in the EU showed a diverse picture in Q4 2013: with applicants, the total number of asylum seekers from the Western Balkans (excluding Kosovo*) has been the highest since the introduction of visa-free travel in December 2009 and In some countries, however, the measures introduced to discourage people from abusing the receiving countries asylum systems appear to have been effective. Compared to Q4 In addition, while most Albanian asylum seekers choose Germany as a destination country, Greece was the country reporting the largest number of Albanians staying illegally. Also detections of illegal border-crossing at the Greek land border with Albania increased by a third compared to the previous quarter, although the situation improved in December Since they were granted visa-free access to the Schengen area, Albanians have also been increasingly detected using fraudulent documents (counterfeit border-crossing stamps) in two distinct contexts: to fabricate travel histories for multiple and extended stays in Greece, and to enter the UK from the Schengen area. In both cases their detections steadily decreased in 2013, including the final quarter of the year, although Albanians are still among the most commonly detected nationalities using document fraud to travel to and within the EU. 6 of 26

9 1. Introduction FRAN Quarterly reports are prepared by the Frontex Risk Analysis Unit and provide a regular overview of irregular migration at the EU external borders, based on the irregularmigration data exchanged among Member State border-control authorities within the cooperative framework of the Frontex Risk Analysis Network (FRAN) and its subsidiary, the European Union Document-Fraud Risk Analysis Network (EDF-RAN). The main purpose of the FRAN Quarterlies is to provide: 1. feedback to the FRAN community in the context of information exchange; 2. a periodic update to the situational picture of irregular migration at the EU level; and 3. material for constructive discussion on reporting protocols and related trends and patterns. This report is intended to simultaneously serve two objectives: first, to provide a clear summary of the situation at the external border of the EU, and second, to serve as an archive for future reference and comparative analyses. Consistent with standard archival techniques, some information is repeated among sections to serve as context. Harmonising complex, multi-source migration data among Frontex and Member States is an ongoing process. Therefore, some of the more detailed data and trends in this report should be interpreted with caution and, where possible, cross-referenced with information from other sources. The statistics should be understood in the context of the different levels of passenger flows passing through different border sections, the activities undertaken by Member State border-control authorities to secure different border sections, and widespread variation in reporting and data-collection practices. FRAN members, Member State risk analysis experts and border-control authorities are considered the primary customers of these reports. In addition to the discussions taking place during FRAN meetings, Member State experts are invited and actively encouraged to examine and comment upon the data and analyses presented here. Despite all efforts of the Frontex Risk Analysis Unit and Member State experts involved in data exchange and analyses, it is conceivable that minor errors will occur in these reports due to very challenging timelines, and the growing volume and complexity of data and other information exchanged within the FRAN community. Due to the simultaneous release of the Annual Risk Analysis 2014 presenting a comprehensive analysis of the situation in the whole of 2013, the current FRAN Quarterly (Q4 2013) is a short issue containing the statistics and only a general overview of the developments in the reviewed period (see Executive summary). 7 of 26

