Interministerial immigration management

QUESTION 1202 / NW1338E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: Friday, 15 April 2011

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 11 of 2011
Mr M Mnqasela (DA) to ask the Minister of Home Affairs:



(1)        Whether, with reference to the Government’s statement on the Cabinet meeting held on 30 March 2011, the interim report on the holistic management of immigration will be (a) tabled in the National Assembly or (b) published; if not, what is the position in each case; if so, (i) when and (ii) where;



(2)        (a) how is the inter-ministerial committee as referred to in the statement comprised and (b) when is the committee expected to revert to Cabinet with a proposal on the way forward?

NW1338E



REPLY:



The Cabinet appointed the Minister of Justice, the convenor of the Inter-Ministerial Committee, as he is the Chairperson of the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security Cluster. It would be appropriate, therefore, to direct questions regarding the Inter-Ministerial Committee to the Minister of Justice.

  http://www.pmg.org.za/node/29273

Deportation, Return to SA, and Rehabilitation

QUESTION 3084 / NW3607E

DATE OF PUBLICATION: Friday, 14 October 2011
INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 31 of 2011

Mr J Selfe (DA) to ask the Minister of Home Affairs:



(1) Whether her Department has a system in place to ensure that detained offenders who are foreign nationals and have been deported are prevented from (a) returning to South Africa or (b) acquiring a visa; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;



(2) whether her Department has any policy in place in this regard; if not, why not; if so, what is her department’s policy with regard to offending foreign nationals who return to South Africa?

NW3607E



REPLY:



(1)(a)&(b) Yes. The Department of Home Affairs has a system, in place, to prevent detained offenders from returning to the Republic of South Africa (RSA), or acquiring a Visa. Prohibited persons are placed on the Department’s Visa and Entry Stop List to prevent them from returning to the RSA, once deported, and obtaining a Visa, a Temporary, or a Permanent Residence Permit.



(2) Yes. Foreign nationals who are convicted, and detained because of criminal offences committed, are deported from the RSA after serving their sentences. Such foreigners are regarded as prohibited persons, in terms of section 29(1)(c) of the Immigration Act, 2002 (Act No 13 of 2002). Any prohibited person found in the RSA is dealt with, in terms of the Immigration Act.



Further, any foreign national deported from the RSA becomes a statutory prohibited person. Such person can, only, return to the RSA after an application for rehabilitation has been approved. In terms of Regulation 34 of the Immigration Regulations, rehabilitation can, only, take place after four years of absence from the RSA, and upon a request by the foreigner, in which he, or she makes a solemn affirmation that he, or she will comply with the Immigration Act.





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

Dalai Lama visa row going to court

2011-10-17 20:00

 

Cape Town - The IFP and Cope on Monday filed notice in the Western Cape High Court that they will seek an order declaring the government's handling of the Dalai Lama's visa request unlawful and forcing it to treat future applications by him fairly.

Inkatha Freedom Party MP Mario Oriani-Ambrosini said the issue would arise again soon as the Dalai Lama had been invited to attend an inter-faith prayer meeting in South Africa in March next year.
"We cannot allow this wrong to stand. It is a flagrant wrong, repeated twice," he told reporters in Cape Town.
"It is in the eyes and mouths of all South Africans. This is how people with no courage, no dignity, deal with a problem - by just leaving it," he said.
Oriani-Ambrosini was referring the government's refusal in 2009 to grant the Dalai Lama a visa.
Documents tabled at court on Monday included affidavits by the Dalai Lama's representative for Africa.
They explain how both that application and another filed in September this year to allow the Tibetan spiritual leader to attend Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu's 80th birthday were frustrated.
Sonam Tenzing said the Dalai Lama's staff tried since July to submit an application to the Indian high commission in New Delhi but were told several times that they could not do so because the mission was waiting for "clearance" from Pretoria to accept it.
The application was finally accepted on September 8 with assurances that it would be speedily processed.
Instead, Tenzing said, this marked the start of weeks of fruitless attempts by the Dalai Lama's representative in India, Tampa Tsering, to check on the outcome.
"The days began to pass without any clear word from the commission. Whenever Mr Tsering made inquiries, he was always told that they were awaiting authorisation from Pretoria.
"I am, and continue to be, of the view that such obfuscation and delay was disrespectful to the Dalai Lama."
Oriani-Ambrosini said Tenzing's testimony indicated that the Dalai Lama's office was not only aware of the court challenge but supported it.
Pressure
Lawyer Gary Eisenberger will table the court application on November 22.
He said the court would be asked to declare that the government had failed to consider the application properly in terms of the Immigration Act.
He contended that the minister of home affairs, the first respondent, may not delegate her department's responsibility to process visa applications to any other - in this case the department of international relations.
"Others may assist the department, but the minister cannot shirk her responsibilities by tossing the buck over to the department of international relations."
Home affairs spokesperson Ronnie Mamoepa said on Monday the application had been referred to international relations because of the high profile of the Dalai Lama.
"The department has not yet been served with these papers. We will await the serving of these papers before we can comment," he said.
"The Dalai Lama was not a simple administrative or bureaucratic issue but a matter that has political and diplomatic implications and hence we referred it to our department of international relations and co-operation."
The government has been accused of bowing to pressure from China, who deems the Dalai Lama a separatist and discourages foreign nations from hosting him.
The IFP brought a court application in 2009 to have the government's decision not to grant the Dalai Lama a visa overturned.

The Western Cape High Court threw out the case and the party then took it to the Constitutional Court, but it has not yet been heard.

Oriani-Ambrosini said the new application would override the earlier one.

- SAPA

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Dalai-Lama-visa-row-going-to-court-20111017

SA fails to attract highly skilled foreigners

Country fails to attract highly skilled foreigners

August 18 2011 at 09:00am



ANDISIWE MAKINANA

SOUTH Africa’s efforts to attract highly skilled foreign workers are floundering, with just 5 percent of the target being met.

Yesterday, the Department of Trade and Industry (dti) revealed in a presentation to Parliament that the Home Affairs Department had issued just 2 497 quota work permits between January 2010 and July this year, far behind the target of attracting 50 000 such workers each year. Quota work permits are issued to migrants with scarce and critical skills.

The dti was briefing a joint meeting of Parliament’s oversight committees on labour and home affairs, a day after the Home Affairs and Labour departments did the same.

The dti’s Pumla Ncapayi said the Department of Home Affairs determined a specific quota for work permits, and the number of quota permits issued for 2010/11 was 2 497, while 11 492 general work permits, 1 193 exceptional skills permits and 3 590 intra-company transfer permits had been issued.

