• About

ulimuc

~ today's political prisoner might be tomorrow's refugee

ulimuc

Category Archives: NORWAY

Iranian Christian Converts Risk Deportation from Europe

08 Wednesday Oct 2014

Posted by ulimuc in deportation, Dublin II - Dublin III, Europe, GERMANY, IRAN, NORWAY, REFUGEES ASYL

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

abschiebung, asyl, asylum, asylum seekers, christian convert, deportasjon, deportation, dublin II, dublin III, europa, europe, expulsion, iran, kristen konvertitt, NOAS, Norge, norway, UDI UNE, UNE, متفاضی پناهندگی, مسیحی, نروژ, پناهنده, ایران, اخراج از کشور, اروپا, بخشنامه, تبعید, دوبلین

Iranian Christian Converts at Risk of being Deported to Iran from Europe

their stories in short:

Fantoft Stave Church - Norge -

Fantoft Stave Church – Norge –

the Iranian Christian Convert claims asylum in Norway

his application for asylum often becomes denied  based on “The Country of Origin Information Centre (Landinfo)”   by Norway’s authorities:

Norwegian Directorate of Immigration (Utlendingsdirektoratet – UDI) and the Norway’s Immigration Appeals Board (Utlendingsnemnda – UNE ) UNE –

اینجا محکمه اتباع خارجی است.

he then receives the utvisningsvedtak (letter saying he has to leave Norway),  if he doesn’t leave within the mentioned period, he will be forcibly deported

so he flees to Germany, as Germany is known to provide asylum for Iranian Christian converts (GERMANY- asylum granted for Iranian convert to Christianity)

but then, due to Dublin III regulations, (safe first country in Europe) Germany deports this asylum seeker back to Norway … from where he will be deported to Iran

*****

some basic info:

NOAS (Norwegian Oranisation for Asylum Seekers)

in June 2014 published a detailed 45 pages dossier, available in norwegian only

Tro, håp og forfølgelse / Faith, Hope and Persecution / Glaube, Hoffnung und Verfolgung

and some reports:

May 2014 – Noas bekymret for tvangsreturer til Iran

June 2014 – Kristne konvertitter returneres til forfølgelse i Iran


contact details for NOAS :
phone + 47 22 365660; noas@noas.org; Torggata 22, NO-0183 Oslo
******

*****

Dublin-Verordnung

Die sogenannte Dublin-Verordnung (aktuell: “Dublin III”, VO 604/2013 vom 26. Juni 2013) ist eine europarechtliche Verordnung. Sie legt Regelungen zur Bestimmung des Mitgliedstaates fest, der für die Durchführung eines Asylverfahrens zuständig ist.

Dublin III-Verordnung

Verordnung 604/2013 vom 26.6.2013 (Abl. L 180/31 vom 29.6.2013)

Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 118/2014 der Kommission vom 30. Januar 2014 (Abl. L 38/1 vom 8.2.2014)

via Informationsverbund Asyl und Migration

European Country Deports to Torture in Iran

16 Thursday May 2013

Posted by ulimuc in deportation, Europe, IRAN, NORWAY, PRISONERS in IRAN, REFUGEES ASYL

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

asylum, asylum denied, deportation, deported, evin, Humanrights, iran, kurdish, mahmood amiry-moghaddam, Norge, norway, prisoner, Rahim Rostami, refugee, torture, ناروی, پناهنده, اوین, ایران, اخراج از کشور, رحیم رستمی

Rahim Rostami: Historien som har opprørt meg mest

(scroll down for English)

Rahim Rostami

Rahim Rostami
before deportation
in Norway

Posted on 15/05/2013 by Claudia Reppen

Siden jeg startet denne bloggen, har det vært mange historier som har rystet meg.  Men det er én historie til en ung kurdisk gutt som jeg aldri har glemt og som jeg har tenkt på mange ganger siden jeg først blogget om ham.  Saken er så grov og så alvorlig at det er muligens den historien som har opprørt meg mest siden jeg startet denne bloggen.

Rahim Rostami kom til Norge fra Iran som enslig mindreårig asylsøker.  Historien om hvordan han fikk avslag på asylsøknaden — til tross for en dødsdom i et land som er notorisk for henrettelser av mange, bl. a. mindreårige — og ble overlevert til iranske myndigheter av norsk politi var sjokkerende for mange.  Protester fra norske og internasjonale aktivister ble møtt av stillhet og «ingen kommentar» fra Utlendingsnemnda.  Og da ble saken stort sett glemt av alle, unntatt aktivister og venner i Norge som har vært fryktelig urolige for skjebnen som ventet Rahim.