10 Frontex FRAN Quarterly q Methodology This, the 22 nd issue of the FRAN Quarterly, is a comparative analysis of FRAN data collected between October and December 2013, and exchanged between 30 Member State border-control authorities within the framework of the FRAN. The report presents the results of statistical analysis of quarterly variations in eight irregular-migration indicators and one asylum indicator, aggregated at the level of the event. Bi-monthly analytical reports exchanged by Member States were also used for interpretative purposes and to provide qualitative information, as were other available sources of information, such as Frontex Joint Operations. Precise definitions of Indicators 1 to 6, aimed at harmonising the data exchanged at EU level, were presented in the annexes of the Q1 and Q2 reports in 2009 and so are not repeated here. Monthly data on the following indicators were exchanged among the FRAN community: 1A detections of illegal border-crossing between BCPs 1B detections of illegal border-crossing at BCPs 2 detections of suspected facilitators 3 detections of illegal stay 4 refusals of entry 5 asylum applications 6 document fraud (EDF-RAN) 7A return decisions for illegally staying third-country nationals 7B effective returns of illegally staying third-country nationals FRAN and EDF-RAN data used in the tables are as of 10 February 2014 During the June 2010 FRAN Meeting, a proposal for a harmonised definition of the return indicator was outlined and several questions were presented in order to motivate discussion among FRAN members in view of establishing the regular collection of monthly return data by Frontex. Subsequently, an online survey of FRAN members was conducted to gather information and further motivate discussion to fine-tune the proposal for the indicator. The 11 th FRAN report (Q1 2011) was the first to include analysis of Indicators 7A and 7B, and the definitions of these indicators are included in an annex to that report. Data collection commenced in January The FRAN data-exchange has been in place since September Data are exchanged through the ICONet Internet platform, an interest group of the European Commission s CIRCA server. Member State monthly data are based on a country template prepared by the Frontex Risk Analysis Unit. The deadline for submitting data for each month is the 25 th day of the subsequent month, with the exception of the end of year data, which are requested by 15 January each year. For this 22 nd issue of the FRAN Quarterly, the target for Member States to upload the monthly data was thus 15 January In principle, data submitted subsequent to this date will be reflected in the next FRAN Quarterly, except in cases where clarification is needed in order to proceed with comprehensive analysis. Following the closure of the CIREFI working group in April 2010, most of its mandates and, of particular relevance, the exchange of data were transferred to the FRAN. Fortunately, most CIREFI indicators already overlapped with the monthly data exchange of FRAN members. The exception was the indicator on returns, which was added as part of the regular data exchange within the FRAN at the beginning of of 26

11 In January 2012, the European Union Document-Fraud Risk Analysis Network (EDF- RAN) was formed as a specialist forum to oversee the exchange and analyses of detections of document fraud to illegally cross the external borders, and on all international flights. Data were backdated and joined with those exchanged under a pilot Tailored Risk Analysis released in The EDF-RAN data are checked for inconsistencies, and corrections are made to reported totals to bring them in line with reported breakdowns. Corrections are also made to any three-letter nationality codes not present in the reference ISO list of nationality codes.* External borders refer to the borders between Member States and third countries. The borders between the Schengen Associated Countries (Norway, Iceland and Switzerland) and third countries are also considered as external borders. The borders between the Schengen Associated Countries and Schengen Member States are considered as internal borders. For the indicators on detections of facilitators, illegal stay and asylum, statistics are also reported for detections at the land borders between the Schengen Member States and Schengen candidates (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia and Romania) or non-schengen Member States (the UK, Ireland), so that a total for EU Member States and Schengen Associated Countries as a whole can be presented. It was not possible to make this distinction for air and sea borders because Member States do not habitually differentiate between extra-eu and intra-eu air and sea connections but tend to aggregate data for all arrivals. When data are examined at the level of thirdcountry nationalities, a large percentage usually falls under the category Other (not specified) or Unknown. It is expected that the percentage reported under these categories will decrease with time as Member States improve the quality and speed of their identification, data collection and reporting practices; nationalities are often reported as Unknown if an individual s nationality cannot be established before reports are submitted. This issue of the FRAN Quarterly also includes main findings of Frontex-coordinated Joint Operations active for at least a proportion of Q Namely, for sea borders they were JO Poseidon Sea 2013, Focal Points Sea 2013, JO EPN Hermes 2013, JO EPN Indalo 2013, JO EPN Aeneas 2013 and JO EPN Hera 2013; for land borders JO Poseidon Land 2013, JO Focal Points Land 2013, Project Coordination Points 2013 and JO Jupiter 2013; for the air border JO Focal Points Air 2013; and the return-related Project Attica Acknowledgements The Frontex Risk Analysis Unit would like to express its gratitude to all FRAN and EDF-RAN members and their associates in Member State statistical, migration and document-fraud units who collect, aggregate and exchange monthly data, and to the analysts who compile the bi-monthly analytical reports, on which many of the detailed analyses presented here are based. We are also grateful to Member State representatives who responded to requests for additional information on key topics and emerging trends. * 9 of 26

