EMN FOCUSSED STUDY 2016 Approaches to rejected asylum … · EMN Focussed Study 2016 Returning...

EMN Focussed Study 2016

Returning Rejected Asylum Seekers: obstacles challenges and good practices

of 29

EMN FOCUSSED STUDY 2016 Approaches to rejected asylum seekers

Top-line “Factsheet” (National Contribution)

The high percentage of rejections is creating an ever increasing number of irregular migrants that should be returned. Data show that more than 60% of applicants do not get the recognition of one of the three forms of protection (refugee status, subsidiary

protection, humanitarian permit of stay). The difficulty of repatriating such a number of migrants, due to the lack of cooperation of countries of origin of migrants and to the lack

of documentation, is one of the problems that we have to face and solve. When an application for international protection is rejected, the rejected applicant may contest the decision within 15 or 30 days (60 days if the applicant lives abroad).

Generally, an applicant may contest this decision within 30 days of service of the rejection notice. However, this period is reduced to 15 days if the application is manifestly

unfounded or is a subsequent application or if the applicant submits an asylum application after being apprehended on grounds of having escaped or tried to escape border controls. Once the appeal has been lodged, the applicant is entitled to remain within the country

until a decision is taken by the court. Once the terms for contesting the decision have been expired, the residence permit he or

she has been granted as asylum seeker needs to be revoked before a removal order can be issued. In general, a removal order is executed either by the police escorting the person to the

border (especially for those who are in a reception centre or in a Centre for Identification and Deportation) or by granting a term for voluntary return and possible admission to an

assisted return programme (especially if the applicant was granted a ‘resident permit for asylum application’). The Legislative Decree No 142/2015 establishes that reception measures should be

provided throughout the period in which the application is examined by the Territorial Commission for the Recognition of International Protection and, in the case of rejection,

until the expiration of the term for contesting the decision. In the other cases, an applicant who has lodged an appeal remains in the centre where he or she is staying until a decision is taken on the application for interim relief that may have been made and then

for the time he or she is authorised to stay on national territory by the judicial authority. Rejected applicants who have lodged an appeal have the same rights as asylum seekers.

For this reason, they are entitled to register with the National Health Care System and to receive healthcare, to access municipal reception centres and the social assistance

measures provided to beneficiaries of international protection; they are also entitled to employment and to education and vocational training courses.

As regards forced return, the Department of Public Security of the Ministry of the Interior

started cooperation initiatives aimed at accelerated return procedures and technical assistance (supply of equipment and training of police forces). In this regard, a

mechanism of permanent consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation has been set up. The goal is to establish development cooperation programmes and cooperation initiatives in areas that may of interest the

countries that originate the largest migration flows to Italy (Ivory Coast, Gambia, Ghana, Senegal, Bangladesh and Pakistan). Along these lines, the Department made a technical



of 29

Executive Summary (Synthesis Report)

In Italy, Legislative Decree No 142 of 18 August 2015, implementing Directive 2013/33/EU

laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection as well as

Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection status, establishes that if an application for international protection is rejected, the

rejected applicant is entitled to contest this decision. An appeal must be lodged within 30 days of service of the rejection notice (or 60 days if the applicant lives abroad). This period is reduced to 15 days if the application is manifestly unfounded or is a subsequent application, or when an

applicant submits an asylum application after being apprehended on grounds of having escaped or tried to escape border controls.

If an appeal is lodged, the applicant is entitled to remain in the country until a decision is taken by the court. In general, an appeal suspends the effects of the Territorial Commission’s rejection decision, and the applicant is granted a residence permit that is valid throughout the duration of

the legal action, unless: (a) the appeal is lodged by an applicant who is detained on grounds of being suspected to be

responsible of a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity, a serious crime outside the hosting country committed before being admitted as a refugee or acts against the aims and the principles of the United Nations; the applicant has been apprehended on grounds

of having escaped or tried to escape border controls or has been found illegally staying in the country; the applicant has been convicted in Italy for one of the crimes referred to in Articles

380(1) and 380(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (non-culpable crimes, committed or attempted, for which the law establishes the punishment of life imprisonment or detention from five to 20 years), crimes against the State, the crime of devastation and pillaging, crimes

against public safety, the crime of reduction to slavery, the crimes of theft or robbery, the crimes of illegal making, introduction into the State, sale, transfer, detention and carrying in a

public place or place open to public of arms or weapons of war or war-type or parts of them, of explosives or illegal arms, crimes concerning drugs or psychotropic substances, terrorist or subversive crimes, drugs related to drugs, sexual freedom, facilitation of illegal immigration to