Etter et par års stillhet, har vi nå fått livtegn fra Rahim, som i dag vitnet via Skype på Tribunal over norsk asylpolitikk i Oslo.  På grunn av det som han har vært gjennom, tør han ikke å si hvilket land han nå befinner seg i.  Ikke verdensdel engang.  Han lever fortsatt i skjul og er forståelig både fysisk og psykisk sterkt preget av hendelsene de siste årene.

Jeg føler også at jeg også har blitt preget av det som har skjedd med Rahim.  Jeg kjenner at jeg har blitt mer kynisk og det er mye vanskeligere å ha tro på at rettferdighet finnes i Norge.  At Norge er et land hvor rettssikkerhet ivaretas.  At mindreårige skal finne trygghet her i henhold til internasjonale avtaler.  At de som har blitt utsatt for tortur og umenneskelig behandling i hjemlandet skal få den beskyttelsen de skal ha krav på under internasjonale konvensjoner.  At FNs flyktningkonvensjonen — som Norge har ratifisert — har noen betydning lenger.  At saker så alvorlige, så grove som Rahim sin sak, tas på alvor av norske myndigheter.

Hvordan kan en enslig mindreårig gutt som hadde blitt dømt til døden i Iran bli sendt ut av Norge?  Ikke bare det, men hvordan kunne PU overlevere ham direkte til iransk politi, med alt som vi vet om farene for iranske asylsøkere som kommer tilbake til landet?  Hvordan kunne UNE slippe så billig unna denne saken, ved å nekte å kommentare og bare holde kjeft inntil saken ble for lengst glemt av de fleste?  Og hvorfor i all verden er nesten ingen i norsk media som synes at saken til Rahim er verdt å rapportere om?

Det er viktig at jeg legger til at UNE fremdeles nekter at det har skjedd noe med Rahim siden han ble overlevert til iransk politi, eller at det har noe med hans retur fra Norge å gjøre.

Fra informasjonskriv fra Utlendingsnemnda:

«Påstand: Rostami har sittet isolert i det beryktede Evin-fengselet, der de sterkeste regimekritikerne plasseres og tortur er dagligdags. Evin-fengselet har flere avdelinger, og at en person er fengslet i Evin er i seg selv ikke tilstrekkelig til at man kan trekke konklusjoner om hva man er tiltalt for eller hvilke soningsforhold man er underlagt. UNEs undersøkelser gir heller ikke grunnlag for å anta at Rostami sitter i isolat. Tvert imot har UNE mottatt informasjon som tilsier at han har hatt gjentatte besøk av sin familie og at de har hatt anledning til å snakke relativt fritt.»

Fra http://www.une.no 20.04.2011, signert av daværende direktør Terje Sjeggestad:

«Påstand: Iran vil straffeforfølge personer som har søkt asyl i utlandet. Påstanden stammer fra et innlegg skrevet av en pensjonert høyesterettsdommer. UNE har ikke sett noe sted at dette skal være fulgt opp av iransk statsforvaltning gjennom offentlige uttalelser, og heller ikke at det iranske domstolvesenet, som vil være ansvarlig for det praktiske omkring en eventuell endret tilnærming til slike saker, har berørt det i sine ukentlige pressekonferanser. UNE har heller ikke funnet eksempler på at returnerte personer er blitt tiltalt eller straffet på dette grunnlaget. Det er derfor ikke grunnlag for å si at dette er gjeldende iransk rett i dag.»

Har du samvittighet og mener du at Norge skal være et land som opprettholder konvensjoner som vi har ratifisert og ivareta rettssikkerheten til alle, så ber jeg deg om å lese og dele dette innlegget med andre.  Vær så snill og gi meg en grunn til å tro at disse tingene fortsatt finnes i Norge.

Følgende er et referat skrevet av Evy Ellingvåg fra Foreningen av Tolvte januar, som har vært til stede i Oslo i dag for å høre Rahims vitnesbyrd gjennom tolk på Skype.  Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam fra Iran Human Rights intervjuer Rahim på farsi, tolk på sorani også på Skype. Intervjuet er et standard intervju som gjøres med vitner til IHR.