12 Frontex FRAN Quarterly q Summary of FRAN indicators Table 1. Summary of FRAN indicators Detections or cases as reported by Member States Q4 FRAN indicator Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 % change on year ago prev. Qtr 1A Illegal entries between BCPs B Clandestine entries at BCPs Facilitators Illegal stay Refusals of entry Applications for asylum A Return decisions issued B Effective returns Source: FRAN data as of 10 February of 26

13 Figure 1. Evolution of FRAN indicators Detections reported by Member States, thousands of persons Line sections in lighter blue mark changes between third and fourth quarters 1A Illegal entries between BCPs 2 Facilitators Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q Illegal stay 38 4 Refusals of entry Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q Applications for asylum 7B Effective returns Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q Source: FRAN data as of 10 February of 26

14 Frontex FRAN Quarterly q Statistical annex Legend Symbols and abbreviations: n.a. not applicable : data not available Source: FRAN and EDF-RAN data as of 10 February 2014, unless otherwise indicated Note: Member States in the tables refer to FRAN Member States, including both 28 EU Member States and three Schengen Associated Countries 12 of 26

15 Annex Table 1. Illegal border-crossing between BCPs Detections at the external borders reported by border type and nationality 2013 Q % change on Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 year ago prev. Qtr per cent of total All Borders Syria Afghanistan Albania Eritrea Gambia Palestine Not specified Nigeria Mali Senegal Others Total All Borders Land Borders Syria Afghanistan Albania Not specified Algeria Kosovo* Pakistan Palestine Somalia Mali Others Total Land Border Sea Borders Syria Eritrea Gambia Afghanistan Nigeria Palestine Mali Senegal Somalia Egypt Others Total Sea Border * This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence. 13 of 26

16 Frontex FRAN Quarterly q Annex Table 2. Clandestine entries at BCPs Detections reported by border type and top ten nationalities Border Type 2013 Q % change on Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 year ago prev. Qtr per cent of total Land Sea Top Ten Nationalities Syria Afghanistan Israel n.a. n.a. 9.1 Pakistan n.a. 5.9 Morocco Turkey Algeria Guinea n.a. 1.4 Kosovo* n.a Myanmar n.a. n.a. 0.9 Others Total * This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence. Annex Table 3. Facilitators Detections reported by place of detection and top ten nationalities 2013 Q % change on per cent Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 year ago prev. Qtr of total Place of Detection Inland Land Intra-EU Land Sea Air Not specified Top Ten Nationalities Not specified China Italy Morocco Egypt Bulgaria Pakistan Spain Albania France Others Total of 26

17 Annex Table 4. Illegal stay Detections reported by place of detection and top ten nationalities Place of detection 2013 Q % change on per cent Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 year ago prev. Qtr of total Inland Air Land Land Intra-EU Sea Between BCPs Top Ten Nationalities Syria Morocco Not specified Albania Afghanistan Algeria Eritrea Ukraine Russian Federation Pakistan Others Total of 26

18 Frontex FRAN Quarterly q Annex Table 5. Refusals of entry Refusals reported by border type and nationality at the external borders All Borders 2013 Q % change on Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 year ago prev. Qtr per cent of total Ukraine Russian Federation Albania Serbia Georgia Belarus Morocco Bosnia and Herzegovina Turkey Brazil Others Total All Borders Land Borders Ukraine Russian Federation Serbia Georgia Albania Belarus Bosnia and Herzegovina Morocco Armenia FYR Macedonia Others Total Land Border Air Borders Albania Brazil Algeria Not specified USA Nigeria Russian Federation Venezuela Turkey Ukraine Others Total Air Border Sea Borders Albania Morocco Philippines Turkey Not specified Tunisia Russian Federation India Ukraine Kiribati Others Total Sea Border of 26