Italy or of illegal migration from Italy to other States, or crimes aimed at recruiting people for the purposes of prostitution or exploitation of prostitution or minors to employ in illegal

activities; b) the appeal is lodged against a decision considering an application inadmissible as the applicant was granted refugee status in a State party to the Geneva Convention and he or she

can still use that protection; or an applicant has submitted the same application for a second time after a decision was taken by the Commission, without presenting new elements

concerning his or her personal condition or the situation in the country of origin; c) the appeal is lodged against the decision taken by the Commission in the case of unjustified

removal of the applicant from the hosting centre; d) the appeal is lodged against a decision considering the application manifestly unfounded. In the cases in which the automatic suspension of the enforceability of the decision is not

provided for, the Court may order such a suspension, if requested by the person concerned.

agreement with Gambia on 6 June 2015. It also established contacts with the authorities of the following Asian and African countries: Ivory Coast, Ghana, Senegal, Bangladesh and

Pakistan. Other cooperation initiatives in the area of migration and return have long been in place with third countries such as Egypt, Tunisia and Nigeria.



of 29

Under Legislative Decree No 142/2015 and the recent Circulars of the Department of Public

Security of the Ministry of the Interior (21 July 2016) and of the Department for Civil Liberties and Immigration (25 March 2016), reception measures are guaranteed throughout the time it

takes the Territorial Commission for the Recognition of International Protection to examine an application. Reception measures are also provided until the expiration of the term for contesting a rejection decision and until the competent court takes its decision in the case of an appeal.

Once the terms for contesting the decision have expired, a rejected applicant who has not lodged an appeal is subject to the withdrawal of his or her residence permit and therefore to

removal. In general, a removal order is executed either by the police escorting the person to the border (especially for those who are in a reception centre or in a Centre for Identification and

Deportation) or by granting a term for voluntary return and possible admission to an assisted return programme (especially if the applicant was granted a ‘resident permit for asylum

application’). Concerning forced return, the Department of Public Security of the Ministry of the Interior started cooperation initiatives aimed at accelerated return procedures and technical assistance

(supply of equipment and training of police forces) and established a mechanism of permanent consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation.

Section 1: Overview of the national situation

Q1. To what extent is the non-return of rejected asylum seekers considered a major issue in your Member State?

Is the return of rejected asylum seekers a national policy priority? Please provide qualitative evidence e.g. from

reports, political debate and media reports (quantitative evidence is requested in subsequent questions so should

not be covered here)

The high percentage of rejections, due to the fact that the examined persons are not entitled

to get one of the three forms of protection provided, are creating an ever increasing number of irregular migrants that should be returned. Data show that more than 60% of applicants do

not get the recognition of one of the three forms of protection. The issue of the great difficulty of return oerations, due to the lack of cooperation of countries of origin of migrants and to the lack of documentation, is present both in the debate within the institutions and in the public

debate. Recently the issue has been addressed also by the ministry of interior and the mayors of several Italian cities during of the EMN National Conference on 6 and 7 October 2016 and

during the annual meeting of Italian municipalities, the next week.

The issue is also present in the media, at least every week.

Since it is not easy the repatriation of who didn’t get a permit of stay in Italy, some have proposed to study forms of regularization on a case by case basis to decrease the irregular

stock already present on Italian territory. Another aspect that has emerged from the debate is that undocumented migrants can fueling the illegal labor circuit and/or be recruited by crime

organization. With such a influx of the migrants rescued at sea and in the absence of an effective return policy, all agree that the problem will soon become a priority for Italy and for Europe.



of 29

Q2. Please complete the Excel document in Annex 1 (providing information also on the metadata) if you have

national statistics available on:

- The total number of rejected asylum seekers who were issued an enforceable return decision in

2011-2015 disaggregated by sex;

- The number of rejected asylum seekers who were effectively returned from your Member State to

third countries in 2011-2015 (if possible disaggregated by sex and by type of return (voluntary /

assisted voluntary / forced).

The table requests information on the total number of rejected asylum seekers returned, as well as data for the

top ten citizenships of rejected asylum seekers in your Member State in the period 2011-2015 disaggregated by

sex.

The estimates we have provided come from the National Commission for the Right to Asylum of the Ministry of the Interior. This Commission collects and processes aggregated data on

rejections and positive decisions, based on the information given by the individual territorial commissions that are responsible for deciding on the applications they receive.

Q3. Please provide national estimates, disaggregated by sex, of (a) the share of rejected asylum seekers out of

the total number of TCNs issued a return decision in 2011-2015 and (b) the share of rejected asylum seekers

issued a return decision who were effectively returned, by completing the table below and indicating whether the

share is:

a) Between 90 to 100%

b) Between 51 to 90%

c) Between 31 to 50%

d) Less than 30%

These estimates may be made available through national studies, or may be identified through consultation with

relevant national authorities for the purpose of this study. For every estimate, please indicate in the final column

the source of the estimate and – where possible – the method used.