The Department of Home Affairs’s strategic plan states that the objective is to move towards a “positive influx of scarce skills of around 50 000 migrants annually”.

DA MP Annette Lovemore said: “The numbers that have been given to us are very far from the target of 50 000.”

The dti’s Wilna Barnard quipped: “Maybe you can draw from that that we are maybe not such a destination of choice for highly skilled people.”

Barnard said her department, with Labour and Home Affairs, was working on how it could be made easy for skilled people to come to this country.

“If you look at the quota work permit, the uptake is very poor. If we really want to get to the 50 000 highly skilled people, we will have to look at that and make a plan on how we are going to do that.”

The Labour Department’s Sam Morotoba said data on the number of migrant workers in the country was unreliable.

http://www.iol.co.za/the-star/country-fails-to-attract-highly-skilled-foreigners-1.1120094

Immigration Laws: Changes

IMCOSA Newsletter
Immigration Laws: Changes


Change in South Africa Immigration Laws One Step Further - 09 September 2011

The much-debated and –criticized amendments to the immigration laws are now one step closer to coming into effect. The Immigration Amendment Act, No 13 of 2011, was published on Friday, 26 August 2011 and is now law.

A number of points remain a major concern, including:


· Removal of section 46, which provides that advocates, attorneys and registered Immigration Practitioners may represent applicants before the Department of Home Affairs. The concern is that the removal of section 46 will lead to the legitimization of corrupt and unethical "consultants", taking away from foreigners the tool to differentiate bone fide practitioners from illegitimate ones, putting them at risk of being exploited and defrauded.


· Application in person: The proposed section will require all applications to be submitted in person, where applications can currently be lodged via courier or through attorneys, advocates and immigration practitioners or their staff. It is a common occurrence for counter staff at offices of Home Affairs and at foreign missions to give poor or incomplete advice. Furthermore, there are language and cultural hurdles to be overcome. Immigration Practitioners have been shouldering the negative and tedious parts of the immigration process for their clients in order to ensure that the latter's experience of moving to South Africa is a positive one, and we are now working on the various means of ensuring that the immigration process into South Africa remains as smooth and efficient as possible also under new legislation.


· Effective abolishment of exceptional skills permit and replacement of quota by the critical skills permit: South Africa will be losing an important tool to attract highly valuable individuals, we are however investigating best possible alternatives in general and on a case-to-case basis.


In terms of section 27 of the Amendment Act, this piece of legislation will come into effect on the day to be determined by the president and published in the government gazette. It is to be assumed that this will only be once the Immigration Regulations, which provide the detail of the law (including specific requirements and procedures) have been finalised. No draft of such Regulations has yet been made public, and rumour has it that not much work has been done on this up to now.


It may therefore take anything from two weeks to two years until the law becomes effective (the last amendments of 2005 have still not) and IMCOSA will keep you updated on the progress.






http://imcosa.co.za/en/news/149-immigration-laws-changes.html

Immigration Amendment Bill: Update

IMCOSA August Newsletter
Immigration Amendment Bill 2010


The Immigration Amendment Bill of 2010 has been submitted to parliament in its final version, which has not changed in any of the points that we commented on in our last newsletter. To date, it has not been signed into law. In order to be implemented, intricate Regulations have to be drawn up initially, which will prescribe the detail of the law and provide insight into how the new rules are to be interpreted.


The portfolio committee hearings regarding the Bill are over and the industry is now in a waiting position as to when and how information regarding the Regulations will be made public. It is not expected that any wider consultation with the public will take place.


The following points remain a major concern, amongst others:


· Removal of section 46, which provides that advocates, attorneys and registered Immigration Practitioners may represent applicants before the Department of Home Affairs. The concern is that the removal of section 46 will lead to the legitimization of corrupt and unethical “consultants”, taking away from foreigners the tool to differentiate bone fide practitioners from illegitimate ones, putting them at risk of being exploited and defrauded.


· Application in person: The proposed section will require all applications to be submitted in person, where applications can currently be lodged via courier or through attorneys, advocates and immigration practitioners or their staff. It is a common occurrence for counter staff at offices of Home Affairs and at foreign missions to give poor or incomplete advice. Furthermore, there are language and cultural hurdles to be overcome. Immigration Practitioners have been shouldering the negative and tedious parts of the immigration process for their clients in order to ensure that the latter’s experience of moving to South Africa is a positive one, and we are now working on the various means of ensuring that the immigration process into South Africa remains as smooth and efficient as possible also under new legislation.


· Effective abolishment of exceptional skills permit and replacement of quota by the critical skills permit: South Africa will be losing an important tool to attract highly valuable individuals, we are however investigating best possible alternatives in general and on a case-to-case basis.



http://imcosa.co.za/en/news/147-immigration-news-aug-2011.html

Most work permits for low/unskilled foreigners

****If you are having problems that are not being adequately addressed, phone the Home Affairs DG on his cellphone.  Read more here.****

Majority of work permits go to low or unskilled foreigners

August 17 2011 at 08:00am

---

INL

ANDISIWE MAKINANA

DESPITE South Africa’s pressing need for skills, the majority of work permits issued by the Department of Home Affairs to foreigners are issued to low-skilled and unskilled workers.

Yesterday, MPs were shocked to hear that South Africa issued 135 000 work permits to foreigners between April 2010 and March this year, with the majority of them in the low and unskilled labour categories.

About 67 000 work permits were issued in the first quarter of this financial year (March to June), with almost 90 percent of them going to Zimbabweans.

The department’s deputy director-general for immigration, Jackson McKay, said the numbers had been pushed up by the recent Zimbabwe Dispensation Project that ended in July.

McKay was briefing a joint meeting of Parliament’s oversight committees on labour and home affairs “on the presence of foreign nationals within the South African labour market”.

He revealed that in the three months between March and June, 59 363 work permits had been issued to Zimbabweans, but only 672 corporate work permits, 699 exceptional skills permits, 3 202 general work permits, 1 252 permits that fall under the quota system and 1 719 work permits in terms of the provisions of Section 19 (5) of the Immigration Act (which provides for intra-company transfers) were issued during the same period.

The department couldn’t say, however, how many professional foreigners there were seeking jobs in the country, or give a breakdown of their professions, countries of origin and whether they had entered legally and had work permits.

DA MP George Boinamo wanted to know whether there were any measures in place to ensure foreigners were not employed in jobs for which South Africans were qualified “to ensure locals are not made to roam the streets with useful qualifications”.