19 Annex Table 6. Refusals of entry Refusals of entry at the external borders reported by reasons for refusal and top ten nationalities Top Ten Nationalities Refused persons Total 2013 Q3 Reasons for refusals of entry (see description below) Total Reasons A B C D E F G H I n.a. Ukraine Russian Federation Albania Serbia Georgia Belarus Morocco Bosnia and Herzegovina Turkey Brazil Others Total Descriptions of the reasons for refusal of entry: A has no valid travel document(s); B has a false/counterfeit/forged travel document; C has no valid visa or residence permit; D has a false/counterfeit/forged visa or residence permit; E has no appropriate documentation justifying the purpose and conditions of stay; F has already stayed for three months during a six months period on the territory of the Member States of the EU; G does not have sufficient means of subsistence in relation to the period and form of stay, or the means to return to the country of origin or transit; H is a person for whom an alert has been issued for the purposes of refusing entry in the SIS or in the national register; I is considered to be a threat for public policy, internal security, public health or the international relations of one or more Member States of the EU. 17 of 26

20 Frontex FRAN Quarterly q Annex Table 7. Refusals of entry Refusals of entry at the external borders by reasons for refusal All Borders 2013 Q % change on Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 year ago prev. Qtr per cent of total C) No valid visa E) No justification Reason not available G) No subsistence H) Alert issued A) No valid document F) Over 3 month stay B) False document D) False visa I) Threat Total All Borders Land Borders C) No valid visa E) No justification G) No subsistence F) Over 3 month stay H) Alert issued A) No valid document I) Threat Reason not available n.a D) False visa B) False document Total Land Border Air Borders E) No justification Reason not available C) No valid visa G) No subsistence A) No valid document H) Alert issued B) False document D) False visa F) Over 3 month stay I) Threat Total Air Border Sea Borders H) Alert issued E) No justification C) No valid visa A) No valid document Reason not available G) No subsistence F) Over 3 month stay I) Threat D) False visa B) False document Total Sea Border of 26

21 Annex Table 8. Applications for asylum Applications for international protection reported by top ten nationalities 2013 Q % change on Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 year ago prev. Qtr per cent of total Top Ten Nationalities Syria Afghanistan Eritrea Not specified Serbia Somalia Russian Federation Pakistan Iran FYR Macedonia Others Total Note: For France, only asylum applications at the external borders are reported, not inland applications. 19 of 26

22 Frontex FRAN Quarterly q Annex Table 9. Document fraud Fraudulent documents detected at BCPs reported by border type and top ten nationalities Border Type 2013 Q % change on Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 year ago prev. Qtr per cent of total Air Land Sea Not specified Top Ten Nationalities Claimed Syria Unknown Albania Morocco Nigeria Ukraine Iran Senegal Pakistan Algeria Others Total of 26

23 Annex Table 10. Document fraud False documents detected at BCPs reported by type of document and type of fraud Document Type 2013 Q % change on Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 year ago prev. Qtr per cent of total Highest share Nationality of Document Passports France (10%) Forged Algeria (8.5%) Authentic France (14%) Counterfeit Turkey (39%) No more details France (16%) Stolen blank Germany (47%) Pseudo n.a. 0.1 Unknown (100%) ID cards Spain (22%) Authentic Spain (48%) Counterfeit Italy (20%) Forged Italy (48%) Stolen blank Italy (74%) No more details Belgium (24%) Pseudo n.a. n.a. 0 Italy (100%) Visas France (30%) Counterfeit France (40%) Authentic Poland (56%) Forged Italy (50%) No more details France (23%) Stolen blank Greece (86%) Residence permits Greece (29%) Counterfeit Spain (27%) Authentic Spain (32%) Stolen blank Greece (84%) Forged Greece (60%) No more details France (24%) Pseudo n.a n.a. Stamps Greece (46%) Counterfeit Greece (52%) Forged Italy (38%) No more details Greece (50%) Other Italy (55%) Counterfeit Italy (36%) Authentic Italy (100%) Forged Italy (75%) Pseudo n.a. 6.9 Unknown (50%) Stolen blank n.a Italy (100%) No more details n.a n.a. Total of 26

