Svenska

From forcible returns to deportation row in Norway

Developments in Norway have taken a positive turn but asylum-seekers fleeing generalised violence are still rejected despite international recommendations and kept waiting for deportation on temporary permits.

There are in Norway two possible avenues for protection for people fleeing conflict; either asylum in accordance with the Refugee Convention or protection for other reasons (subsidiary protection).

To be recognized as a refugee according to the Refugee Convention, the asylum seeker has to fulfil the Convention terms whereby a refugee is a person having fled his or her home country due to a "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion".

These are incorporated in the Aliens Act § 16 while subsidiary protection is set out in § 15. The latter is modelled on Article 33 in the Refugee Convention and Article 3 in the European Convention on Human Rights.

"Any foreign national must not pursuant to the Act be sent to any area where the foreign national may fear persecution of such a kind as may justify recognition as a refugee, or where the foreign national will not feel secure against being sent on to such an area.

Corresponding protection shall apply to any foreign national who for reasons similar to those given in the definition of a refugee is in considerable danger of losing his life or of being made to suffer inhuman treatment."

None of these provisions make a mention of the situation where asylum seekers flee situations of generalised and indiscriminate violence. The point of departure for Norwegian authorities is that all asylum claims are considered on a case-by-case basis.

It takes a lot for people fleeing situations of conflict and generalized violence to be recognized as refugees according to the Convention, often because case workers ask asylum-seekers to prove concrete and individualised persecution.

It is, however, not so clear-cut in Norway where there are also examples of Convention status being given to people because of their belonging to a persecuted group like the Serbs from Kosovo.

Following such individual assessments, it is thus the exception that Iraqi asylum seekers are granted Convention status, for instance. While many asylum seekers from Central and Southern Iraq gain subsidiary protection, asylum claims from persons from these parts of Iraq are also rejected despite UNHCR's recommendations.

Up to the legal practitioner

There is, in principle, provision for protecting people fleeing generalised violence in the existing legal framework. However with nothing explicit in the law on generalised violence and the right to protection, there is also no guarantee. Much will depend on the interpretation of the existing law.

During the last year, the administration of the law has become more reasonable in the country. More are granted protection. In addition, recent decisions in the newly established Grand Board asks authorities to come up with good reasons for not respecting international guidelines and recommendations, and by implication this is a strengthening of the protection of people fleeing generalised violence.

A next step in the positive direction of securing people fleeing generalized effective protection would be to put this down in the law text thereby reducing the influence of the individual practitioner.

In addition, Norway needs to consider a meaningful model of protection response to rejected asylum-seekers unable to return for various reasons.

On deportation row

Rejected asylum-seekers have been returned from Norway to various conflict ridden countries despite UNHCR recommendations i.e., Chechens, Pakistanis and people from South and Central Somalia.

In 2006, The National Police Immigration Service (NPIS) started forced return of people to Somalia. After heavy pressure from civil society and various politicians, the returns to South and Central Somalia were stopped in November 2006.

Instead, Norwegian authorities began extending temporary residence permits to Somalis. Initially these were granted for six months at a time but since the beginning of 2007 this was extended to one year. Then the applicant would have to lodge a new application to be assessed by Norwegian UDI.

Such permit grants the holder no rights beyond a legal residence and the right to work. He or she has no right to family reunification, travel documents or placement in a municipality and it only serves to extend the long wait for a final decision. These temporary permits have so far only been extended to Somalis.

Simultaneously, rejected asylum-seekers from Iraq are left for years in a legal limbo, neither granted asylum nor returned due to the situation in their home country. Some have waited almost eight years for a solution.

No exact figures of the number of people affected are available at present.