“If you are not careful, these are some of the things that cause xenophobia,” Boinamo warned.

Another DA MP, Ian Ollis, also questioned the high number of permits issued to low or unskilled foreigners.

“It seems we are giving the permits to the wrong category. It looks like we’ve been too easy with the wrong kinds of categories of people that we are bringing into the country,” he said.

McKay responded that it was important to do a study of migration trends to South Africa to get an understanding of the matter.

Many people came to the country who didn’t qualify according to the Immigration Act, which looked at high-end or highly skilled labour.

“We need to look at the pushing through factors and we will find the answers on why these low-skilled permits are being issued.”

He said low-skilled and unskilled migrants were not catered for under the present permitting regime, which was a “major weakness of the current Immigration Act and a contributor to irregular migration to the country, as well as the abuse of the refugee regime, where a lot of economic migrants are using the asylum seeker route to come into the country”.

McKay said many economic migrants, people who sought jobs, were exploiting a loophole in the law by applying for an asylum seeker permit which was in fact a work permit as it allowed one to work and study and was issued free of charge.

http://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/news/majority-of-work-permits-go-to-low-or-unskilled-foreigners-1.1118992

Divorce, the Foreign Spouse and Home Affairs

The expat’s right of residence in SA, based on the spousal relationship, is a very delicate creature. In terms of Home Affairs’ practice, as soon as the relationship ends, the temporary residence permit is deemed to end

Source: Chris Watters, Bedfordview

Those amongst us who studied Latin may recall the story that, many years ago, a young Trojan warned the elders of his community to be cautious about people who left gifts strewn around deserted Mediterranean beaches. Foreign nationals who are the spouses of South African citizens [or persons who have permanent residence] would do well to be guided by such advice. It’s not that Mediterranean nationals are to be avoided in spousal relationships but that the estranged South African spouse could well be bringing news that is every bit as tragic as the Trojan Horse turned out to be for some people in Troy.

In terms of the Immigration Act, the spouse of a SA citizen (which term includes a person who has obtained permanent residence in South Africa) qualifies to be granted temporary residence - and more particularly for a temporary relative’s permit. This category of temporary residence permits is usually issued for a year at a time and are subject to the spousal relationship surviving. If the foreign spouse wishes to be employed, the usual requirements for such authorisation - such as that the post has been duly advertised - fall away.

For purposes of the Immigration Act, the term “spouse” includes anyone who is in a bona fide, permanent, cohabitive relationship that is monogamous. To be a qualifying “spouse,” the expat does not need to be married to the SA partner. 

The only benefit or advantage that exists in being formally married - again, for purposes of the Immigration Act - is that it will often be easier to satisfy the Department of Home Affairs that such spousal relationship does in fact exist.

And if/when the relationship or marriage is five years old or more, the expat spouse also qualifies to apply for permanent residence. If permanent residence is granted, that status is granted on condition that the relationship must survive a further three years.

On the face of it, one can see why then some people, who want to settle in SA, will resort to all manner of devices to secure a spousal relationship.  

But the expat’s right of residence in SA, based on the spousal relationship, is a very delicate creature. In terms of Home Affairs’ practice, as soon as the relationship ends, the permit is deemed to end. And so it happens, not infrequently, that one of the first things the SA spouse will do once either party has walked out, is she or he will phone Home Affairs to report that the relationship has ended and to seek their support to have the expat spouse removed from South Africa. The Department’s officials tend to react to such advisories with alacrity which can lead to the expat spouse first being detained pending their deportation.

In the case of married couples, the fact that the marriage persists (for now) may be irrelevant. What matters is whether the couple are still living together in a bona fide relationship. So all too often, the expat can become liable to arrest, detention and eventual removal, according to the Department, long before the marriage is formally ended by divorce. 

A very sensitive problem that has not been addressed by the Immigration Act [and has not yet been considered by the courts] is what happens if the separation has been forced by an abusive SA spouse. This could leave the abused expat spouse facing the tragic dichotomy of either being removed from the country or being forced to return to the situation of abuse. And that vulnerability could as easily extend to the expat spouse fears attending custody or maintenance hearings to avoid arrest and detention by Home Affairs’ officials some of whom see it as their duty to support the SA spouse, right or wrong.    In one matter, the previous Minister of Home Affairs admitted that she saw this as her duty even though, in that matter, it was the expat spouse who ended up needing a protection order.   And it has also been argued in custody battles that the expat spouse should not get custody precisely because they are either vulnerable to removal and/or they no longer have a right of residence.

A further challenge for the Immigration Act arises when the couple disagree on whether the relationship has in fact ended irrespective of whether the couple are married or not. What is the status of the relationship, for purposes of immigration enforcement, if one of the parties sees the separation as being a trial separation or he or she is committed to trying to save the marriage through counselling or trying to mend the relationship themselves. In practice, officials of the Department of Home Affairs tend to react to the perspective or assessment of the SA spouse. As a long line of authority has held or implied that deportation requires that an official must take a decision to deport - which implies that there be some form of hearing to deport a person - the same ‘limitation’ applies to any decision to detain the expat spouse pending such deportation. 

The Immigration Act is however clear on one thing: in this context Home Affairs may only detain a person to establish either who he or she is and/or their residence status [which is limited to a 48-hour period], or in order to deport the expat who has no right to remain in the country.  

The Department does not have the authority to detain a person solely because he or she is in the country without a valid permit.   In addition, in Ulde v Minister of Home Affairs 2009(4) SA 522 (SCA) the SCA held, at paragraph [7], that the Department’s power to detain must be exercised “in favorem libertate.”

Another challenge for the Immigration Act and for estranged expat spouses, is what happens if children are involved - particularly if the child is a SA citizen. The child has a constitutional right to family life and to parental care - irrespective of its nationality. Whilst one would expect that the Department should be slow to remove the expat spouse [unless that was in the best interests of the child], there is the threat of removal that unfairly impacts on the expat spouse. 

The Immigration Act does not have a category of temporary residence permit that directly permits the expat spouse to be in the Republic to “accompany” his or her child or children. The closest the Act comes to achieving this is the relative’s permit. But this category of temporary residence permit is issued to “a foreigner who is a member of the immediate family of a citizen.”  It has been argued that it is straining the language of the Act considerably to hold that the child’s mother is a member of the child’s family. 

