Poland has a single procedure (“deprivation”) for the cessation and/or withdrawal of international protection.
Refugee status is ceased if a foreigner:[1]
- Has voluntarily settled in the country, which he or she had left for fear of persecution;
- Has voluntarily accepted protection of a country he or she is a citizen of;
- Has voluntarily accepted the citizenship of the country of origin, which he or she had lost before;
- Has acquired new citizenship and he or she is under the protection of the state whose citizen he or she has become;
- Can no longer refuse to accept the protection of the country of origin, because the reasons why he or she was granted a refugee status no longer exist, and he or she did not present convincing arguments as to why he or she cannot accept this protection. The same applies to countries of habitual residence for stateless persons.
Subsidiary protection is ceased, if the circumstances which were the reason for granting subsidiary protection no longer exist or have changed in such a way that a foreigner no longer requires protection.[2]
The deprivation procedure is initiated by the Head of the Office for Foreigners ex officio or on other authorities’ demand.[3] Asylum seekers should be informed about the initiation of the respective proceedings as soon as they started. The procedure should last no longer than 6 months.[4] During the procedure, a refugee or a subsidiary protection beneficiary should be interviewed, particularly to present reasons as to why they should not be deprived of the protection. A foreigner can also present arguments in writing.[5]
A decision on deprivation of international protection is issued by the Head of the Office for Foreigners and can be appealed to the Refugee Board with suspensive effect. A foreigner should leave Poland within 30 days from the day of the delivery of the Refugee Board’s decision on deprivation of international protection. In the same period, he or she can make the complaint to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw. This onward appeal does not entail an automatic suspensive effect but a foreigner can request the court to suspend the final decision on deprivation of international protection. However, it takes sometimes even a couple of months to suspend the decision by the court on the foreigner’s demand. During that period a foreigner stays irregularly in Poland, so return proceedings may be initiated against him/her and removal may be enforced.
Only some refugees and subsidiary protection beneficiaries are entitled to free legal assistance in cessation proceedings, namely those whose income is so low that it would qualify them for social welfare.[6] Free legal assistance is only provided in the appeal proceedings; it does not include the first-instance procedure.[7] Before the court, the foreigner can apply for free legal assistance by lawyer following the general rules (see Legal assistance).
A foreigner who was deprived of international protection is obliged to return the residence card immediately to the Head of the Office for Foreigners, no later than 14 days from the moment when a decision concerning deprivation of international protection becomes final.[8]
There is a single procedure in Poland that includes the cessation and withdrawal of international protection. In consequence, the beneficiary may receive a decision on deprivation of international protection, as it is called in Poland, which can be issued on the grounds justifying only a cessation or only a withdrawal or both. The Office for Foreigners shares the data on a general number of ‘deprivations’ and how often the exact legal basis was used in the respective decisions. From 2017 to 2022, the total number of persons deprived of international protection as a result of a cessation or withdrawal procedure was as follows:
| Number of persons deprived of international protection (ceased and/or withdrawn) | ||||||
| 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
| Deprivation of refugee status | 0 | 11 | 6 | 12 | 4 |
9 |
| Deprivation of subsidiary protection | 80 | 157 | 100 | 95 | 32 |
33 |
Source: Office for Foreigners.
The above figures do not distinguish between cessation and withdrawal procedures as both fall under the category “deprivation of international protection” in the statistics shared by the OFF. Nevertheless, based on an analysis of the grounds used to deprive international protection, cessation and withdrawal procedures seem to have been applied in recent years as follows: in 2018, 11 foreigners (incl. 9 citizens of Russia) had their refugee status ceased (10 refugees) or withdrawn (1 person) and 157 (incl. 154 citizens of Russia) had their subsidiary protection ceased (153 beneficiaries) and/or withdrawn (13). In 2019, 6 decisions on cessation of refugee status were issued (incl. 5 citizens of Russia) and 100 (all concerning citizens of Russia) – on deprivation of subsidiary protection (97 ceased and 11 withdrawn). In 2020, 95 Russian citizens had their subsidiary protection ceased (94) and/or withdrawn (4). In 12 cases the refugee status was ceased (11 Russian citizens, 1 Sri Lankan national). In 2021, 32 Russian citizens had their subsidiary protection status ceased (28) and/or withdrawn (4). In 4 cases, the refugee status was ceased (all Russian citizens).[9] In 2022, 9 persons had their refugee status ceased or withdrawn (including 6 Russian citizens, 2 Turkish citizens and 1 Afghan citizen). 33 beneficiaries had their subsidiary protection status ceased or withdrawn (including 31 Russian citizens and 2 Afghan citizens).[10] Statistical data for 2022 provided by the Office for Foreigners did not allow to differentiate between cases in which the protection status had been ceased, or withdrawn.
As regards the grounds for depriving international protection, the following cessation grounds were applied in 2022:
| Grounds for cessation of international protection in 2022[11] | |
| Cessation of refugee status | |
| The beneficiary voluntarily settled in the country, which he or she had left for fear of persecution. | 5 |
| The beneficiary voluntarily accepted the protection of a country he or she is a citizen of | 5 |
| The beneficiary has acquired new citizenship and he or she is under the protection of the state whose citizen he or she has become | 2 |
| Cessation of subsidiary protection | |
| The circumstances which were the reason for granting subsidiary protection no longer exist or have changed in such a way that a foreigner no longer requires protection | 26 |
Source: Office for Foreigners.