  • Hva skjedde dagen du ble arrestert?
  • Da jeg gikk i banken for å åpne konto, ble jeg bedt om å komme tilbake dagen etter kl 12 med passet mitt.  Dagen etter ble jeg bedt om å sette meg og vente. Der satt det to politi og ventet på meg, og satte meg i håndjern.  Deretter skulle vi reise hjem, hente noen saker, og deretter til Trandum.
  • Vi vet ingenting, svarte politiet når Rahim spurte hva som skjer med ham nå. Klokka ni om kvelden fikk han beskjed om at han skulle uttransporteres dagen etter til Iran.
  • Jeg fortalte politiet at dette passet er falskt, og at jeg bare hadde skaffet det for å kunne åpne bankkonto. Politiet sa det går greit å sende deg tilbake på dette.
  • Vi satte oss i flyet med tre politi. To av politiene fulgte helt til Teheran. En gikk av ved mellomlandinger Amsterdam.
  • Det norske politet overleverte meg til iransk politi. De tok mine papirer inn i et annet rom.
  • Før vi kom frem, tryglet jeg om at politiet skule bare la meg gå som en vanlig reisende med passet mitt gjennom tollen.  Dette nektet politiet, og overleverte meg.
  • To dager på Imam Khomeini flyplassen, deretter til Evin fengslet.
  • Først i fengselets karanteneavdeling, deretter til fengselets avdeling 8, der det også er andre fanger. Ca 40 dager der, før jeg ble overført til isolat, og avhørene begynte.
  • I de 40 dagene fikk han besøk en gang, av en onkel og en advokat.  Dette besøket foregikk med glassvegg, telefon. To vakter tilstede, ikke sikker på om de hørte på eller ikke.  Etter disse 40 dagene: spørsmål de stilte var hvorfor rømte du, hva gjorde du i et fremmed land, og hvorfor deltok du i demonstrasjoner.
  • Jeg hadde bind for øynene. En som stilte som, to andre også tilstede.
  • Det ble stilt spørsmål, og jeg sa sannheten. Hver gang de ikke likte svarene de fikk, slo de to andre politiene/vakter. Sparket, slo, brukte kaldt vann.  Jeg satt på en stol under avhørene.
  • Hvor lenge varte avhørene?
  • Avhørene var annen hver dag. Jeg var bundet med begge armene, jeg ble hengt etter armene fra taket, både armer
    og ben ble bundet.  Mens jeg hang, slo og sparket og pisket de meg med kabel.
  • Hvor lenge var du i isolat?
  • Husker ikke helt, men 47 til 50 dager. Jeg hadde ingen kontakt med omverdenen. Kun en liten luke jeg fikk mat igjennom.
  • Fins det fysiske bevis på at du ble slått?
  • Høyre stortå er brukket og neglen er borte. Fikk også elektriske støt under avhørene, så jeg har glemt mye.  Har også brennemerker i ansiktet etter torturen.
  • I den første fasen der han ikke var i isolat, sa advokaten at de skulle følge saken for å få ham fri. Mens han var på isolat fik han beskjed om at han skulle løslates mot kausjon, og når han slapp ut, rømte han på ny flukt. Rahim ble i avhør direkte konfrontert med aktivitet og bilder frå sin politiske aktivitet i Norge. At talsperson Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam fra IHR gjør dette intervjuet, er fordi IHR har gjort egne undersøkelser i denne saken.  Tiltalen henger der over Rahim, og inneholder blant annet landsforræderei.

Evy Ellingvåg ønsker å personlig minner jeg alle om at Rahim var 19 år gammel når han ble utsatt for dette.

Jeg tenker nå enda mer på de andre som, i likhet med Rahim, er politiske flyktninger som har blitt returnert til det iranske regimet.  Jeg tenker spesielt på søskenparet Hamed og Samira, som ingen har hørt fra siden de ble deportert til Teheran like før jul og ble arrestert av iransk politi med det samme.  Det er ennå ingen livstegn fra dem og vi har ingen grunn til å tro at de ikke har blitt utsatt for samme behandlingen som Rahim — om ikke verre.

*******************

as I don’t speak Norwegian myself, I’ve to use googletranslator – copying:

Rahim Rostami: The story that has upset me the most

Posted Wed, 15/05/2013 by Claudia Reppen

******
the description underneath Rahim’s pic says:
Rahim Rostami during happier and safer times in Norway with his Norwegian family. Eighteen months later he was thrown out of Norway, and put in Evin prison where he was subjected to torture that he can testify.
******
 