In addition, the Regulations to the Act require that to qualify for a relative’s permit, the SAC has to have disposable income of not less than R5000,00 per month to support the foreign relative! Whereas such prescribed requirements can be waived by the Department’s Head Office [which waivers rarely take less than six weeks to get, if approved] if there is “good cause”, section 18(2) of the Act says that “the holder of a relative’s permit may not conduct work.”  This requirement cannot be waived by the Department. This means that the expat spouse would be unable to provide for him- or herself and their dependants which must surely be unconstitutional.

This is not to say that the expat spouse is without remedies as he or she moves through the dissolution of a spousal relationship. There are protections but these are largely to be found rather in the Bill of Rights than in the Immigration Act - which Act badly needs to be amended in this regard. Perhaps the promised national debate on morality will also address the needs of the vulnerable expat spouse such that they can be protected against their Trojan Horses.

http://www.roylaw.co.za/home/article/divorce-the-foreign-spouse-and-home-affairs/pageid/immigration-law

Emigration from South Africa: Sound bites and other silliness

By Chris Watters
It is well-known, except perhaps to one or other Government spokesperson, that South Africa is plagued by a skills shortage and endemic un- or under-employment. At the same time one of the many other tragedies of South African society is that it is a country where more than a few people feel driven to leave the country. It is an open secret that more people emigrate from SA than immigrate to SA.

We only have to take a quick look at the criteria for emigration to the ‘major’ destinations (US, UK, Canada and Australia) to see that the people who leave and emigrate legally are going to be people with money, tertiary qualifications and proven entrepreneurial skills.

This target group would ordinarily play a significant role in South Africa in terms of job creation, widening the tax base and improving our economic efficiencies and competitiveness. And, onc cannot forget that emigrating is generally considered one of the most stressful things you can do in your lifetime; packing up and trying to re-establish your life in another country and culture. What drives people to do this? There can be any number of factors. But in recent years it is clear that there is increasing uncertainty as to the future direction and security of the country. As one couple said to me very recently – rightly or wrongly – “we don’t want to wake up to find ourselves and our children caught up in a civil war.” And you can ask the various Embassies – this is not a colour issue.

But if weekend media reports are to be believed, instead of trying to address the source of these fears the way the ANC has reportedly sought to respond prudently to the challenges posed by the recent local election results, the response to people fearing that they have no choice but to leave, has been little short of “good riddance to bad rubbish.”

This response stands in stark contrast to the analysis of the country‘s challenges tabled in the recently-released National Planning Commission’s Diagnostic Overview. Indeed, also at the weekend, Joel Netshitenzhe was quoted in the Sunday Independent, as saying that “a revolutionary phrase at the wrong time can defeat revolution” – in summarising his critique of other recent sound bites that could have done little to allay the fears of those people who are considering emigration.

So why are some senior political figures driven to this knee jerk equivalent of “well, sod off then”? How can this possibly help to offer the disenchanted youth a credible and sustainable stake in the economy when all we are doing is driving away some of the very people we need, to head off the potential conflict with the youth?

And it is not just emigration that is affected by these unfortunate sound bites. When people are looking to relocate from other countries with their skills or their retirement funds, they are not going to place themselves and their families at risk by heading to a destination that some feel is becoming a tinder box, once again, as a result of unchecked public statements of equally public figures.

The motivations for, and challenges of, emigration and immigration need to be better understood. They need to be responded to maturely and not with silly, irresponsible sound bites. South Africa is not in a position to play ‘footsie footsie’ about its economic recovery and job creation initiatives – and the very people who can help make that happen.

http://www.polity.org.za/print-version/emigration-from-south-africa-sound-bites-and-other-silliness-2011-06-28

SA issues over 65 000 work permits

Compiled by the Government Communication and Information System
Date: 16 Aug 2011
Title: SA issues over 65 000 work permits

Cape Town - The Department of Home Affairs' issuing of works permits to Zimbabwean nationals, under its recent Zimbabwe Dispensation Project, has inflated the number of work permits issued by the department to foreigners, with over 65 000 issued in the first quarter of this fiscal year.

Briefing a joint meeting for the National Assembly's labour and home affairs portfolio committees, the Department of Home Affairs Deputy Director-General of Immigration, Jackie McKay, said 59 363 of the permits issued between April and June this year were part of the department's Zimbabwe Dispensation Project, which came to an end last month.

In the last financial year, 135 000 work permits were issued to foreign nationals.

The remainder of permits issued during this time were: 672 corporate work permits, 699 exceptional skills permits, 3 202 general work permits, 1 252 permits that fall under the quota system and 1 719 work permits in terms of the provisions of Section 19 (5) of the Immigration Act (which provides for intra-company transfers).

McKay said the challenge his department faced with low-skilled work seekers was that many were opportunists that applied for asylum-seeker permits, as it didn't cost anything and allowed one to work in the country legally.

However, he said the department is looking at overhauling the entire asylum-seeker process and had appointed more members to the department's standing committee on refugees to ensure that work in this area went ahead.

He was quick to point out that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees regularly commended the country for its good treatment of refugees.

In answer to DA member Ian Ollis, on why so many work permits were issued to low-skilled workers rather than to those that were highly skilled, McKay said a study needed to be undertaken on migration trends to better understand the kind of foreign work seekers entering South Africa.

McKay said most unskilled work seekers came to South Africa through Mozambique and Zimbabwe - often arriving in neighbouring countries before crossing South Africa's porous borders.

McKay referred all questions that MPs had on the country's porous borders to the Department of Defence, which oversees border security.

According to figures from the Africa Centre for Migration and Society's Forced Migration Studies Programme, there are about 1.6 million to two million foreigners (3-4% percent of the population) living in South Africa, with about 1 million to 1.5 million of these being Zimbabweans.

McKay also pointed out that the Department of Home Affairs' lack of integration of systems often meant that individuals could be resident in different regimes within the department's databases, sometimes under different names enjoying multiple benefits under assumed identities.

He attributed this to the fact that the department didn't take biometric information from foreign work seekers and it only did so for those seeking asylum.

But he questioned whether making finger-printing of foreign workers mandatory would be a good idea, as it could make South Africa a less favourable destination for foreign workers, he said.

Turning to the amendments to the Immigration Act, MacKay said these are largely aimed at revising provisions relating to visas for temporary stays; introduction of permits for low-skilled and unskilled immigrants; revising provisions relating to permanent residence and to allow for advanced processing of travellers as was undertaken during last World Cup.

The amendment calls for temporary residence permits to in the future be referred to as "visas", but that the term "permanent residence permits" would remain.