24 Frontex FRAN Quarterly q Annex Table 11A. Document fraud Top ten combinations of nationality of document and document fraud by document type 2013 Q % change on Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 year ago prev. Qtr per cent of total Highest share Document Type Nationality Claimed Passports Syria (22%) TUR-Counterfeit Syria (89%) FRA-Authentic France (26%) DZA-Forged Syria (44%) SWE-Authentic Syria (64%) FRA-Forged Morocco (30%) ALB-Forged Albania (60%) MLI-Authentic Not specified (79%) GBR-Forged Afghanistan (50%) SYR-Forged Syria (96%) ESP-Authentic Morocco (69%) Others Not specified (18%) ID cards Morocco (27%) ESP-Authentic Morocco (92%) ITA-Forged Albania (74%) ITA-Counterfeit Albania (19%) GRC-Counterfeit Albania (52%) FRA-Authentic Algeria (32%) ITA-Stolen blank Syria (45%) BGR-Counterfeit Syria (50%) BEL-Authentic Morocco (50%) BEL-Counterfeit Morocco (43%) ESP-Forged Morocco (100%) Others Syria (23%) Visas Nigeria (15%) FRA-Counterfeit Sri Lanka (18%) POL-Authentic 57 n.a. n.a. 16 Ukraine (40%) DEU-Counterfeit Syria (39%) ITA-Forged Bangladesh (61%) FRA-Authentic Nigeria (73%) ITA-Counterfeit Sri Lanka (24%) ESP-Counterfeit Nigeria (25%) PRT-Counterfeit Nigeria (75%) ITA-Authentic Bangladesh (55%) FRA-Forged Guinea (22%) Others Nigeria (11%) Total: see Annex Table 11B 22 of 26

25 Annex Table 11B. Document fraud Top ten combinations of nationality of document and document fraud by document type 2013 Q % change on Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 year ago prev. Qtr per cent of total Highest share Document Type Nationality Claimed Residence permits Not specified (14%) GRC-Stolen blank Syria (39%) ESP-Counterfeit Morocco (45%) GRC-Forged Egypt (32%) ITA-Counterfeit Morocco (23%) ESP-Authentic Morocco (35%) GRC-Counterfeit Georgia (38%) FRA-Authentic Not specified (50%) BEL-Counterfeit Morocco (27%) FRA-Counterfeit Cameroon (33%) ITA-Authentic Senegal (54%) Others Not specified (17%) Stamps Albania (45%) GRC-Counterfeit Albania (92%) SVK-Counterfeit Ukraine (100%) POL-Counterfeit Ukraine (95%) ITA-Forged Bangladesh (79%) ITA-Counterfeit Russian Federation (21%) FRA-Counterfeit Syria (20%) ESP-Counterfeit Dominican Republic (29%) BEL-Counterfeit Albania (17%) DEU-Counterfeit Iran (33%) HUN-Counterfeit Bosnia and Herzegovina (40%) Others Albania (15%) Other Bangladesh (34%) ITA-Authentic Bangladesh (100%) ITA-Counterfeit Tunisia (42%) BGR-Counterfeit Romania (43%) FRA-Counterfeit Romania (60%) CRI-Counterfeit n.a. n.a. 5.2 Dominican Republic (67%) UKR-Counterfeit n.a. n.a. 5.2 Ukraine (67%) ITA-Forged Ghana (33%) UNK-Pseudo n.a. 3.4 Ukraine (100%) MDV-Pseudo n.a. n.a. 1.7 Romania (100%) N.A.-Pseudo n.a. n.a. 1.7 Russian Federation (100%) Others Egypt (20%) Total of 26