Since I started this blog, there have been many stories that have shaken me. But there is one story of a young Kurdish boy that I have never forgotten and which I have thought about many times since I first blogged about him. The matter is so serious and so severe that it is possibly the history that has upset me the most since I started this blog. Rahim Rostami came to Norway from Iran as an unaccompanied asylum seeker. The story of how he got asylum application – despite a death sentence in a country notorious for executions of many, among others. a minor – and was handed over to the Iranian authorities by Norwegian police was shocking to many. Protests from Norwegian and international activists were met by silence and “no comment” from Immigration. And when the matter was mostly forgotten by all but activists and friends in Norway who have been terribly worried about the fate that awaited Rahim.After a few years of silence, we have now got livtegn from Rahim, today testified via Skype Tribunal of Norwegian asylum policy in Oslo. Because of what he has been through, he does not dare to say what country he is living in. Not even continent. He still lives in hiding and is understandable both physically and mentally dominated by events in recent years.I also feel that I too have been affected by what has happened to Rahim. I know that I have become more cynical and it’s much harder to have faith that justice exists in Norway. The fact that Norway is a country where the rule of law is maintained. The minors will find safety here in accordance with international agreements. That those who have been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment in their home country to get the protection they are entitled to under international conventions. The UN Refugee Convention – which Norway has ratified – have some significance. That matters so serious, so serious that Rahim’s case, be taken seriously by the Norwegian authorities.How can an unaccompanied minor boy who had been sentenced to death in Iran being sent out of Norway? Not only that, but how could PU deliver him directly to the Iranian police, with all that we know about the dangers of Iranian asylum seekers who return to the country? How could UNE drop so cheap from this case, by refusing to get kelp and just shut up until the matter was long forgotten by most? And why in the world are almost none in Norwegian media that seems the case of Rahim is worth reporting on?It is important that I add to that UNE still denies that it has happened to Rahim since he was handed over to Iranian law, or that it has something with his return from Norway to do.From information letter from Immigration:

«Claim: Rostami has sat alone in the notorious Evin prison, where the strongest regime critics placed and torture are commonplace. Evin prison has several departments, and that a person is detained in Evin is not in itself sufficient to draw conclusions about what one has been charged or which prison conditions they are subject. UNE’s research provides no basis for assuming that Rostami are isolated. On the contrary, UNE received any information to indicate that he has had several visits from his family and that they have had the opportunity to speak freely. ”

From http://www.une.no 20.04.2011, signed by the then director Terje Sjeggestad:

«Claim: Iran will prosecute people who have sought asylum abroad. The claim stems from a post written by a retired Supreme Court judge. UNE has not seen any place that this should be followed up by the Iranian government administration through public statements, nor that the Iranian court system, which will be responsible for the practicalities surrounding any modified approach to such matters, has affected it in their weekly press conferences . UNE has not found examples of returnees has been prosecuted or punished on this basis. There is therefore no basis for saying that this is the current Iranian law today. ”

Do you have a conscience and believes that Norway should be a country that upholds conventions we have ratified and protect the legal rights of everyone, so I ask you to read and share this post with others. Please give me a reason to believe that these things still exist in Norway.

The following is a report written by Evy Ellingvåg from the Association of the Twelfth January, which has been present in Oslo today to hear Rahim testimony through an interpreter on Skype. Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam from Iran Human Rights Rahim interviews in Farsi, interpreter at Sorani also on Skype. The interview is a standard interview made by witnesses to the IHR.

What happened the day you were arrested?
When I went to the bank to open the account, I was asked to come back the next day at 12 with my passport. The next day I was asked to sit and wait. There sat the two police waiting for me, and put me in handcuffs. Then we would go home, grab some issues and then to Trandum.
We know nothing, replied the police when Rahim asked what happens to him now. At nine in the evening he was told that he was deported the next day to Iran.
I told the police that this passport is false, and that I had just acquired it in order to open a bank account. Police said it’s fine to send you back to this.
We sat in the plane with three police. Two of the police followed all the way to Tehran. One went off at intermediate stops Amsterdam.
The Norwegian by police handed me the Iranian police. They took my papers into another room.
Before we arrived, I pleaded that the police school just let me go as a regular traveler with my passport through customs. The police refused, and delivered me.
Two days at the Imam Khomeini airport, then to Evin prison.
First, the prison’s quarantine department, then to the prison section 8, where there are other prisoners. About 40 days there, before I was transferred to solitary confinement and interrogations began.
In the 40 days he was visited once by an uncle and a lawyer. This visit took place with glass walls, telephone. Two guards present, not sure if they listened or not. After these 40 days, the question asked was why you ran away, what did you do in a foreign country, and why did you participate in demonstrations.
I was blindfolded. One who asked that, the other two also present.
Questions were asked, and I told the truth. Every time they did not like the answers they got, the two other police / guards. Kick, beat, using cold water. I sat on a chair during interrogations.
How long did the interrogations continue?
Interrogations were every other day. I was tied with both arms, I was hung by my arms from the ceiling, both arms and legs were tied. While I was hanging,  I was punched and kicked and whipped  with the cable.
How long were you in solitary confinement?
Can not remember exactly, but 47 to 50 days. I had no contact with the outside world. Only a little porthole I got food through.
Is there physical evidence that you were beaten?
Right big toe is broken and the nail is gone. Also got electric shocks during interrogations, so I’ve forgotten a lot. – Also has burn marks on his face after torture.
In the first phase, where he was in solitary confinement, the lawyer said that they should follow the case to get him free. While he was in solitary confinement fik [?] he [the lawyer] was told  [Rahim] would be released on bail, and when he got out, he escaped [from Iran] again . Rahim during interrogation was directly confronted with activity and photos from his political activity in Norway. The spokesperson Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam from IHR doing this interview, said it’s because the IHR has made its own investigations in this case. The indictment hanging over Rahim, and includes landsforræderei. [treason?]

