ECRE COUNTRY REPORT 2002: NORWAY

Transcription

1 ARRIVALS 1. Total number of individual asylum seekers who arrived, with monthly breakdown and percentage variation between years: Table 1: Month Variation +/-(%) January 483 1, February 502 1, March 557 1, April 619 1, May 776 1, June 1,111 1, July 1,862 1, August 2,211 1, September 2,022 1, October 1,702 1, November 1,440 1, December 1,497 1, TOTAL 14,782 17, Source: Directorate of Immigration (UDI) < Comments: The reasons behind the record number of asylum seekers may involve a general tightening of policies in neighbouring countries such as Denmark and Germany, reduced border control as a result of Norway s participation in the Schengen treaty, and the fact that new regulations for labour immigration have created the impression that Norway needs a greater number of immigrants. 2. Breakdown according to the country of origin/nationality, with percentage variation: Table 2: Country Variation +/-(%) FRY 928 2, Russian Federation 1,318 1, Iraq 1,056 1, Somalia 1,080 1, Bosnia-Herzegovina Afghanistan Ukraine 1, Algeria Iran Belarus Bulgaria Ethiopia Slovak Republic FYROM Georgia Eritrea Turkey Romania

2 Source: UDI. Pakistan Uzbekistan Mongolia Czech Republic Armenia Kyrgyzstan Azerbaijan Croatia 1, Nigeria Kazakhstan Libya Niger Sudan China Sri Lanka Cameroon Moldova Syria Lebanon Nepal Burundi Poland Israel Others 907 1, TOTAL 14,782 17, Persons arriving under family reunification procedure: 14,200 (2001: 12,095). These figures are not included under paragraphs 1 and 2 above. 4. Refugees arriving as part of a resettlement programme: Table 3: Source: UDI. Country of origin Iran Iraq Burundi 9 80 Liberia - 23 Others TOTAL 1,269 1, Unaccompanied minors: 894 (2001: 561). 180

3 RECOGNITION RATES 6. The statuses accorded at first instance and appeal stages as an absolute number and as a percentage of total decisions: Table 4: Status First instance First instance Appeal Number % Number % Number % No status awarded 8, , , Convention status Humanitarian basis 4, , TOTAL 13, , , Source: UDI and the Immigration Appeals Board (UNE) < Comments: Appeal statistics for 2001 are unavailable. Norway has a very strict practice when it comes to interpreting the term refugee. When one removes the asylum seekers who are regarded as having groundless applications, as well as Dublin cases, only 3-4% of asylum seekers are granted asylum. On the other hand, over 20% obtain protection on humanitarian grounds. The Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development requested a study of the grey zone between refugee status and subsidiary protection, which was published in June Its conclusions were based on a review of 300 cases between 1997 and early 2003, and below are found some of the findings of the study: "Review of the cases revealed the lack of a systematised approach when discussing persecution, in part based on the tendency to rely on past practice instead of developments within theory and practice of human rights and refugee law. First, there was limited reference to human rights instruments (although this appeared to improve in 2003). Second, recognition of human rights focused on jus cogens rights (of which no derogation is ever permitted), and there was limited cumulative analysis of human rights. Third, persecution committed by non-state actors was less likely to be recognised as forming a basis for recognition of asylum, and more likely to receive secondary status. Similarly, persecution occurring within the context of generalised violence or other conflict is often deemed not to merit asylum, but rather humanitarian protection. Fourth, another factor limiting the granting of asylum was the lack of recognition of mixed motives for persecution (for instance, criminal and persecutory reasons). Fifth, past persecution often resulted in a grant of humanitarian protection over asylum, regardless of potential evidence of the threat of future persecution or possible relevance for application of a compelling reasons exception. Sixth, the maintenance of a comparative standard which requires individuals to demonstrate that they are more at risk of persecution than others also renders recognition of asylum difficult. The notion of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment revealed gaps in application due to a lack of comprehensive guidelines and variable reliance on proffered evidence (including medical and psychiatric evidence). To some extent, it appeared that criteria for protection on account of compassionate grounds ( sterke menneskelige hensyn ) required less analysis than the grounds for legal protection, and hence may in part explain the preference for such protection over asylum. Reference to the protection categories contained within the 1951 Convention is narrow in scope: political opinion appears to be referred to most often over the other categories, however it is interpreted restrictively, and social group, which is considered to be a flexible category particularly applicable to vulnerable groups such as women, is applied in a limited manner. This renders difficult the establishment of a nexus to the persecution in order to grant asylum. The lack of harmonisation of burden of proof standards pertaining to asylum determination as opposed to non-refoulement analysis relevant for humanitarian protection, as well as maintenance of a high burden of proof, are among the primary reasons why subsidiary protection is given more often." 181

4 7. Refugee recognitions (1951 Convention: as an absolute number) according to country of origin: Table 5: Source: UDI and UNE. Country of origin FRY Russian Federation Iran Iraq Somalia 7 8 Afghanistan Others TOTAL RETURNS, REMOVALS, DETENTION AND DISMISSED CLAIMS 8. Persons returned on safe third country grounds: Figures unavailable. 9. Persons returned on safe country of origin grounds: Figures unavailable. 10. Number of applications determined inadmissible: 1,734 (2001: Figure unavailable). This figure includes applications withdrawn by asylum applicants. 11. Number of asylum seekers denied entry to the territory: 1,907 (2001: Figure unavailable). 12. Number of asylum seekers detained, the maximum length of and grounds for detention: Figures unavailable. 13. Deportations of rejected asylum seekers: Figures unavailable. 14. Details of assisted return programmes, and numbers of those returned: c.1,000 (2001: 1,001). 182