Year % rejected asylum seekers out of total

no. TCNs issued a return decision

% rejected asylum seekers out of total

no. TCNs effectively returned

Source / method of

the estimate

Male Female Total Male Female Total

2011 N/A N/A 22.1 N/A N/A N/A % of total

applications

examined by

Territorial

Commissions

Source: Ministry of

the Interior

2012 N/A N/A 17.5 N/A N/A N/A

2013 N/A N/A 28.6 N/A N/A N/A

2014 N/A N/A 36.2 N/A N/A N/A

2015 N/A N/A 52.6 N/A N/A N/A

Q4a. If available, please provide any national estimates on the total number of rejected asylum seekers

disaggregated by sex who, despite having been imposed a return decision, continue to reside in your Member

State during the period 2011-2015 because they could not be returned (see also sections 3 and 4)?



of 29

Year # rejected asylum seekers imposed an enforceable return decision who

continue to reside in the Member State

Source / method of the

estimate

Male Female Total

2011 N/A N/A N/A

2012 N/A N/A N/A

2013 N/A N/A N/A

2014 N/A N/A N/A

2015 N/A N/A N/A

Q4b. Please provide, if possible, a breakdown of the statistics described in 4a by reason for non-return. If

statistics are not available disaggregated by reason, please describe any qualitative evidence of the main reasons

in your Member State for the non-return of rejected asylum seekers described in 4a. Reasons may include the

successful or on-going appeal of the asylum decision, the successful or on-going appeal of the return decision,

problems with readmission, returnee resistance, etc. Please note that more detailed questions on challenged to

return are outlined in section 4.

We have no data or estimates on the number of returns of rejected asylum seekers

Section 2: Member States’ policies and measures vis-à-vis rejected asylum seekers at

the point of rejection

SECTION 2.1: HOW ASYLUM DECISIONS TRIGGER THE ISSUANCE OF THE RETURN DECISION

Q5 At what stage in the asylum decision-making procedure can an enforceable return decision (i.e. one that can

lead to the return of the asylum seeker) be issued? Please select one of the following options:

a) after the first instance decision (all applications for international protection);

b) after the first instance decision (only for applications for international protection considered unfounded – e.g. if

they are lodged by an applicant from a safe country of origin);

c) after some appeals on the asylum decision have been lodged, but before all possibilities for appeal on the

asylum decision have been exhausted;

d) only after all asylum appeals have been exhausted;

e) under other circumstances (please describe).

a) after the first instance decision if the asylum seekers didn’t submit an appeal against the

decision.

The applicant may contest this decision within 30 days of service of the rejection notice.

However, this period is reduced to 15 days if the application is manifestly unfounded or is a subsequent application or if the applicant submits an asylum application after being apprehended on grounds of having escaped or tried to escape border controls.

If the time limit to submit an appeal against the decision has expired the asylum seeker is



of 29

subject to the withdrawal of their residence permit and therefore to removal. However, under Italian legislation, on the one hand, any return decision should be issued only after assessing

the individual case and, on the other hand, there is a removal mechanism “of gradually growing intensity” in place (Directive 115/2008). Under this mechanism, a time limit for

voluntary departure is set, which can be extended if escorting the person to the border at once is not viable.

Q6. If the return decision can enter into force before all asylum appeals have been exhausted, how often, in

practice does this lead to the applicant being returned? (e.g. in all cases, most cases, some cases, rarely, never)?

Rarely.

Q7a. Is the authority responsible for issuing the return decision in your Member State the same as the authority

who is responsible for making decisions on the application for asylum? Yes / No

If no, how do these authorities coordinate and communicate to ensure that asylum decisions trigger the return

procedure at the right time? Please describe any coordination arrangements and how they work in practice.

No. The Territorial Commissions’ role is to grant recognition of refugee status to a requester, while an expulsion decision is adopted by the Prefect by issuing an order under article 13 (2), lett. b) of Legislative Decree 25 July 1998, No. 286, entitled “Consolidated text of provisions

governing immigration and the status of the alien”.

Following the adoption by the Prefect of the expulsion order, the Questore (territorial police

authority), in charge of the execution, shall adopt a removal order.