Evy Ellingvåg wants to personally remind everyone that Rahim was 19 years old when he was exposed to this.

I think now even more of the others, like Rahim, are political refugees who have been returned to the Iranian regime. I am thinking especially of siblings Hamed and Samira, who no one has heard from since they were deported to Tehran just before Christmas and were arrested by Iranian police immediately. There is no sign of life from them and we have no reason to believe that they have not been subjected to the same treatment as Rahim – if not worse.

****************************

I’d rather not comment on this … uli

 

Deportation to AFGHANISTAN – reports –

09 Thursday May 2013

Posted by ulimuc in deportation, Europe, NORWAY, REFUGEES ASYL

≈ 13 Comments

Tags

Afghanistan, Afghans, asylum, denied asylum, deportation, deportee, Flyktning i Norge, Kabul, Mona Bentzen, Norge, norway, refugee, ناروی, پناهنده, افغانستان, اخراج از کشور

my Norwegian friend Mona Bentzen travelled from Norway to Kabul

Mona is an artist and director and a devoted human rights activist; she went on this journey on her own initiative,  on her own expenses and without any further support  – to find out what happens to deportees from Norway to Afghanistan ..

Kabul-Mona

Kabul by Mona
14 March 2013

in Kabul she was living with deportees from Norway and from other European countries; her reports are disturbing – and not at all congruent with information given by deporting authorities in Europe regarding the security situation for deportees …

I wish so very much her diary-report was translated to English .. but I couldn’t wait any longer for the – hopefully soon coming –  translation; I’ve been using googletranslator, which isn’t translating well, but it’s helpful to get the main points

Mona published it on her facebook and Flyktning i Norge پناهنده در ناروی

published it with her permisson

her diary from 16 February till 20 March 2013:

  Reisebrev fra Kabul av Mona Bentzen 

in Kabul  by Mona  March 2013

in Kabul
by Mona
March 2013

**************************

read more about deportees from Norway to Afghanistan

on  Flyktning i Norge  پناهنده در ناروی

28 April 2013

From Norway to Afghanistan: Turkish Airlines’ Unethical Business and The Dangerous Road to Quetta

Kabul-internflukt-2

*************************

by: Abdul’s  Kabulblog – stop Deportation of Afghans to Afghanistan

Kabulblog  by Abdul

Kabulblog
by Abdul

26 April 2013   From Norway to Afghanistan

8 May 2013      7 more people got deported from Norway and arrived in Kabul

8 May 2013    Deportees and the IOM drama In Kabul

15 May 2013    Ali’s Story

********************************

Abdul’s blog has moved: STOP DEPORTATIONS TO AFGHANISTAN

Süddeutsche Zeitung: “Flüchtlinge als Verbrecher” Heribert Prantl

19 Tuesday Jun 2012

Posted by ulimuc in Dublin II - Dublin III, Europe, GERMANY, GREECE, NETHERLANDS, NORWAY, REFUGEES ASYL

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

asyl, Asylbewerber, Asylrecht, detention, dublin II, EU, Eurodac, Flüchtling, Heribert Prantl, human rights, Inhaftierung, Sueddeutsche Zeitung

Asylrecht Flüchtlinge als Verbrecher

18.06.2012, 08:28

Ein Kommentar von Heribert Prantl

Erst Aufnahmehaft, dann Abschiebehaft: Europa will Asylbewerber künftig einsperren. Diese rabiate Politik praktizieren südeuropäische Grenzstaaten wie Griechenland schon lange. Nun will die EU deren Vorgehen importieren. Damit verrät der Kontinent Grundsätze seines Rechts.

Man hat sich auch in Deutschland daran gewöhnt, dass Flüchtlinge in Abschiebehaft kommen – auch wenn sie nichts verbrochen, sondern nur Zuflucht gesucht haben. Nun soll man sich hierzulande auch noch daran gewöhnen, dass Flüchtlinge sogleich in Aufnahmehaft kommen, sobald sie hier ankommen. Es wird dann so sein, dass die Aufnahmehaft nahtlos in die Abschiebehaft übergeht. Flüchtlinge, die der Unfreiheit entfliehen wollten, landen auf diese Weise genau dort. Aus ganz Europa soll ein Malta für Flüchtlinge werden. Ankommende Bootsflüchtlinge werden in Malta nämlich schon heute sofort und ohne Ausnahme inhaftiert.