26 Frontex FRAN Quarterly q Annex Table 12. Return decisions issued Decisions issued by top ten nationalities 2013 Q % change on Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 year ago prev. Qtr per cent of total Top Ten Nationalities Syria Albania Pakistan Morocco India Russian Federation Ukraine Afghanistan Algeria Nigeria Others Total Annex Table 13. Effective returns Decisions issued by top ten nationalities 2013 Q % change on Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 year ago prev. Qtr per cent of total Top Ten Nationalities Albania Pakistan Russian Federation India Ukraine Morocco Serbia Nigeria Kosovo* Bangladesh Others Total * This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence 24 of 26

27 Annex Table 14. Effective returns by type of return People effectively returned to third countries by to type of return and top ten nationalities 2013 Q % change on Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 year ago prev. Qtr per cent of total Type of Return Forced Enforced by Member State Not specified Enforced by Joint Operation Voluntary Others IOM-assisted Not specified Not specified Total Top Ten Nationalities Forced Albania Pakistan Serbia Bangladesh Tunisia Morocco Nigeria Algeria India Kosovo* Others Total Forced Returns Voluntary Russian Federation Ukraine India Pakistan Kosovo* China Serbia Nigeria Bangladesh Albania Others Total Voluntary Returns * This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence. 25 of 26

28 Frontex FRAN Quarterly q Sources and Methods For the data concerning detections at the external borders, some of the border types are not applicable to all FRAN Member States. This pertains to data on all FRAN indicators since the data are provided disaggregated by border type. The definitions of detections at land borders are therefore not applicable (excluding borders with non-schengen principalities) for Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. For Cyprus, the land border refers to the Green Line demarcation with the area not under the effective control of the government of the Republic of Cyprus. For sea borders, the definitions are not applicable for land-locked Member States including Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg, Slovakia and Switzerland. In addition, data on detections of illegal border-crossing at land, air and sea BCPs (1B) are not available for Iceland, Ireland and Spain and in Greece (these detections are included in the data for Indicator 1A). Data for Norway only includes detections of illegal border-crossing at land and sea BCPs (1B), not between BCPs (1A). In Italy, detections of illegal border-crossing at sea BCPs are only reported for intra-eu border-crossing from Greece. Data on detections of illegal border-crossing between sea BCPs (1A) are not available for Ireland. Data on apprehension (FRAN Indicator 2) of facilitators is not available for Ireland. For Italy, the data are not disaggregated by border type, but are reported as total apprehensions (not specified). Data for Italy and Norway also include the facilitation of illegal stay and work. For Romania, the data include land intra-eu detections on exit at the border with Hungary. For the data concerning detections of illegal stay (FRAN Indicator 3), data on detections at exit are not available for Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Spain and the UK. Data on refusals of entry (FRAN Indicator 4) at the external EU borders are not disaggregated by reason of refusal for Ireland and the UK. Refusals of entry at the Spanish land borders at Ceuta and Melilla (without the issuance of a refusal form) are reported separately and are not included in the presented FRAN data. The data on applications for international protection (FRAN Indicator 5) are not disaggregated by place of application (type of border on entry or inland applications) for Austria, the Czech Republic and Slovenia. For these countries, only the total number of applications is reported. For France, only asylum applications at the external borders are reported, not inland applications. For the UK, data reported for applications at air BCPs also include applications at sea BCPs. The data on return decisions issued (FRAN Indicator 7A) are not available for Ireland, France, The Netherlands and Sweden. The data on effective returns (FRAN Indicator 7B) are not available for Ireland. In addition, the data of effective returns are not disaggregated by return operation (voluntary and forced) for Spain. The data on voluntary effective returns (FRAN Indicator 7A) are not disaggregated by type of return operation (IOM-assisted and others) for Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland and the Netherlands. The data on forced effective returns (FRAN Indicator 7A) are not disaggregated by type of return operation (enforced by Member Stated and by Joint Operations) for Belgium, Finland, Iceland and the Netherlands. 26 of 26