"The reason for this is that the word permit is interpreted generally - even by our courts - as denoting 'long-term' stay in South Africa, where as the word 'visa' internationally denotes that you visit the country for a temporary, or short period only," he said.

The amendment also calls for a new permit, called the critical skills permit, to replace the existing exceptional skills and quota work permits. The department would then be required to publish a list of critical skills that the department needs.

He said the department is drafting an immigration review policy and would be holding consultations with other departments and hold public hearings.

It is hoped that these discussions would lead to further amendments of the Immigration Act, he said.

The Department of Labour's Deputy Director-General of Public Employment Services,
Sam Morotoba, said the country's labour laws don't discriminate against any migrant workers, but pointed out that the country didn't have regulations addressing specifically migrants.

Morotoba said the department had received legal advice that at present, companies could still easily challenge the department in court over the legality of a permit.

He said Section 9 of the proposed Employment Services Bill - which is presently at Nedlac - would provide a better legal basis for the department on addressing migrants.

The bill proposes that employers must first advertise a position locally and consider those applicants that the department has provided them for through the Employment Services Portal (which the bill has mooted) and then back this up with the relevant evidence presented to the department, if they wish to take on foreign workers.

Meanwhile, a study by Parliament's research unit, made available to committee members today, pointed out that a number of studies showed the benefits of labour migration - with one study revealing that in 1990, more than a third of engineers and other IT professionals living in the US were born elsewhere. - BuaNews
http://www.buanews.gov.za/news/11/11081615051002

Immigration Bill: Lawyers for Human Rights Press Release

Lawyers for Human Rights criticizes DHA's use of unlawful measures to exclude refugees from SA (press release)
The Department of Home Affairs has begun implementing one of the most controversial elements of the Immigration Amendment Bill—the use of pre-screening procedures for asylum seekers at the border. While members of the Department have issued conflicting statements over what this provision will mean in practice, the Minister has stated that asylum seekers will be subject to the ‘first safe country’ principle, and that those individuals who passed through other countries where they could have applied for asylum will be turned away at the border.

Nothing in South African law currently provides for this practice, and our courts have ruled to the contrary, holding that an individual cannot be denied asylum in South Africa because he or she first passed through another country. But there are increasing reports of individuals being turned away at the border on this basis, without any proper determination of their need for asylum protection.

During a National Assembly session on Wednesday 23 March 2011, a member of the Democratic Alliance asked the Minister to provide assurances that she would stop this practice in order to bring South Africa in line with its human rights obligations. The Minister however refused to give such an assurance.

‘While heated debate continues around the proposed amendments to the Immigration Bill, the Minister of Home Affairs has rejected the important role that such debate plays in a parliamentary democracy by implementing some of the amendments without waiting for them to become law,’ said Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh of Lawyers for Human Rights.

The Minister’s refusal to end this practice contravenes both domestic and international law. Said Ramjathan-Keogh: ‘Home Affairs is not above the law, and may not institute practices that fall outside of existing legal provisions, particularly when the practice is still being debated through the proper legislative procedure. Such procedures are meaningless if the Department chooses to circumvent them.’

Internationally, South Africa is bound by the UN and African Refugee Conventions, which prevent a country from returning an asylum seeker to a country where he or she may face persecution. The practice of turning away individuals at the border violates this non-refoulement principle. In January this year, the European Court of Human Rights found this same practice illegal, ruling that returning an individual to a country whose asylum system was deficient constituted ‘indirect refoulement.’

According to Ramjathan-Keogh, ‘Individuals are being turned away at the border without proper procedures, and risk being unlawfully returned to situations of grave human rights abuses.’

For more information, please contact Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh at kaajal@lhr.org.za  or Jacob van Garderen at Jacob@lhr.rg.za / 
http://www.lhr.org.za/news/2011/press-release-lhr-criticizes-dhas-use-unlawful-measures-exclude-refugees-sa

Immigration Bill: Human rights activists' perspective

****If you are having problems that are not being adequately addressed, phone the Home Affairs DG on his cellphone.  Read more here.****

Immigration Bill given thumbs downILHAM RAWOOT | JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA - Mar 25 2011 00:00 The Immigration Amendment Bill, passed by Parliament this week, has been l
abelled inhumane, ill-conceived and draconian by lawyers and human rights activists, who say that asylum-seekers and refugees will be hard hit by it.

"The Bill favours the rich at the expense of the vulnerable," said Fatima Khan, the director of the University of Cape Town's refugee rights project. "The amendments are harsh and unnecessary." Khan said the Bill allowed for asylum-seekers to be pre-screened at South Africa's border, in spite of the fact that immigration officials were not qualified to do this. "They should be allowed into the country and properly screened," she said.

Sheldon Magardie, the regional director of Lawyers for Human Rights, was angry that border officials would be empowered to deport people at the border "there and then". "The effect will be that persons with valid asylum claims at the border risk being immediately deported to countries where they may be tortured or killed," Magardie said. "This new procedure violates the spirit of South Africa's international legal obligations under the Convention Against Torture and the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees."

Roni Amit, the senior researcher at the African Centre for Migration and Society, emphasised that the High Court ruled in 2006 that pre-screening was a violation of constitutional rights. "There is a perception that people are abusing the system," said Amit. "But rather than addressing abuse in the home affairs department, they're targeting people coming into the country."

Complaints
Critics also complain that the law empowers Home Affairs Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma to reduce the number of days given to asylum-seekers to report to an immigration officer for asylum status from 14 to five.

"It's cruel," said Khan. "The minister has no idea how vulnerable asylum-seekers are, especially females. Women are sometimes raped by gangs and left lying at the border for days.

"What is she going to do with these people who take more than five days? Is she going to deport them? Is she going to imprison them?" Said Magardie: "You can't have a one-size-fits-all approach. You can apply for asylum only at refugee reception offices in the main towns. Someone coming from the border will probably take more than five days to reach a big town."

There are measures dealing with cases of abuse in the Refugee Act as it currently stands, she said. The increase in criminal penalties was a further problem in the new law, said Magardie. "The minister has increased penalties from fines to jail sentences of up to 15 years for infringements. That is disproportionate."

A provision allowing for advanced passenger processing (APP), to give home affairs access to airlines' passenger lists, appeared to violate privacy rights. Said Magardie: "Home affairs is a creaking bureaucracy which cannot cope with large-scale violations of the integrity of the population register and identity theft. How this new and additional database maintenance responsibility for APP will be handled is a mystery."

Democratic Alliance home affairs spokesperson Annette Lovemore said the processing of the Bill was another concern, as the ANC used its majority muscle to force it through in the teeth of the unanimous rejection by opposition parties. "It was bulldozed through," Lovemore said. "The department did not consult at the drafting stage and gave a one-week submission deadline for public submissions for a very complex Bill. There was no robust debate."

Lovemore objected to the stipulation that foreigners wishing to establish businesses in South Africa must, within a year of being granted a visa, meet a certain unspecified "target". "Exceptional skills permits have also been eradicated and replaced with critical skills permits, making it harder to work in South Africa. "The overall effect is that it's going to make migration harder," said Amit. "It contains language that makes it harder for people to apply for visas of any kind."

Dlamini-Zuma told the media this week that immigration policy "has to be in line with our national priorities, of which job creation is one of the most important". Abuses of South Africa's open-immigration policy had compromised national security and tarnished the country's international reputation, she said.
Source: Mail & Guardian Online
Web Address: http://www.mg.co.za/article/2011-03-25-immigration-bill-given-thumbs-down

ANC uses muscle on immigration bill

ANC determined to push Immigration Amendment Bill through the National Assembly

WYNDHAM HARTLEY
Published: 2011/03/23 08:02:16 AM
CAPE TOWN — The ruling African National Congress was forced to use its majority muscle to push the Immigration Amendment Bill through the National Assembly yesterday following rejection of the measure by all the main opposition parties.
The bill has attracted considerable criticism with its provisions that change the law for asylum seekers, particularly the one that now requires foreigners in SA to return to their home countries in order to change the status of their visas.
Home Affairs Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma angrily rejected opposition arguments that the bill would harm SA’s image abroad, that SA would fail to attract scarce skills, and that the bill was arguably unconstitutional for banning immigration practitioners from lodging visa and permit applications on behalf of their clients.
The Democratic Alliance (DA), the Congress of the People (COPE), the Inkatha Freedom Party and the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) all said during debate on the bill that they would oppose it.
Ms Dlamini-Zuma insisted that the ANC would not place on the statute book a law that was not in the best interests of the country. She said for those who obeyed the rules, the bill would make it easier to get a visa; but it also toughened up the measures that applied to those who did not abide by SA’s rules.
DA MP Annette Lovemore said the party fully supported measures that created a workable migration regime — "one that enhances both national security and economic development" — but was disturbed "at the extensive changes this bill proposes in the absence of a comprehensive migration policy". She accused Ms Dlamini-Zuma of "bulldozing" the bill through Parliament.
"This bill removes the exceptional skills permit and replaces it with a critical skills visa. An applicant for an exceptional skills permit was able to motivate why his or her skills or expertise were exceptional and why they would be of benefit to SA; however, this is not the case with critical skills. A list will be gazetted and a person with a skill that is not listed will simply not qualify. Based on the department’s dismal record with other similar lists, we believe that this change will only serve to keep critical skills out."
ACDP MP Steve Swart said "while there are a number of positive amendments … such as advanced passenger processing and adding human smuggling and trafficking to the list of crimes disallowing entrance … we share concerns as to the far-reaching implications of other amendments contained in this bill".

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=137877

immigration amendment bill

****If you are having problems that are not being adequately addressed, phone the Home Affairs DG on his cellphone.  Read more here.****

Immigration Amendment Bill 2010

Since November of last year, we have been closely following and involved in the parliamentary process around the Immigration Amendment Bill of 2010. The Forum of Immigration Practitioners of South Africa (FIPSA), as well as the Law Society of South Africa, the Legal Resources Centre, several law firms, the Centre for Development Enterprise (CDE) and many others, presented their comments on the Bill to the parliamentary portfolio committee on Home Affairs during the public consultation process. The criticism in relation to the most important issues was almost unanimous. In response to the public comments, the committee has asked Home Affairs to review certain aspects of the Bill. During the three committee meetings since the public consultation, there was much heated debate between ANC and DA members, as well as the Home Affairs team present. Every meeting was presented with further amendments, some of which have brought significant and critical relief from the original Bill’s proposals. On 8 March, the committee voted on the Bill and adopted it in its latest amended form.

What You May Have Heard About, But Has Subsequently Been Withdrawn from the Bill or Amended

• Removal of waiver option for Business Permits: The original Bill proposed the removal of the option to reduce or waive the minimum investment of R 2,5 million, which would have meant that every applicant for a business permit had to invest at least R 2,5 million and that no exceptions to this rule would have been possible. This proposal has in the meantime been withdrawn and the waiver option will therefore stay.
• The restriction of Business Permits to certain industries, to be prescribed by the Minister from time to time: The restriction has been removed and instead an exclusion clause has been inserted, in terms of which businesses in certain industries will be excluded, which industries will be prescribed.
• The restriction of Corporate Permits to certain industries, to be prescribed by the Minister from time to time: The restriction has been removed and instead an exclusion clause has been inserted, in terms of which corporates in certain industries will be excluded, which industries will be prescribed.
• Removal of work option for under 25-year-olds under Exchange Permit: The provision has been re-inserted and instead an exclusion clause has been inserted, in terms of which work in certain industries will be excluded, which industries will be prescribed. It is quite apparent that the above changes are really targeting strip clubs employing foreign “exotic dancers”, which have caused Home Affairs much embarrassment and negative publicity.
• The prohibition of changing temporary residence status or conditions of permit or even extending a permit from within the country (or rather, allowing it only in “exceptional circumstances” and after approval from the Minister, which is practically equivalent to a prohibition): This restriction has been changed to only apply to holders of visitor’s and medical treatment permits, which is a relief, but in its current form will still affect working spouses of South Africans, children and spouses accompanying a permit holder, as well as holders of short-term authorizations to work wishing to change to longer-term permits. These persons will have to interrupt their stay, leave the country and apply from their home country. They will have to await the outcome of such application (with processing times of up to 3 months) until being allowed to return to their homes in South Africa. Exceptions will be made in “exceptional circumstances”, which are to be prescribed in the Regulations. After much heated debate on my side with the official responsible for the drafting of the Bill, at least the requirement for an exception to be granted by “the Minister” has been removed, which should make it more accessible.

Problematic issues that the current proposal includes

• Removal of section 46, which provides that advocates, attorneys and registered Immigration Practitioners may represent applicants before the Department of Home Affairs. The concern is that the removal of section 46 will lead to the legitimization of corrupt and unethical “consultants”, taking away from foreigners the tool to differentiate bone fide practitioners from illegitimate ones, putting them at risk of being exploited and defrauded. Further, Home Affairs will have to communicate with and respond to thousands of individual applicants and companies instead of a controllable, reachable group of professionals who have expert knowledge of the immigration field and are able to disseminate information to their networks of clients, thereby ensuring that procedural and policy changes are complied with and that the system runs smoothly. Immigration is too complex a field for a call centre to be able to manage all enquiries with any level of significance or required expertise. This is expected to lead to inappropriate applications, negative decisions and a flood of appeals and/or court cases, making the process even slower and more unpredictable. In my capacity as Vice Chairperson of FIPSA, I formulated a letter that was sent out to large and influential clients of Immigration Practitioners country-wide, in a bid for support against the planned removal of section 46. About 40 signed letters by leading businesses, chambers of commerce, research bodies and major non-governmental organisations were presented to the committee’s chairperson and were discussed at the last committee meeting, but the ANC-dominated committee could not be swayed and insisted that the time for public input had passed. They will, however, be used once more in the next phase of the Bill, involving the National Council of Provinces and parliament’s National Assembly, and we again thank all those who have contributed to this action.
• Application in person: The proposed section will require all applications to be submitted in person, where applications can currently be lodged by courier or through attorneys, advocates and immigration practitioners or their staff. As most readers will know, it is a common occurrence for counter staff at offices of Home Affairs and at foreign missions to give poor or incomplete advice. Furthermore, there are language and cultural hurdles to be overcome. Many clients have reported to us their frustrations with Home Affairs and come to us for assistance due to their negative experiences there (e.g. repeatedly standing in lines for many hours only to be turned away yet again). Poor advice over the counter leads to inappropriate and incomplete applications, rejections, appeals, a clogging up of the process, a waste of government resources and a deterrent of foreign skills, investment and other much-needed benefits to South Africa. Immigration Practitioners have been shouldering the negative and tedious parts of the immigration process for their clients in order to ensure that the latter’s experience of coming to South Africa is a positive one, but will now be prevented from doing that.
• Job creation by Business Permit holders: The Bill proposes that Business Permit holders, instead of having to employ at least 5 South African citizens or permanent residents within 2 years from receiving the permit, will in future have to create a certain (to be prescribed in the Regulations) number and percentage of jobs for South Africans and permanent residents within 12 months. There exists great uncertainty around what this number and percentage will be.
• Effective abolishment of exceptional skills permit (replaced by the critical skills permit, whereby the quota work permit was abolished): Persons currently qualifying for this permit include successful sportspeople, artists, musicians, scientists, academics and other persons who have had an extraordinary impact in their fields. Very often other types of work permits do not apply to these sought-after individuals, or are extremely onerous in their requirements. Also, it is probably impossible to anticipate or predict all the different industries and fields in which exceptional skills may be needed in South Africa. Hence, no list will be able to capture all of the country’s needs, which are also ever-changing. South Africa will be losing an important tool to attract highly valuable individuals.
• Reduction of parliament’s control in respect of immigration policy: A number of changes proposed in the Bill will have the effect of parliament not being involved in critical questions of immigration policy. This includes all criteria attached to work permits, including intra-company transfer, critical skills and general work permits. These are all to be prescribed by Regulation. Since the amendments to the Immigration Act of 2005, Regulations do not need to be presented to parliament for comment anymore. The result will be a much-reduced oversight role of parliament.
• Overstaying: In future, any person who has overstayed the validity of his or her permit for a certain (to be prescribed in the Regulations) number of times, may be declared “undesirable”, which means that they do not qualify for any future visas or permits. No differentiation is made in the Bill between voluntary and involuntary (e.g. as a result of incapacity due to illness) overstaying, and no exemption is provided for persons who overstay as a result of delays on the side of Home Affairs. This creates major uncertainty and again a dependency on the Regulations, over which parliament has no control.

From Imcosa's March Newsletter

Home Affairs ID suicide

****If you are having problems that are not being adequately addressed, phone the Home Affairs DG on his cellphone.  Read more here.****

Maladministration at home affairs costs people their livelihoods, and sometimes even their lives...

Shame of the Home Affairs ID suicide

August 30 2009 at 01:10pm 

By Staff Reporters and Sapa

It is not often Home Affairs Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma cries, but on hearing that a Durban man had killed himself out of despair that he could not get the identity document he needed for his new job, she broke down in tears.

On Friday his brother found the body of S'khumbuzo Douglas Mhlongo, 22, in his dilapidated shack near Hillcrest. He had left a suicide note that said he had taken his life because not having an ID meant he could not do anything.

As the family and friends of Mhlongo grieve, the minister and Home Affairs officials have vowed to track down the bureaucrat who allegedly ripped up Mhlongo's application form and threw them in his face.

Still upset, Dlamini-Zuma on Saturday lashed out at officials who "think they rule the world". She hinted that the official might have been angling for a bribe.

On Saturday, Mhlongo's brother, Mbongeni, and sister, Zandile, said they had last seen him on Sunday and he seemed normal.

"He seemed in the right frame of mind and I did not think he would do anything extreme," Mbongeni said. The room where he found his brother hanging is a shack at the back of a house where he had lived a poverty-stricken existence for several years.

His sister said the family had been abandoned by their mother several years before.

Mhlongo had been working part-time at a local pet food producer. In March he was told he would be given a full-time job, but he needed to get an identity book.

At Pinetown's Home Affairs offices he and a friend applied for the ID books and although his friend received his, Mhlongo kept having to go back to officials. They wanted documents from a local councillor to prove he was a South African citizen, his family claim.

They said when he took such documents, he was given the run-around, and was accused of forging the councillor's signature.

He asked a neighbour, Mrs Mhlongo, to assist him and accompany him to Home Affairs. The family claim staff at Pinetown told him they were not going to help him if he came with a "foreigner's mentality" and asked for a R400 bribe.

His sister said in recent months he was so overwhelmed with debt, having borrowed money from people for his living expenses and to visit Home Affairs offices, he did not want to leave his shack.

A neighbour, Clifton Vumbu, said Mhlongo told him last week that when he had gone to Home Affairs for an interview, they had torn up his application papers and told him to go.

Speaking on Saturday at a media conference, Dlamini-Zuma said "people who work in those offices, the majority of them, think they rule the world". The minister was attending a service delivery workshop at Umzimkhulu.

Dlamini-Zuma said she had received a call on Friday night to inform her Mhlongo had killed himself, after an alleged incident at the Pinetown Home Affairs office.

Obtaining an ID without a birth certificate requires late registration and involves drawing on statements from people who say they know the applicant, as well as an interview with the people and the applicant by the department.

"The... person who was conducting the interview was not satisfied with the information and then said this young man was lying and tore the papers and threw them at them, and said that clearly they are not even South African and used this derogative word that they use for foreigners, and basically chased him away and condemned this young man to no life.

"And, of course, what is worse is that he was looking forward to starting a job, but obviously they had said he must bring his ID when he comes to work and if he doesn't have an ID, then they will give it to someone else.

"And, of course, when it became clear that they are not prepared to give him an ID, they are not even prepared to accept him as a South African, he then decided to end his life, Dlamini-Zuma said.

Speaking earlier, department spokesman Ronnie Mamoepa said when Dlamini-Zuma heard of his death, she was very upset.

"It is the first time I have heard the minister cry.

"She has spoken to the family, and has sent a director-general to the family. She just sat there crying, saying that she has a 22-year-old daughter."

On Saturday Dlamini-Zuma said "obviously as a person who has that portfolio it's very difficult, so we hope that it won't happen again...

"We are going to find the person who acted in that way and we won't have tolerance for people like that."

Both the police and Home Affairs director-general Mavuso Msimang had visited the family and had made copies of the suicide note.

Dlamini-Zuma said they would identify the official who allegedly tore up the documents, but said: "That's not enough because we have to get rid of this culture".

She said the department was a "difficult" one which had never had a proper culture of service or ubuntu. She said without an ID, people have no life and this should make officials sensitive and vigilant in making sure they are not frustrated in their quest for documentation.

"But for some reason it seems to have the reverse, people think it's power, they can demand what they want from the public, they can demand money, they can demand whatever. And if people don't give the bribes, then they don't give us the service," she said.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/shame-of-the-home-affairs-id-suicide-1.456724

Class action Western Cape: 400 applicants

****If you are having problems that are not being adequately addressed, phone the Home Affairs DG on his cellphone.  Read more here.****

Bid to force Home Affairs to finalise 400 applications

07 Feb 2011 | Anton Ferreira - The Times | 7 comments

A BRITISH millionaire, a US professor and an Israeli design expert - these are just three of the hundreds of foreigners left in limbo by the Department of Home Affairs.

The frustrations of the three men are spelled out in affidavits filed in the high court in Cape Town on Friday by attorney Gary Eisenberg, who brought an urgent application to force the department to finalise more than 400 temporary residence applications - some of which were lodged more than a year ago.
Yesterday, Home Affairs director-general Mkuseli Apleni said he was not aware of the court application.
"I will have to get all of the facts on the application and the cases before I can comment on the challenges that the department faces. They do have a right to say what they want about the process but before I say anything, I must get all the information."
Brian Ganson, a professor at Tufts University in the US and an international expert in conflict management, said in the court papers he had applied for an "exceptional skills" work permit in June last year so he could take up a position at Stellenbosch University.
He was supposed to join the university's Africa Centre for Dispute Resolution, to (among other things) lead a new initiative on community development. But he can't do so until the permit comes through.
British businessman Colin Slessor spent R4million on a game farm near Montague in the Western Cape in 2009 and spent a further R600 000 fixing it up with the intention of starting a tourist operation.
"Not only am I bringing substantial funds into the country, but my business will employ South Africans and stimulate the tourism sector," Slessor said. "However my attempts to run my business have been handicapped by the apparent inability or unwillingness of home affairs to provide me with a temporary residence permit."
Amos Serfaty, an Israeli industrial design consultant, married his South African wife Jaye in 2009 and moved with her to Cape Town. He applied for a work permit in August last year and is still waiting for a response.
Serfaty, Slessor and Ganson are all Eisenberg's clients, who brought the court action with Visa One, a company that specialises in immigration matters. Eisenberg said his business was teetering on the brink of ruin because the delays were ruining his reputation.
In October last year, Apleni acknowledged the department had serious challenges - "mainly the uneven quality of front office service delivery and staff attitudes".

http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2011/02/07/bid-to-force-home-affairs-to-finalise-400-applications  accessed 7 March

Class Action Pretoria: 700 applicants

****If you are having problems that are not being adequately addressed, phone the Home Affairs DG on his cellphone.  Read more here.****

Home affairs sued over permit delay for hundreds of foreigners

ERNEST MABUZA

Published: 2011/02/10 06:25:47 AM

AN IMMIGRATION practitioner has filed another lawsuit against the Department of Home Affairs, asking the North Gauteng High Court to direct the department to adjudicate and finalise the applications of more than 700 foreigners in 31 permit categories.




This application was launched on Tuesday, the same day Home Affairs Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma indicated that she did not want immigration practitioners to be involved in representing applicants in the home affairs offices.


However, the practitioners believe they are necessary to help applicants navigate the processes at the department and to help reduce the backlog of applications.




The application, by Leon Isaacson, follows one filed in Cape Town on Friday by immigration lawyer Gary Eisenberg on behalf of more than 400 permit applicants against the department for its failure to adjudicate temporary residence permit applications.




In his founding affidavit, Mr Isaacson said that in the past, temporary residence and other applications took up to 30 working days to finalise.


He said applications were submitted at regional offices all over the country where applications were adjudicated and finalised. Applicants or immigration practitioners acting on their behalf would then collect the permits from the regional offices where they had applied for them.




He said that in December 2009, the department decided to centralise the adjudication of applications to a hub at the home affairs head office in Pretoria.




"It is my opinion as an immigration practitioner … that the hub was not properly set up before the applications began being sent there," Mr Isaacson said.


As a result, " hundreds, if not thousands, of applications were lost, became untraceable or took months to finalise. In June 2010 the hub simply did not have enough officials to deal with the large amount of administration that was required of it."




He said permit applicants could not work, study, do business, travel or be with their loved ones due to the department was taking an inordinate amount of time to finalise applications.




"Senior personnel of multinational corporations are unable to receive their salaries as they do not have work permits. They cannot open bank accounts for the same reason. Businesses who wish to bring workers from abroad to contribute to the economic growth of the country are unable to do so," Mr Isaacson said.




"Applicants may also be arrested and in many instances are refused bail because they are illegal foreigners not due to any fault of their own."


Departmental spokesman Ronnie Mamoepa said last night his legal department had not received papers on the North Gauteng High Court matter.


On the Cape application by Mr Eisenberg, Mr Mamoepa said the matter had been set down for later this month and the department would respond accordingly.








mabuzae@bdfm.co.za

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=133875  accessed 7 March