Bis Dezember dieses Jahres soll das gemeinsame Asylsystem für Europa fertig verhandelt sein. Ein Eckstein dieses Asylsystems ist die Aufnahmerichtlinie, über die nun seit Dezember 2008 beraten wird. Kern der Aufnahmerichtlinie wiederum ist die geplante Inhaftierung von Asylbewerbern in ganz Europa. Gestritten wird zwischen Parlament, Rat und Kommission gar nicht mehr darüber, ob man Flüchtlinge einfach einsperren darf, sondern wie hurtig und wie lang das geschehen darf – ob man dazu einen Richter braucht (das Parlament sagt ja, der Rat sagt nein), und wie lange die Haft dauern darf. Die derzeitigen Formulierungen sagen: Solange es notwendig ist.

Diese Formulierung ist so umfassend, wie es auch die geplanten Haftgründe sind: Flüchtlinge sollen künftig überall in Europa eingesperrt werden dürfen. Zur Überprüfung ihrer Identität, ihrer Staatsangehörigkeit und ihrer Angaben im Asylantrag, aber auch einfach dann, wenn die nationale Sicherheit oder die öffentliche Ordnung das erfordern. Mit der Genfer Flüchtlingskonvention lässt sich das nicht vereinbaren; dort steht nämlich, dass ein Flüchtling, das liegt in der Natur der Sache, “irregulär” einreisen darf, und dass das kein Grund für eine Bestrafung sein darf. Aber die Flüchtlingskonvention ist ja schon mehr als 60 Jahre alt und Europa hat andere Sorgen als Flüchtlinge. Europa schützt seine Grenzen, aber nicht die Flüchtlinge.

Flüchtlingsgefängnisse statt Asylschutz

Europa ächzt nicht unter der Last der Flüchtlinge. 1992 kamen fast doppelt so viele Asylbewerber in Deutschland an wie heute in allen 27 EU-Ländern zusammen. Aber das deutsche Asylabwehrsystem, das die Politik damals etabliert hat, wurde mittlerweile europäisiert. Kern dieser Europäisierung ist das Dublin-System: Flüchtlinge, die trotz aller Grenzkontrollen noch nach Europa kommen, sehen sich einem technokratischen Asylzuständigkeitssystem ausgeliefert. Zuständig ist immer das EU-Land, das die Flüchtlinge als erstes betreten haben, es sind zumeist die Südstaaten, also Griechenland, Italien, Malta. Asylschutz gibt es dort nicht, dafür Flüchtlingsgefängnisse. Wenn mittels der Fingerabdruckkartei “Eurodac” festgestellt wird, dass der Flüchtling, der sich irgendwie nach Kerneuropa durchgeschlagen hat, schon in einem europäischen Erstland gewesen ist, wird er ohne Umstände und Prüfung wieder dorthin abgeschoben. Es sei denn, es findet sich ein gnädiger Richter, der das verhindert.

Das deutsche Recht sieht das eigentlich nicht vor. Dort steht ausdrücklich, dass es keine Eilanträge gibt, dass also ein Gericht den Vollzug der Abschiebung nicht aussetzen kann. Nun verlangt zwar das Grundgesetz, dass “jemand”, der durch die öffentliche Gewalt in seinen Rechten verletzt wird, der Rechtsweg offensteht. Der Flüchtling aber gilt nicht als Jemand, sondern als Nichts. Darum darf man ihn auch künftig jederzeit einsperren.

Jüngst haben die EU-Länder, angeführt von Deutschland, das Asylproblem in die EU-Randstaaten im Süden exportiert, indem sie diese für das Gros aller Asylverfahren für zuständig erklärten. Diese Randstaaten wehrten sich dadurch, dass sie Flüchtlinge nicht schützten, sondern einsperrten. Jetzt importieren die EU-Staaten die von diesen Staaten entwickelten rabiaten Einsperr-Methoden. Europa nennt sich selbst “Raum des Rechts, der Sicherheit und der Freiheit”. Für Flüchtlinge gilt das Gegenteil.