The above-mentioned figures reveal that nationals of the Russian Federation are the beneficiaries of protection most frequently deprived of their status in Poland. Cessation is not systematically applied to them, however. Approx. 100 Russian citizens obtained international protection in Poland in 2022, 89 in 2021, 66 in 2020, 76 in 2019, 70 in 2018, 86 in 2017 and 67 in 2016.[12] In 2018-2021 Russian citizens were deprived of refugee status predominantly due to having voluntarily accepted protection from the Russian Federation. They were deprived of subsidiary protection predominantly because the circumstances which were the reason for granting subsidiary protection no longer existed or changed in such a way that a foreigner no longer required protection (in 150 cases in 2018, 97 in 2019, 94 in 2020 and 28 in 2021).[13] Based on data received for 2022, it is not possible to establish how many similar cases were registered throughout the year. HFHR concludes that Russian citizens have mostly been deprived of protection as a result of travel to their country of origin after they obtained international protection.[14] The finding is confirmed by the SIP. According to this NGO, returning to the country of origin – even only to obtain needed documents or to take care of ill family members – is a reason to deprive refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection of their status. The same effect may be entailed by obtaining a passport in the embassy of the country of origin. SIP also points out that beneficiaries of international protection are deprived of protection due to a changed situation in Chechnya. However, in its opinion, both the individual and general circumstances of those cases are not scrutinized sufficiently by Polish authorities.[15]
In 2022, the Supreme Administrative Court delivered a judgment concerning the cessation of subsidiary protection of a Russian national. The reasons for cessation were twofold: the beneficiary obtained a Russian passport, travelled to Russia 5 times, and the situation in Chechnya significantly changed since his arrival in Poland in 2005. The cassation appeal submitted by the Russian national was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court. In particular, the court found that the statements of the complainant that he obtained a passport through an intermediary were not credible, as the passport was biometric; thus, it required personal contact with Russian authorities to provide fingerprints. Moreover, the complainant did not manage to convince the court that he would be individually at risk of harm upon return to Chechnya.[16] In a similar case, concerning a Russian family of five, having subsidiary protection since 2008, the Supreme Administrative Court accepted that they should be deprived of protection because they obtained a passport from Russian authorities. The court did not find it problematic that the decision of the Head of the Office for Foreigners was issued in 2019 and was based solely on the travels from Poland in the Eastern direction in 2011-2012, while the Russian passport was issued in 2012. The beneficiaries’ explanations that they stayed in Belarus and obtained a passport through an intermediary were not found credible.[17]
In 2018-2021 some Russian citizens were also deprived of subsidiary protection because they were considered a security threat or there were serious grounds to believe that they committed a crime (see Withdrawal of protection status).[18]
In 2022, six persons complained on depriving them subsidiary protection. The court considered 5 cases concerning deprivation of international protection. Only in one, the court revoked the second-instance decision, in the remaining cases it dismissed the beneficiaries’ complaints.[19]
[1] Article 21(1) Law on Protection.
[2] Article 22(1) Law on Protection.
[3] Article 54b Law on Protection.
[4] Article 54a Law on Protection.
[5] Article 54d(1) Law on Protection.
[6] Article 69d(2) Law on Protection.
[7] Article 69d Law on Protection.
[8] Article 89l(1) and (3) Law on Protection.
[9] Information provided by the Office for Foreigners since 2019.
[10] Information provided by the Office for Foreigners, 3 February 2023.
[11] The table informs about the number of instances when a legal basis was invoked in a decision on deprivation of international protection. One decision may have more than one legal basis. Moreover, in Poland, in one decision grounds for cessation and withdrawal can be invoked together.
[12] Information provided by the Office for Foreigners, 1 February 2018, 15 January 2019, 22 January 2020, 26 January 2021 and 26 January 2022. Office for Foreigners, ‘Ochrona międzynarodowa w 2022 r. – ponad dwukrotny wzrost rozpatrzonych wniosków’, 24 January 2023, available in Polish at: http://bit.ly/3G1URT1.
[13] Information provided by the Office for Foreigners, 15 January 2019, 22 January 2020 and 26 January 2021.
[14] This reasoning was confirmed by the Supreme Administrative Court in Decision No II OSK 1493/14, 23 February 2016: Lex.pl, ‘NSA: uchodźcy z Czeczenii muszą wrócić do kraju’, 26 February 2016, available (in Polish) at: https://bit.ly/2w3JQiM.
[15] M. Sadowska, ‘Pozbawienie cudzoziemca ochrony międzynarodowej w Polsce’ in SIP, Prawa cudzoziemców w Polsce w 2019 roku. Raport, 2020, available (in Polish) at: https://bit.ly/3jT7weM, 24-25; A. Pulchny, ‘Pozbawienie cudzoziemca ochrony międzynarodowej w Polsce’ in Stowarzyszenie Interwencji Prawnej (SIP), SIP w działaniu. Prawa cudzoziemców w Polsce w 2018 r. (2019), available (in Polish) at: https://bit.ly/2w3KcpC, 24-25.
[16] Supreme Administrative Court, Judgment of 5 July 2022, no. II OSK 1868/21, available here in Polish: http://bit.ly/3K2hvvK.
[17] Supreme Administrative Court, Judgment of 11 January 2022, no. II OSK 1754/21, available here in Polish: http://bit.ly/3ZuqefY; Supreme Administrative Court, Judgment of 11 January 2022, no. II OSK 1177/21, available here in Polish: http://bit.ly/42U70mI.
[18] Information provided by the Office for Foreigners, 15 January 2019, 22 January 2020 and 26 January 2021.
[19] Information provided by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw, 17 January 2023.