5 15. Dublin Convention practice comments: 15.1 Dublin Convention practice: Table 6: Total number of requests presented by Norway to other Dublin States Total number of requests addressed to Norway by other Dublin States Requests presented 4,976 1,058 % of requests in total number of applications Requests accepted 4, % of requests accepted in requests presented Requests refused % of requests refused in requests presented Requests under Article Source: UDI. Comments: All figures are preliminary, and may be subject to change. It is difficult to calculate accurate percentages of the total number of applicants, as although in ,480 asylum seekers came to Norway, some of the requests presented in 2002 referred to applications made in Despite this, the figure for overall arrivals in 2002 has been used here to give an indication of the proportions involved. The Directorate does not have separate statistics for Article 9 requests Requests by country: Table 7: Country Number of requests presented by Norway to other Dublin states Number of requests addressed to Norway by other Dublin states Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany 2, Greece Ireland 2 - Italy 86 2 Luxembourg 6 - Netherlands Portugal 13 0 Spain 51 2 Sweden United Kingdom 25 8 Source: UDI. Comments: All figures are preliminary, and may be subject to change. 183

6 SPECIFIC REFUGEE GROUPS 16. Developments regarding refugee groups of particular concern: The main rule in 2002 concerning Iraqis was that those from the Kurdish enclave were given negative decisions on their asylum applications, while Iraqis from the government areas were given humanitarian status. Afghans were mainly given residence permits on humanitarian grounds. LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL DEVELOPMENTS 17. New legislation passed: On 1 January 2002 several amendments to immigration legislation entered into force. The purpose of these was to make the handling of applications for work permits more efficient, particularly those for specialist and seasonal workers, and generally facilitate the recruitment of labour from non-eea countries: Specialists (skilled foreigners) may be granted a visa to seek employment in Norway; Specialists receiving an offer of employment whilst residing in Norway may apply for a work permit; The police may grant a temporary work permit, which is valid while the Directorate of Immigration processes the application; Work permits for specialists within an annual quota, currently fixed at 5,000 persons, are granted without individual screening of applications in relation to labour market needs; Some Norwegian Foreign Service Missions have been given the authority to grant work permits to specialists, where applications are clearly merited. 18. Changes in refugee determination procedure, appeal or deportation procedures: There were no significant changes in these procedures in Important case-law relating to the qualification for refugee status and other forms of protection: The Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development began drafting new legislation in The aim has been to draw up specific guidelines on how the refugee definition should be interpreted in Norwegian law. This will be the first time Norwegian legislation specifically defines core elements in the refugee definition, such as well-founded fear, persecution, for reasons of, as well as the five enumerated grounds in the 1951 Convention on Refugees, namely race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. 20. Developments in the use of the exclusion clauses of the Refugee Convention in the context of the national security debate: There were no significant developments in the use of the exclusion clauses in Developments regarding readmission and cooperation agreements: There were no significant developments regarding readmission and cooperation agreements in

7 THE SOCIAL DIMENSION 22. Changes in the reception system: There were no significant changes in the reception system in Changes in the social welfare policy relevant to refugees: There were no significant changes in the social welfare policy relevant to refugees in Changes in policy relating to refugee integration: There were no significant changes in policy relating to refugee integration in Changes in family reunion policy: Norwegian authorities have reiterated the necessity of being able to support one's family prior to granting family reunification in Norway, for those who are given a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. However, residence permits are usually given after three years, even to those without the ability to support family members. OTHER POLICY DEVELOPMENTS 26. Developments in resettlement policy: Parliament decided that from the year 2003 Norway was to half the quota of refugees, to be justified based upon the rising costs associated with the significant increase in asylum seekers. The quota for refugees is set at 750 persons for 2003, reduced from 1,500 in Developments in return policy: Due to the limited resources available to the police for deporting asylum seekers, the UDI established a programme for voluntary return in cooperation with the IOM. Approximately 1,000 people of fiftyeight nationalities were returned under this programme in Developments in border control measures: There were no significant developments in border control measures in Other developments in refugee policy: There were no other significant developments in refugee policy. POLITICAL CONTEXT 30. Government in power during 2002: A coalition government consisting of the Conservatives (Høyre), the Christian People s Party (Kristelig Folkeparti) and the Liberal Party (Venstre) was in power throughout The Prime Minister was of the Christian Democrat Party (KrF). 185

8 31. Governmental policy vis-à-vis EU developments: No information was provided. 32. Asylum in the national political agenda: The public has, according to some opinion polls, become more critical towards immigration. The Government s desire to appear strict resulted in a campaign directed towards eastern European countries, with the aim of reducing the large numbers of - presumed unfounded - asylum seekers arriving in Norway. Asylum lawyers accepting so many clients as to compromise their ability to represent each of them adequately resulted in a media scandal. Another news-breaking story involved a lawyer being caught selling false stories to asylum seekers in order to use in official statements. As a result, Parliament reduced the free legal advice available from a total of eight hours to six hours, including that available during both the main process and appeal. At the same time they ordered an evaluation of the system of free legal aid to asylum seekers, and started an information project for newly arriving asylum seekers. Another change was the fifteen month rule, which stated that if the authorities took more than fifteen months to make a decision on an asylum case, the individual would automatically receive a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. In 2002, this rule was altered in order to apply only in cases where the asylum seeker s identity is confirmed with a valid passport. 186