URL:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/asylrecht-der-fluechtling-als-verbrecher-1.1385214
Copyright:
Süddeutsche Zeitung Digitale Medien GmbH / Süddeutsche Zeitung GmbH
Quelle:
(SZ/Süddeutsche.de/goro)

excerpt from “No way in, no way out?” description of the Norwegian asylum procedure

02 Monday Apr 2012

Posted by ulimuc in Europe, NORWAY, REFUGEES ASYL

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

asylum, norway, refugee, UDI, UNE

No way in, no way out?
A study of living conditions of irregular migrants in Norway

by Cecilie Øien and Silje Sønsterudbråten

The asylum application process: from asylum seeker to irregular migrant

“”The question is therefore whether migrants have access to information about rights and about possible outcomes to their application – also what a rejection could entail“”

“” .. Based on available information (e.g. Zhang 2008), most irregular migrants in Norway are rejected asylum seekers. Understanding the application process is therefore central in understanding how people become irregular migrants. In this section, we give a brief introduction to the way the asylum process is formally supposed to take place.
It is at the end of this process that migrants either are granted asylum or have their applications rejected and thus get residence permits, leave the country or stay on and become irregular. Presenting the details of this process in a few words is therefore a step towards explaining both how people become irregular migrants and the challenges they face afterwards.
Upon arrival, migrants are expected to register their asylum applications with the police. It is the Police Immigration Service (PU) that is responsible for the registration of asylum seekers. During registration, applicants submit their passports and other necessary identity documents to the police, who also take applicants’ fingerprints and ask about their identities and how they have travelled to Norway. Immediately after such registration, applicants are sent to the transit reception centre in Tanum, outside Oslo. After two weeks, while awaiting their interviews with the immigration authorities (UDI), they are sent to other transit reception centres. After the interviews, while waiting for their applications to be processed, they are transferred to regular reception centres. The asylum interview is a crucial part of the asylum process and takes 3–5 hours with a translator present. The case-processing time is not uniform but in July 2010 an average application took fourteen months to process, whereas appeals against rejections took five months. Cases of uncertain identity and those in which applicants lack ID may take longer. Staff at both transit and ordinary reception centres are responsible for informing applicants of the asylum process and their rights and obligations. However,  the Norwegian Organisation for Asylum Seekers (NOAS), an NGO working for the rights of asylum seekers in Norway, provides information to asylum seekers within three days of their arriving at the transit centre.
Accommodation in reception centres is free of charge to asylum seekers while their applications are being processed. Those with relatives or friends in Norway can choose to take up private accommodation but they then lose the financial support they would get in centres. Those who get residence permits are settled in municipalities. Economically independent people can themselves choose where to live.
Each applicant who receives a rejection can appeal the decision twice. For the first appeal, the asylum seeker has the right to free legal aid to write a complaint to UDI. This has to be sent to UDI within three weeks of receipt of the rejection. If UDI does not find that there is any reason to reverse its decision, the case is referred to another state agency, the Immigration Appeals Board (UNE). If UNE reverses the decision, the applicant gets a residence permit. If UNE rejects the appeal, the decision is final and the migrant is expected to return to the country of origin. However, even after the rejection from UNE, it is possible to send a revocation request if new documents or information relevant to the case can be provided. Finally, rejected asylum seekers can take their appeal cases to court. This is an expensive option with very uncertain results. There are three options for return. A rejected applicant has a three-week window to leave voluntarily for his or her home country or any other EU or Schengen country where he or she may have registered first. The second option is voluntary return: the applicant can seek help from the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to arrange the journey home. The IOM then pays for the ticket and migrants are transported by civilian police. This is called assisted voluntary return. Finally, if a person does not leave Norway by the specified deadline, there is the option of forced return. This entails the police’s obtaining travel documents and tickets for the return journey and then escorting each person in question to his or her country of origin.
The respondents in this study had become irregular migrants after their asylum
application had been rejected. The change in legal status had had implications for their living conditions. Since 2004 until July 2010, rejected asylum seekers were not entitled to live in the asylum reception centres (see Brekke and Søholt 2005; Aarø and Wyller 2005). Exceptions were made for families with children, unaccompanied minors, seriously ill people and those who cooperate with the authorities as regards returning to their countries of origin.
The intention behind cutting the support for rejected asylum seekers was to worsen the living conditions in Norway for this group of migrants, in order that more people would leave the country voluntarily, or, alternatively, to increase these migrants’ interest in cooperating with the authorities so that ultimately return would be the outcome (Brekke 2010: 26). This was also a matter of ‘sending a message’ to potential asylumseekers: that the immigration regime had become stricter. Two new centres were established to house people who had received final rejections. These centres were called ventemottak or, in direct translation, ‘waiting reception centres’. The standard of these centres in Lier and Fagerli was basic or even poor, as the intention was to motivate the residents to undertake return (see Valenta et al. 2010). It was not uncommon for people to stay in these centres for 2–4 years. UDI reviewed the situation following protests against the poor living standards that culminated in one centre’s being vandalised and the other’s being set on fire. It decided to close these centres since they were not seen to be motivating migrants to undertake return as intended. In the summer of 2010, both centres were closed. As an alternative to these waiting centres, the government decided to create so-called ‘return centres’ for people who had received final rejections. These centres will open in 2011. However, since July 2010 UDI no longer withdraw the offer of accommodation for rejected asylum seekers and all irregular migrants in this category are offered to stay in ordinary reception centres pending the opening of the new centres.                                                                    However, both before and since the closure of the waiting reception centres, most irregular migrants have lived outside the state-sponsored centres without receiving financial benefits from the state. By the end of October 2010, there were 16 941 people living in reception centres in Norway. Of these, 3 970 or 23 per cent had received final rejections and had what UDI calls a ‘duty to leave’ (utreiseplikt). This group was not included in the 2008 estimate.
Irregular migrants have limited rights in Norway but they do have formal entitlements (Aarø and Wyller 2005; Brekke and Søholt 2005; Kristiansen 2008; Ottesen 2008; Hjelde 2010a, 2010b). The question is therefore whether migrants have access to information about rights and about possible outcomes to their application – also what a rejection could entail.                                                    It has not been one of the objectives of the study return as such, but irregular migration and the issue of return are no doubt connected. It was a recurring theme in interviews with respondents’ something which is reflected the report.  .. “”

