News | Sunday, 05 April 2009

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Failed asylum seekers given six months’ notice

Raphael Vassallo
Government has introduced a new policy at its open centres, whereby resident asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected a second time are being asked to vacate the premises within six months.
Alexander Tortell, director of the government’s integration agency OAIWAS, confirmed that the new policy entered into force this week, adding that this sort of arrangement is standard practice everywhere else in Europe.
Currently there are 2,137 residents in Malta’s open centres, of whom roughly half are understood to be failed asylum seekers.
It is not certain what will become of these people once they are asked to leave the open centres. The OAIWAS director told MaltaToday that they are being actively encouraged to avail themselves of voluntary repatriation programmes such as the EU co-funded AVR (Assisted Voluntary Return) programmes, or other similar programmes offered by the International Organisation of Migration. “The policy does not apply to those who have been granted refugee status or temporary humanitarian protection,” he clarified. “It only applies to those whose applications were turned down at appeals stage, and who have no legal right to remain in Malta.”
Tortell added that this approach was necessary because several rejected asylum seekers have been living at open centres for a number of years – some since 2003 – even though it is impossible for them to legally find work, or to be resettled in another host country.
“We feel this is an option which addresses the issue of overcrowding at the centres, but which is also acceptable to the migrants themselves, as it offers them an opportunity to start afresh while respecting their dignity,” he said.
Tortell added that long-term residents are given priority, while arrangements are being made for vulnerable cases.
“We are currently working on addressing gradually (i.e. starting from the rejected cases of some years ago) around 180 cases of single males only, currently residing in open centres, whose claim for protection has been conclusively rejected. These are therefore no longer entitled to reception conditions in Malta, which will normally be withdrawn within six months of notification,” Tortell explained.
“Other rejected asylum seekers who have special needs, and who wish to return home voluntarily, will be assessed on a case by case basis by the international agencies running AVR programmes.”
But the initiative has been met with concern by NGOs involved in immigration. Neil Falzon, spokesman for the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, acknowledges that open centres such as the Hal Far tent compound are overcrowded, and said that while he agrees in principle with facilitating the return of migrants whose asylum applications have been conclusively rejected, there needs to be a support structure to cater for those who cannot be repatriated for various reasons.
“I can understand the pressures OAIWAS is facing on account of limited space for accommodation in open centres,” Falzon said yesterday. “But while there is nothing wrong with facilitating the return of rejected migrants, there will always be cases who cannot be repatriated for various reasons, such as lack of co-operation from the country of origin.”
Neil Falzon pointed out that a more productive strategy would be to also encourage the integration of successful asylum seekers – i.e., refugees or those granted humanitarian protection – within the community. This would free up space at open centres, alleviating part of the management problems currently faced by OAIWAS.
“Integration could have positive effects on the state of overcrowding at these centres,” he said. But he added that at present, not enough is being done to encourage it.
“Efforts are currently limited only to individual NGOs on a low operational basis, in the absence of any clear government policy,” he explained. “The UNHCR recommends the establishment of an operational integration policy at a high political level, outlining clear aims and targets.”
Similarly, Dr Katrine Camilleri of the Jesuit Refugee Services (JRS) acknowledged the need to address the issue of limited space in open centres, but expressed concern regarding failed asylum seekers who may find themselves homeless as a result of this policy.
“While it is clear that rejected asylum seekers do not have any legal right to remain in Malta, the fact remains that there are a number of people who cannot be returned home, in spite of the fact that they are not granted legal protection,” she commented yesterday. “The general assumption is that this must be their fault, because they are being dishonest about their true identity, or because they are not cooperating with the authorities’ legitimate attempts to remove them. However, in practice this is not always the case.”
Camilleri points out how rejected asylum seekers, because of their very few legal entitlements, are among those most likely to be at risk of extreme poverty and hardship.
“The situation is far worse for families, particularly those with children, than for persons in Malta alone. In a family there is often only one breadwinner, if at all, and as a rule jobs are unstable and seasonal. This makes even mere survival a major feat, and often forces people to depend on the charity of friends and organisations to meet their daily needs.”
JRS outlined its position that people who cannot be returned home, despite not being entitled to protection, should be provided with basic shelter and the means to live with dignity.

Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below.
Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.