Author
Syria, Libya and Eritrea
Applicants confirmed to be Syrian are granted, as a minimum, subsidiary protection. This also applies to applicants confirmed as being Eritrean and Somali. Whereas pre-2023 this also applied to Libyan applicants, 2023 saw IPA rejecting applications from Libyan nationals: a total of 76 Libyan applications were rejected.
In 2023, IPA recognised refugee status for 8 Syrian nationals and granted subsidiary protection to 161 Syrians. Refugee status was also recognised for 1 Bangladeshi national – despite this being indicated as a safe country of origin, 1 Sudanese, 2 Pakistani and 1 Somali. 28 Somalis and 51 Eritreans were granted subsidiary protection.
Bangladesh, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Egypt,
NGOs reported that applications from individuals from Bangladesh, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria, and Algeria are processed expediently from detention and applicants from these countries are likely to see their applications for asylum channelled through the accelerated procedure and decided as manifestly unfounded with a return decision and a removal order being issued a few weeks or months after arrival (see accelerated procedure). This despite the fact that Ivory Coast and Nigeria are not designated as ‘safe countries of origin’. No 2023 data is available on the percentage of applications from applicants of these nationalities that were determined to be manifestly unfounded.
As these nationalities are not all listed as safe countries of origin and do not necessarily present a lower recognition rate than other applicants who are not prioritised, it is assumed that their application is fast-tracked due to the fact that they are all considered to be “returnable” individuals.
Forced and voluntary returns of Bangladeshi and Ivorian nationals have been regularly carried out since 2021 on the basis of the non-binding readmission agreements concluded with the EU in 2017 and 2018 respectively.[1] In 2023, the number of forced returns on Bangladeshis decreased, primarily due to challenges in securing diplomatic channels. The Home Affairs Ministry’s Voluntary Return Unit was extremely proactive in promoting voluntary return to this group of applicants, oftentimes even before they were informed of asylum or before they had the opportunity to meet with NGOs, lawyers or UNHCR. NGOs received reports of applicants being coerced to apply for voluntary return, being told that an asylum application would be automatically rejected due to Bangladesh being deemed safe and that pending the asylum procedure they would remain locked up in detention. Similar reports were also received from Bangladeshi UAMs.
Statements from the Prime Minister confirm that Bangladeshi nationals are especially targeted: in 2018, when the vessels operated by the NGOs Sea-Watch and Sea-Eye were stranded off the Maltese coast, the Prime Minister of Malta issued a statement announcing that Bangladeshi nationals shall face an expedient return, after due process.[2] In 2021, the Prime Minister posted on social media about a return operation stating that “Following months of intensive work, a number of migrants without an authorisation to stay have been returned home. Malta is committed to prevent irregular arrivals, share the responsibility with other EU countries and return migrants who are not truly in need of protection”.[3]
This practice is likely to continue despite the recent decision of the ECtHR where the Court found that the asylum procedure undertaken by the Bangladeshi applicant and examined under the accelerated procedure did not offer effective guarantees protecting him from an arbitrary removal.[4]
[1] See EC, Migration and Home Affairs, Return and readmission, http://bit.ly/3QM5Bcj
[2] Department of Information, Statement by Prime Minister Joseph Muscat about the situation of Seawatch3 and Albrecht Penck, PR190025, 9 January 2019, available at: http://bit.ly/2RXXc5i.
[3] The Times of Malta, ‘Migrants returned to their country after asylum applications are rejected’, 12 January 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/30Rl1mu.
[4] ECtHR, S.H. v. Malta, 37241/21, 20 December 2022.