source: http://www.udi.no/PageFiles/24116/20194%20Fafo%20report%20on%20irregular%20migrants%27%20living%20conditions%202011.pdf

Recent Posts

  • Konvertiten zum Christentum – aus IRAN
  • SOS auf dem Mittelmeer – Europa schaut weg
  • Der Kodex der Zwietracht
  • Was du nicht willst, dass man dir tu …
  • Asylrecht – NGOs in Deutschland

Archives

  • June 2019
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • June 2016
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • August 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012

Categories

  • Afghanistan
  • IRAN
    • Earthquakes #11 August 2012# 21 مرداد 1391
    • EXECUTION – DEATH SENTENCE
      • 09 May 2010
    • internet censorship
    • Madaran Park Laleh Iran
      • Madaran Munich
      • Mansoureh Behkish
      • Parvin Fahimi
    • Mohammad Mostafaei
    • PRISONERS in IRAN
      • Abdolreza Ghanbari
      • Arash Sadeghi
      • Assadollah Assadi
      • Gholamreza Khoshravi Savadjani
      • Hamid Ghassemi-Shall
      • Hengameh Shahidi
      • Hossein Ronaghi Maleki
      • Human Rights Lawyers
      • Kouhyar Goudarzi
      • Majid Tavakoli
      • Mohamad Ali Dadkhah
      • Mohammd Sadiq Kaboudvand
      • Nargess Mohammadi
      • Nasrin Sotoudeh
      • Navid Khanjani
      • Reyhaneh Tabatabaie
      • Saeed Jalalifar
      • Shirkou Moarefi
      • Zeynab Jalalian
      • Zia Nabavi
  • REFUGEES ASYL
    • deportation
    • Dublin II – Dublin III
    • Europe
      • Council of Europe
      • CURIA-CJEU-Court of Justice-European Union
      • ECRE – European Council of Refugees and Exiles
      • European Court of Human Rights
      • GERMANY
        • BAVARIA
          • Aub, Bamberg, Nürnberg, Passau, Würzburg
          • MUNICH – München
      • GREECE
      • NETHERLANDS
      • NORWAY
      • SWEDEN
      • UNITED KINGDOM
    • Mediterranean
    • TURKEY
    • UN
    • UNHCR
  • Uncategorized

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Iranian Refugees

Iranian Refugees

Blogroll

  • A.M.A.S.O – Afghanistan Migrants Advice & Support Orghttps://ulimuc.wordpress.com/wp-admin/link-add.php NGO in Kabul supporting the ones deported from Europe
  • Afghan Refugees Association in Turkey Afgan Mülteciler Dayanışma ve Yardımlaşma انجمن پناهندگان افغان در ترکیه
  • Asyl und Migration – Informationsverbund Informationsverbund Asyl und Migration
  • Bayerischer Flüchtlingsrat
  • ECRE European Council on Refugees and Exiles
  • Iran Human Rights Documentation Center
  • Iran's Prisoners Information the most complete record of prisoners in Iran – by Liss Nup
  • Laleh -Iran Human Rights- translations to English-HumanRightsNews
  • Loghatnameh Persisch-Deutsch # Deutsch-Persisch
  • Mehriran
  • Persian2English
  • Stop Deportation to Afghanistan Reports from Kabul
  • United 4 Iran – Bayern
  • Welcome2Europe اطلاعات مستقل برای پناهندگان و مهاجران آینده به اروپا
  • Willommenskultur
  • عدالت برای ایران – JusticeForIran

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy