Asylum Transit Visas, Refugee Directives

QUESTION 3399 / NW4083E


DATE OF PUBLICATION: Friday, 04 November 2011
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 36 of 2011


Mrs A T Lovemore (DA) to ask the Minister of Home Affairs:






(1) Whether she or any official of her Department has issued a directive or similar instruction or guideline (a) identifying non-refugee producing countries and (b) that persons from such countries approaching Refugee Reception Offices may not be allowed the opportunity to apply for asylum; if so, (i) what are the details of the directive or guideline and (ii) on what legal grounds was it issued;






(2) whether she or any official of her Department has issued a directive or similar instruction or guideline that persons who are not in possession of asylum transit visas (details furnished) approaching Refugee Reception Offices may not be allowed the opportunity to apply for asylum; if so, (i) what are the details of the directive or guideline and (ii) on what legal grounds was it issued;






(3) whether she has been informed that the Durban Refugee Reception Office does not accept applications for asylum from Bangladeshi nationals unless they are in possession of asylum transit visas; if so, what action (a) has she taken in this regard and (b) does she intend to take with regard to approximately 150 affected asylum seekers (details furnished)?


NW4083E






REPLY:






(1)(a)&(b) No.






(2) No.






(3)(a)&(b) No. However, the allegations were investigated. The Durban Refugee Reception Office (DRRO) confirmed that it does accept applications from Bangladeshi nationals, even, when they do not have Asylum Transit Visas. This practice is, also, applied to, all, other nationalities. However, the DRRO prioritises applicants with Asylum Transit Permits, followed by those without Asylum Transit Permits, or without any form of documentation.












http://www.pmg.org.za/node/26575


http://www.pmg.org.za/node/26575

Access of NGOs to Asylum Seekers

QUESTION 3760 / NW4550E


DATE OF PUBLICATION: Friday, 25 November 2011
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 41 of 2011


Mrs A T Lovemore (DA) to ask the Minister of Home Affairs:






(1) Whether her Department has ceased allowing representatives of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), such as Sonke Gender Justice Network, to access asylum seekers at Refugee Reception Offices with the aim of assisting their integration into society; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (a) why, (b) when did this prohibition come into effect and (c) at which offices is this prohibition in effect;






(2) whether her Department implements any measures to assist with the integration of asylum seekers into local society; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details of such measures?


NW4550E






REPLY:






(1)(a) No. NGOs are allowed access into the Refugee Reception Centres, once, they have submitted formal written requests with sufficient motivation to do so. The requests will be carefully scrutinised, and permission will be granted to the NGO, if it meets the criteria. This is to ensure the protection of Asylum Seekers, and Refugees, and to regulate the operations of the Refugee Reception Offices to ensure that there is order, and efficiency in operations.






(1)(b)&(c) The provision for NGOs to submit a written request for access to the Cape Town Refugee Reception Office came into effect in August 2011.






(2) The Department’s mandate is to issue documentation to Asylum Seekers, and recognised Refugees to regulate their stay in the RSA. Presently, there are no measures in place by the Department to assist with the integration of Asylum Seekers into local society, as the current legal framework only requires the Department to give access to asylum procedures, and issue temporary Asylum Seeker Permits to sojourn in the RSA, pending the applicant’s status determination.









http://www.pmg.org.za/node/26575

Is Home Affairs cultivating xenophobia?

2010 08 05  The Star

W HEN we wake up to tempera­tures of -13°C in the south-east Free State it's hard to believe that anywhere in South Africa could possibly be colder. But the tiny Eastern Cape dorp of Molteno claims the lowest officially recorded temperatures. Those records were not an isolated blip - the mountainous Stormberg area is consistently so cold in winter that even hardy Nguni cattle do not thrive there. Unexpectedly, since farming communi­ties are famed for their hospitality, the weather has not been the only coldness experienced by Zimbabwean teacher Zwelani Ncube. A qualified English language teacher, he applied for a job advertised in October 2007, and was appointed to teach English at Molteno High School. Since then, however, Ncube has had noth­ing but the cold shoulder from officials of the Department of Home Affairs in his efforts to get a work permit. In fact, Judge Elna Revelas, who handed down a decision concerning Ncube last week, fornied the view that two officials in the Queenstown office did everything they could "at every possible opportunity" and on "personal and irrational considerations" to thwart Ncube. His problems began the day the school handed over the documents needed for Ncube's work permit application. His passport was confiscated there and then, and he was informed that he did not qualify because he had not submitted cer­tain documents - even though these were not on the list of documents required by the department. That was just the start. The two officials fingered by the court for irrational and even "malevolent" behaviour later went to the school and charged both the school and Ncube, whom they arrested. The principal and Ncube later informed the Molteno prosecutor they would defend the charges - but they were withdrawn "on the grounds that no transgressions of law had occurred". The prosecutor even wrote a letter con-firming the decision to withdraw charges, but Home Affairs officials refused to accept it and told Ncube that no work permit would be issued "until he could provide Home Affairs with the reasons for the with­drawal of the criminal charges againsthim". Novel grounds indeed for refusing a permit. When the school organised a meeting with the prosecutor, the principal, the sec­retary and a Home Affairs official, the offi­cial concerned lost his temper and insisted that both the school and Ncube pay a fine of R2 400. But when they tried to do so the police refused to accept the money, saying the charges had been withdrawn. In the months that followed, Ncube was repeatedly harassed: officials did not answer correspondence or return calls and repeatedly obliged him to travel to their offices only to send him away empty-handed. They constantly raised the question of the withdrawn charges, demanding that he explain why the charges were not pursued, and threatened him with deportation. As Judge Revelas put it, he was subjected to "continued unfair treatment" carried out in an "irrational and malevolent manner". Officials also threatened Ncube that he would "suffer" for having sought help from the Legal Resources Centre. An intricate set of legal challenges fol­lowed with applications in the Graham­stown High Court and a petition to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The school proved the post had indeed been properly advertised. Perhaps word of winter temperatures has spread, but just three applications were received - only one from a South African, and that application "was so poorly presented that it could not be seriously considered", as the court put it. Commenting on evidence showing that the school had complied with all the required steps, Judge Revelas noted that while South Africans should be preferred this did not mean that "any South African even lacking suitable qualifications should-be appointed". The end result has been that a full bench of the Grahamstown High Court has now ruled in favour of Ncube and the Molteno school, with Home Affairs officials, from the minister down to the Queenstown office, ordered to pay all the costs. As I read her judgment, I had to wonder whether the Department of Home Affairs isn't a breeding ground for xenophobia. What other explanation for how those two officials were allowed to devise and carry out a campaign of irrational, mali­cious actions against a foreigner - and get away with it?

  http://www.lrc.org.za/press-releases/1150-2009-10-21-mr-ncubes-battle-against-home-affairs-comes-to-an-end

Judge taken to task over asylum seekers

IN A strongly worded judgment, the Supreme Court of Appeal has affirmed the principles governing legal protection for asylum seekers in SA and censured a high court acting judge for flouting the "fundamental rules of litigation". While the government has often come in for heavy criticism by the courts for how it handles immigrants and asylum seekers, it is unusual for a judge to get the kind of tongue-lashing acting judge Nazeer Cassim received from appeal court judge Mahomed Navsa.

The judgment, handed down on Tuesday, concerned 19 Ethiopians who had walked to SA to escape political persecution in their country. Their journey took more than a year. On arrival in SA, they were arrested before they could apply for asylum. They spent more than a month in detention before Lawyers for Human Rights took up their case .
But Judge Navsa said the handling of the case by the high court was "disturbingly peculiar". The judgment includes pages of excerpts from the high court record. In one of the excerpts, Judge Cassim is recorded as interrupting the testimony of one of the asylum seekers, Yene Bula, to say: "No man you cannot just, I am not a child. Tell him I am not a child. I do not want to believe him if he is telling he walked at night from the border to Johannesburg by asking people, show me the direction of Johannesburg. This is not fairy tales, please."
Judge Navsa said: "Right at the beginning of (Mr Bula’s) evidence in chief, the judge started to make factual findings, indulged in pontification and was patronising".
"A judge is required to wait until all the relevant evidence has been adduced before making an assessment and reaching conclusions," he said. "Judges are impartial adjudicators. They do not enter the fray." He said statements by Judge Cassim on foreigners had the potential for "creating and heightening tensions between nationals and foreigners".
"If they are not prudent extra- judicially, they must be all the more unacceptable in court." Judge Navsa then went on to set out the approach that ought to have been followed. He said the laws governing asylum specifically required that a person who wanted to apply for asylum status should be allowed to apply, even if he had been arrested prior.
Also, if the government wanted to apply to court to extend someone’s detention in custody for not being legally in the country, it had to inform the person of that — in writing. The law on this was "peremptory".
"It involves the liberty of an individual and must be strictly construed," he said.

By Franny Rabkin - rabkinf@bdfm.co.za 

• http://www.lhr.org.za/news/2011/judge-taken-task-over-asylum-seekers

Relocation of the Home Affairs Head Office

Relocation of the Home Affairs Head Office to the Hallmark Building in the City Centre

We announced earlier this month that in line with government’s commitment to make services accessible to the people, the Department of Home Affairs will be relocating its Head Office operations to the Hallmark Building in the Pretoria City Centre. This also comes within the context of government’s commitment to express confidence in the City Centre while encouraging investment and economic opportunities.

In this regard, the relocation of our operations began this past weekend, Saturday 12 November 2011, with the movement of all IT staff and equipment. We are happy to report that the movement of Branch IT to the Hallmark Building was successful with no reported interruption in services.

We will continue the relocation according to our movement plan, in terms of which, we will in the coming week be moving the Counter-Corruption and Immigration Services Branches of the Department. This will be followed by the Internal Audit, Communications, Human Resources, Learning Academy and Finance Branches as well as the Office of the Director-General respectively. In terms of our plan, it is envisaged that the movement to Hallmark Building will be concluded on the 19 December 2011.

We reiterate that we do not envisage any interruption of services during our relocation because local offices will continue to operate as normal.


Issued by the Department of Home Affairs

Pretoria

0001



17 November 2011
www.dha.gov.za

Ncube versus Home Affairs

2009 07 27 'Mr Ncube wins battle against Home Affairs', LRC

Finally, the protracted legal battle that left Zwelani Ncube without an income, and his pupils without English instruction has come to an end. On 25 June 2009, the Zimbabwean schoolteacher gained an important reprieve before the Eastern Cape High Court in Grahamstown. The court refused to grant the Department of Home Affairs an appeal against the December 2008 judgment which granted Mr Ncube a work permit to teach English in South Africa. The court said that the applicants had no prospect of success. The December judgment had ordered the director general of Home Affairs to issue a work permit to Mr Ncube and for the Minister of Home Affairs to pay Mr Ncube R16 000 for loss of salary and transport costs to the Home Affairs offices in Queenstown incurred over eight months. This was the first time a court ordered compensation in terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2003 (PAJA). The matter began after Mr Ncube, previously earning R150 in Bulawayo, was offered a job teaching English at Molteno High School in the Eastern Cape in November 2007, but could not teach as government red tape made it impossible for him to obtain a work permit. Eight months after he was supposed to start working, his application had still not been processed, and when Home Affairs officials finally got around to it, it was denied on ‘spurious grounds'. With the assistance of the Legal Resources Centre (LRC), Mr Ncube appealed against the negative decision. He launched an application in the High Court, seeking to either force Home Affairs to grant him the work permit or compel the Minister to decide on his appeal before the end of November 2008. He also sought an order that he be compensated for his loss of earnings and incidental expenses in travelling from Molteno to Queenstown Home Affairs office. However, the LRC was refused leave to appeal against the December 2008 judgment in relation to an order that the public interest firm pay costs ‘de bonis propriis'. That order was particularly disappointing on the heels of the Constitutional Court's recent judgment in the Biowatch case, confirming the principle that those seeking to enforce their constitutional rights against the state should in general not have to bear the costs. In refugee matters especially, such court costs are a serious deterrent to potential suits. Sarah Sephton, director of the LRC in Grahamstown, noted that costs in the Ncube matter have come to about R100 000 so far. The LRC now plans to petition a full bench of the court for leave to appeal, with the hope of resolving the case satisfactorily for Mr Ncube and other refugees like him seeking work in South Africa. http://www.lrc.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1038:2009-07-31-mr-ncube-wins-battle-against-home-affairs-lrc&catid=84:other-news&Itemid=856