Take note that the Territorial Commissions, the Prefect and the Questore belong to the Ministry of Interior

Q 7b. When a decision on an asylum application triggers a return decision, how soon after the rejection is the

return decision issued? Please select among the following options:

a) The return decision is issued at the same time the decision rejecting the asylum application enters into

force/becomes executable.

b) The return decision is issued within 24 hours of the rejection decision entering into force/becoming

executable.

c) The return decision is issued within a week of the rejection decision entering into force/becoming executable.

d) The return decision is issued within a month of the rejection decision entering into force/becoming executable.

Please provide further details on current practice in your Member State, in particular if not covered under the

options above

The return decision is issued after:

1) the time limit to submit an appeal against the decision has expired and the applicant do



of 29

not lodged an appel (see Q5)

2) After the time needed to process the appeal against the first instance negative decision

(six months established by Legislative decree n. 142/2015 but this period is generally delayed due to the great numbers of appeals)

Q8. In your Member State, is it possible to use the information that is obtained from the applicant in the course of

the asylum procedure for the purposes of facilitating return? Yes / No

If yes, is such information regularly used? (for example, documentation and declarations that were made as part

of the asylum claim, family connections stated, etc. may be used after a return decision has entered into force as

supporting evidence for the purpose of establishing identity and obtaining travel documents to the relevant

(consular) authorities of the third-country)

No.

SECTION 2.2: IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES FOR REJECTED ASYLUM SEEKERS REQUIRED TO RETURN

Q9. What are the immediate consequences for the rejected asylum seeker of the return decision entering into force?

Please answer this question by completing the table below. Please note that similar information was requested in

the Ad-Hoc Query on ‘the right of residence provided for TCNs to whom international protection application has

been rejected’ requested 30th December 2015. Please review your Member State to this AHQ (if completed) and

provide only updated information here.



of 29

Table 2.1: The immediate consequences for the rejected asylum seeker of the return decision entering into force

Questions … according to law … as carried out in practice Provide here evidence to

suggesting this contributes to

encouraging or deterring return

Accommodation

Can the applicant stay in reception centres

once rejected? Yes/no

Yes. Only in the closed reception

centers (centers for Identification

and Expulsion - CIE)

the available capacity is limited in

comparison to the number of

expulsion orders

If you stated yes above, please indicate for

how long after receiving the return decision

they can stay in the reception centre (e.g. X

days or ‘until the return decision is enforced

and the individual returns’)

They can stay in the CIE for a

maximum of 90 days

If you stated no above, are they

accommodated elsewhere (e.g. special open

return centres) or elsewhere? Yes/no and – for

yes, briefly describe accommodation service

provided

No

Employment

Are rejected applicants entitled to access /

continue accessing the labour market? Yes/No

No They could work illegally

If yes, please indicate for how long after

receiving the return decision they can continue

to work (e.g. X days or ‘until the return

decision is enforced and the individual

returns’)

If yes, please describe any specific conditions

attached to their employment



of 29

Welfare

Are rejected applicants entitled to receive any

social benefits?

No

If yes, please briefly describe what these

benefits are

.



to receive the benefits (e.g. X days or ‘until

the return decision is enforced and the

individual returns’)

Healthcare

Are rejected applicants still entitled to

healthcare? Yes /no

No. But the public First Aid must

provide the emergency healt care

without asking for a residence

permit

no

Does it include all healthcare or only

emergency healthcare?

Education

Are rejected applicants still entitled to

participate in educational programmes and/or

training? Yes / no



to participate in educational activities (e.g. X

days or ‘until the return decision is enforced

and the individual returns’)

Other?

Are any other measures taken which are

relevant to mention here? Please describe

No


Returning Rejected Asylum Seekers: challenges and good practices

of 29

Q10. When a rejected asylum seeker receives an enforceable return decision, what measures does the Member

State take to enforce the return decision and prevent absconding (e.g. regular reporting)?

Following the adoption of the measure revoking the ‘residence permit for asylum application’, the Prefect assesses the individual case and orders the removal of the foreign national. In

general, a removal order is enforced as follows: (1) The foreign national is escorted to the border by the police. This is done when the foreign

national: a) entered the territory of the country escaping border control and was not refused entry;

b) remained in the country in the absence of the notification required for employees regularly paid by employers, individuals or corporate bodies, or without applying for a residence permit within the required period unless this delay depended on

circumstances beyond his or her control, or when the residence permit was revoked, cancelled, rejected or expired for more than 60 days without an application for renewal

being made, or with the foreign national remaining within the country, or if within eight days of entry he or she has not notified his or her presence at the border authority or at the provincial police authority;

c) when there is a risk of absconding; d) when the application for a residence permit was rejected as manifestly unfounded or

fraudulent; e) when, without a justified reason, the foreign national has not complied with the set

time limit for voluntary departure

f) when the foreign national has violated one of the following measures taken by the Questore (chief of the provincial police authority) in connection with voluntary return

(a) obligation to hand over his or her passport or other equivalent document, which will then be returned at the time of departure; (b) obligation to stay at an assigned place, where he or she can be easily traced; and (c) obligation to report to the competent

police authority at fixed days and hours; or g) in the case of expulsion as a security measure or as an alternative sentence or a

sentence alternative to imprisonment.

(2) By allowing a period for voluntary return and possible admission to an assisted return programme to an applicant who has been issued a ‘residence permit for asylum application’.

Case (2) is applicable provided that there is no risk to compromise the actual return to the country of origin or to another country and that the time period has been expressly requested

by the person concerned.

Please note that Legislative Decree No 286 of 25 July 1998, Consolidated Act on Immigration consolidating the provisions regulating immigration and the status of foreign nationals),

provides that a foreign national subject to a removal order cannot re-enter the territory of the State without a special authorisation of the Minister of the Interior (Articles 13 and 14). If this

provision is violated, the foreign national is punished with an imprisonment term from one to four years. He or she is again subject to an expulsion order and is escorted to the border. This prohibition is effective for a period from three to five years, whose duration is set taking into

account all the specific circumstances of the individual case.

SECTION 2.3 POSSIBILITIES FOR APPEALING THE RETURN DECISION



of 29

Q11. Are asylum seekers who have received an enforceable return decision able to lodge an appeal on the

decision, before being returned? Yes / No

If yes, under what conditions can the appeal be lodged?

Yes. An appeal against the expulsion is possible

Against the return decision it is always possible to appeal to:

a) the ordinary courts

(Art. 13, par. 8 Legislative Decree no. 286/98), in form, time and manner provided for by art.

18 of Legislative Decree. N. 150/2011.

Disputes relating to the appeal of the deportation order are regulated by the interlocutory

proceedings cognition (art. 702-bis, Code of Civil Procedure). The appeal must be lodged within thirty days of notification of the measure, or sixty days if the applicant resides abroad, before the Justice of Peace of the place where the authority that ordered the expulsion seats

(paragraphs 2 and 3, Art. 18, Legislative Decree no. 286/98).

The action may also be filed via the postal service or through Italian consular or diplomatic

authorities. The special power of attorney to the defender is released forward consular authority (co. 3, Art. 18 Legislative Decree no. 286/98).

The stranger is always granted legal aid at the expense of the state and, if not have a lawyer,

is assisted by a lawyer appointed by the justice of the peace as part of the persons listed in the table in art. 29 of the implementing rules of the Code of Criminal Procedure (co. 4, Art. 18

Legislative Decree no. 150/11).

b) before the administrative judge, in relation to the deportation order issued by the Minister of the Interior for reasons of public order or national security

Q12. How frequently does an appeal on the return decision prevent the return of rejected asylum seekers (e.g. in

all cases, most cases, some cases, rarely, never)? Do rejected asylum seekers appealing their return have a better

chance of a positive decision on their return appeal than other third-country nationals required to return appealing

the return decision? Yes / No (and please explain your response)

Some cases.

No, it depend on the Judge’s decision.

SECTION 2.4 POSSIBILITIES FOR LODGING SUBSEQUENT ASYLUM APPLICATIONS

Q13. Are asylum seekers who have received an enforceable return decision able to lodge a subsequent application

in your Member State, before being returned? Yes / No



of 29

If yes, under what conditions can the subsequent application be lodged1

No. Article 35 of Legislative Decree No 25/08, implementing Directive 2005/85/EC on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee

status, as amended by Legislative Decree 142/2015, establishes that a decision of the Territorial Commission may be contested before a court (in the capital of the district of the

court of appeal where the Territorial Commission that issued the decision is located.)

Q14. Is the fact that the application was lodged after a return decision was issued taken into account in assessing

the credibility of the subsequent application? Yes / No If yes, does the issuance of the return decision make a

negative decision on the subsequent application more likely? Please refer to studies or governmental documents

that provide evidence of these effects

There are no reliable information on this point.

As regards subsequent applications, the Decree currently in force establishes that the President of the Commission should make a preliminary examination to verify that new

relevant elements have arisen or have been provided by the applicant. When submitting a subsequent application, an applicant may present observations to support the admissibility of his or her claim (Article 25(1)(z)).

Section 3: Challenges to the return of rejected asylum seekers and Member States’

policies to manage these

The purpose of this section is to discuss some of the factors that can prevent the return of rejected asylum seekers

and to identify any good practices to managing or preventing these. The description of the challenges to return will

build on the results of EMN AHQs and other literature, as identified in section 5 of the background/context to this

Common Template.

The section also asks Member States to identify specific challenges which have proven difficult to address and for

which no effective measures have, to date, been identified.

The box below lists the identified challenges to return which the remainder of this section will build on.



of 29

Main challenges to return

The Ad-Hoc Queries as listed in section 5 of the background to this Common Template requested information on the

main challenges to return as under the Return Directive. National responses indicate that Member States consider

the main challenges to both voluntary and forced return to include:

Resistance of the third-country national to return, which can take the form of:

› Physical resistance and restraint

› Self-injury (including hunger striking)

› Absconding

Note that third-country nationals may resist return for a variety of reasons including poor employment prospects

on return, poverty and poor infrastructure in the country of return, levels of corruption in the country of return

etc. and it may be relevant to address these drivers in trying to mitigate the challenge, as well as trying to

address the challenge itself;

Refusal by the authorities in countries of return to readmit their citizens, particularly when they have been

returned forcibly (inter alia Afghanistan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Rwanda and South-Central Somalia refuse to accept

their nationals returned forcibly against their will);

Refusal by the authorities in countries of return to issue travel documents;

Refusal by the authorities in countries of return to issue identity documents;

Problems in the acquisition of travel documents – especially when no copies of the originals are available

(and e.g. identification can only be verified through fingerprints) or when citizenship is complex (e.g. involving

married couples from different countries or citizens who were born in another country);

Administrative and organisational challenges due to e.g. a lack of Member State diplomatic representation

in the country of return, which can slow down administrative procedures (e.g. make any obligatory consular

interviews costly and challenging to arrange) and make negotiations more difficult.

Additionally, in preparing this Common Template, members of the Advisory Group have indicated that the following is

a challenge to return:

Medical reasons – i.e. If the returnee has a medical problem rendering travel difficult or impossible.



of 29

Q15. Are there any other challenges to return that your Member State experiences which are not mentioned in the

box above? Yes /No

If yes, please describe them by completing the table below.

Challenge Description of how this impedes return in

your Member State

State whether the challenge is: general

to return / more common to the return

of rejected asylum seekers / exclusive

to the return of asylum seekers

No one

Q16. In general, Member States undertake a broad range of measures to manage challenges to implementing

return. Examples of measures that are undertaken, matched to the challenges, are mapped in the table below.

Please indicate with yes/no which measures your Member State implements and, if necessary, include other

measures not (yet) listed in the table. If relevant, add comments to further explain your Member States’ policy

related to a specific measure.

Challenges to return Measures to manage

challenges

Implemented? Does the measure

specifically target the

return of rejected

asylum seekers?

Resistance of the returnee to

return

Development AVRR

programmes

Yes No

Detaining rejected asylum

seekers to prevent

absconding

Yes No

Physical force No No

Surprise raids to enforce

removal

Yes Yes

Delay or cancellation of the

return procedure

Yes No

Other? No

Refusal of authorities in

countries of return to

readmit citizens

Refusal by the authorities in

countries of return to issue

travel documents

Readmission Agreements

(EU and/or national)

Yes No

Bilateral cooperation with

third countries/

establishment of diplomatic

relations

Yes No



of 29

Refusal by the authorities in

countries of return to issue

identity documents

Establishment of

representations in third

countries

No No

Offering positive incentives,

e.g. aid packages, to third

countries’ authorities

No No

Applying political pressure

on third countries’

authorities

Yes No


return procedure

Yes Yes

Other?

Problems in the acquisition

of travel docs

Repeating fingerprint

capture attempts/using

special software to capture

damaged fingerprints

No No

Using interpreters to detect

cases of assumed

nationalities

Yes Yes

Detention Yes No

Offering positive incentives,

e.g. aid packages to third

countries’ authorities

No No

Applying political pressure

on third countries’

authorities

No

No


return procedure

No No

Other?

Administrative/organisational

challenges

Budget flexibility No No

Coordination arrangements

between authorities

Yes Yes

Designation of a Service

Provider in third countries

No No

Establishment of a

diplomatic representation in

No No



of 29

third countries


return procedure

Yes No

Other?

Medical reasons organising medical transfer No

No

facilitating medical support

in the country of destination

No No

medical supervision during

travel

No

No


return procedure

No

No

Other?

Other challenges? Please

describe and add rows if

necessary

None

Q17. From your experience, can you indicate if there are any challenges which affect the return of rejected asylum

seekers more greatly than third-country nationals in general? If there is no difference in the efficacy of returning

rejected asylum seekers vis-à-vis third-country nationals in general please specify “no difference”.

No difference

Q18. Has your Member State recently introduced any new measures/policies to ensure the return of third-country

nationals (e.g. following the exceptional flows of asylum seekers arriving in the EU since 2014)?

As regards forced return, the Department of Public Security of the Ministry of the Interior

started cooperation initiatives aimed at accelerated return procedures and technical assistance (supply of equipment and training of police forces). In this regard, a mechanism of

permanent consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation has been set up. The goal is to establish development cooperation programmes and cooperation

initiatives in areas that may of interest the countries that originate the largest migration flows to Italy (Ivory Coast, Gambia, Ghana, Senegal, Bangladesh and Pakistan). Along these lines, the Department made a technical agreement with Gambia on 6 June 2015. It also established

contacts with the authorities of the following Asian and African countries: Ivory Coast, Ghana, Senegal, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Other cooperation initiatives in the area of migration and



of 29

return have long been in place with third countries such as Egypt, Tunisia and Nigeria.

In order to fully implement and monitor existing agreements relating to readmissions and

forced returns, an ad hoc working group has been set up with the task of helping the Immigration and Border Police Central Directorate. Furthermore, the possibility that the

Department of Public Security may send liaison officers to the countries concerned is being explored.

Here is a list of the agreements, with the difficulties encountered.

MOROCCO (4647*). We send a photo and fingerprint card for the identification procedures, and even when there is a copy of the document, we receive either no feedback or a late reply.

In some isolated local situations, there has been greater cooperation when a copy of the document was available. If there are no documents, the likelihood for us to obtain a reply is

minimal. If we do, it is very late compared to the maximum length of detention allowed in a Centre for Identification and Deportation (90 days if a TCN has illegal status, or 30 days if a TCN comes from a prison where he or she has already served a term of 90 days or longer).

AFGHANISTAN (117*). To date, no one has ever been repatriated; all procedures initiated so far have been about asylum or humanitarian protection.

BANGLADESH (5040*). Despite the high number of arrivals, only 64 people were repatriated in 2015. Asylum procedures are often initiated for Bengali nationals. To date, we do not have sufficient elements to assess the level of cooperation with Bangladesh.

NIGERIA (22,237*). Returns are mainly carried out via charter flights, after interviewing a sufficient number of Nigerian nationals, with the interviews being organised by the Ministry of

the Interior. Travel documents are issued at once and have unlimited validity. At a local level, very few foreign nationals are identified. At a central level, cooperation is excellent; however, due to a lack of infrastructure and to asylum procedure-related issues, only 383 Nigerians

were repatriated in 2015.

PAKISTAN (1982*). Despite the high number of arrivals, only 78 people were repatriated in

2015. Asylum procedures are often initiated for Pakistani nationals. Over the past few months, cooperation has definitely worsened, as Pakistan does not allow back even those who have a valid passport.

ALGERIA, (343*) If an identification request comes directly from the Ministry of the Interior, Algerian authorities are immediately ready to carry out interviews with those who claim to be

Algerian nationals. This is not needed when a copy of an Algerian document is available. Identification is immediate, the laissez-passer is valid for one day only and the return can take place after 7 days from identification, in groups of a maximum of 5 foreign nationals for

each commercial flight. At a territorial level, cooperation is not as effective, and identification requests sent by our police authorities often remain unanswered.

EGYPT, (2610*) As a result of the excellent cooperation with the Egyptian diplomatic mission in Italy, returns take place without difficulty even in the absence of documents valid for foreign travel. Under the agreement in place, should a returnee turn out not to be an

Egyptian national, Italy will take back responsibility over that foreign national. Foreign nationals are accepted both on commercial and charted flights

SENEGAL, (5981*) There is a lack of cooperation, both at a central and peripheral level, with the diplomatic authorities (even when copies of the documents are available). Negotiations

are under way with Senegalese authorities.



of 29

GUINEA, (456*) We do not have elements to assess the level of cooperation. Asylum procedures are usually initiated: asylum is often rejected, but with the indication of

humanitarian protection.

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO, (154*) We do not have elements to assess the level

of cooperation. Asylum procedures are usually initiated; asylum is often rejected, but with an indication for humanitarian protection.

IVORY COAST, (3772*) Despite the high number of arrivals, only 23 people were repatriated in 2015. Asylum procedures are often initiated for Ivorian nationals; we do not have sufficient elements to assess the level of cooperation. Negotiations are under way with Ivorian

authorities.

ETHIOPIA, (2631*) To date, no return activity has ever been undertaken; but either asylum

or humanitarian protection procedures have always been initiated for Ethiopian nationals who have arrived in Italy. Negotiations are under way with Ethiopian authorities.

GAMBIA (8454*) On 6 June 2015, a technical agreement was made, allowing for the

identification of Gambian nationals through an interview and the issue of a travel document within 48 hours of the interview. Return may take place via commercial flights with a

maximum of 10 people per flight. Cooperation is excellent; however, due to a lack of infrastructure and to asylum procedure-related issues, results are poor.

SOMALIA (12,433*) To date, no one has ever been repatriated; but either asylum or

humanitarian protection procedures have always been initiated for Somali nationals who have arrived in Italy.

SUDAN. (8932*) Despite the high number of arrivals, only five people were repatriated in 2015. Asylum procedures are usually initiated for Sudanese nationals; we do not have elements to assess the level of cooperation.

*Arrivals in 2015 (out of 153,842 in total)

On 24 December 2015, a call for proposals was presented under the AMIF programme concerning training activities on assisted voluntary return and programmes intended for workers in the area of reception, among others. In particular, the proposals were to cover

the reintegration of the people admitted to assisted voluntary return programmes, based on reintegration plans for both individuals and families. Return programmes include guidance

before departure and support, if needed, for identifying work opportunities or starting a business in the country of origin, as well as monitoring activities for at least six months after return.

As regards forced return, the Department of Public Security of the Ministry of the Interior started initiatives with the aim of creating forms of operational cooperation with the

authorities of the main countries of origin of irregular migrants. Along these lines, the Department made a technical agreement with Gambia on 6 June 2015. It also established contacts with the authorities of the following Asian and African countries: Ivory Coast,

Ghana, Senegal, Bangladesh and Pakistan. These forms of cooperation aim at accelerating return procedures and include technical assistance projects, supply of equipment and training

of police forces.

In order to enforce and monitor existing agreements on readmission and forced returns, the



of 29

following has been done:

1. A working group has been set up to assist the Immigration and Border Police Central

Directorate; and

2. The Department of Public Security is considering sending liaison officers to the countries

concerned.

Q19. Are you able to identify, from the measures as set out in the table above, any good practices, i.e. measures

that have proven particularly effective in overcoming challenges to return of rejected asylum seekers specifically?

If so please describe these measures in more detail by completing the table below and referring to any evidence

(studies/evaluations/statistics on return trends) which demonstrate that these are effective practices in returning

rejected asylum seekers.

Measure Evidence of effectiveness / why the

measure can be considered a ‘good

practice’

State whether the measure is effective

in supporting the return of rejected

asylum seekers

No one

Q20. Are there any challenges to return which your Member State has so far been unable to address effectively

through any counter-measures? Yes / No

If yes, please describe the most pressing challenges here and explain why they are so challenging in practice,

elaborating on why the counter-measures implemented have not proven effective.

Yes. As mentioned above, the Department of Public Security of the Ministry of the Interior started cooperation initiatives aimed at accelerated return procedures and technical

assistance (supply of equipment and training of police forces). In this regard, a mechanism of permanent consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation has

been set up. The goal is to establish development cooperation programmes and cooperation initiatives in areas that may interest the countries that originate the largest migration flows to Italy (Ivory Coast, Gambia, Ghana, Senegal, Bangladesh and Pakistan). Along these lines, the

Department made a technical agreement with Gambia on 6 June 2015. It also established contacts with the authorities of the following Asian and African countries: Ivory Coast, Ghana,

Senegal, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Other cooperation initiatives in the area of migration and return have long been in place with third countries such as Egypt, Tunisia and Nigeria.



of 29

Section 4: What happens when return is not immediately possible?

The purpose of this section is to present an overview of the approaches followed by the Member States to deal with

those rejected asylum seekers who, for various reasons, cannot return / be returned. It focuses in particular on the

status granted and the conditions of stay available to this group.

Q21. If it becomes clear that a rejected asylum seeker cannot return / be returned, does a national authority

official acknowledge this? Yes / no

If no, what happens? Can the rejected asylum seeker continue to be issued return orders even though it has been

established that they cannot be immediately returned, or is it communicated to the police / enforcement

authorities that the person should be left to remain temporarily?

No. Legislative Decree 1 September 2011 No 150, Complementary provisions to the Code of Civil Procedure on the reduction and simplification of civil cognisance proceedings, as amended, provides that the judge, if requested and after hearing the parties, may suspend

the enforceability of the contested decision if there are serious and specific grounds that must be indicated in the decision. The order of the judge cannot be contested. (Article 5.)

Q22a. If it is formally acknowledged that a person cannot be (immediately) returned, who makes this formal

decision? On the basis of which criteria is the decision made?

As stated in the previous answer (Q21), the formal decision is taken by a judge and cannot be contested.

Q22b. Is an official status granted to individuals who cannot be (immediately) returned? (if no status is granted,

please write “no status granted”). In what circumstances may this be granted?

No official status is granted.

Q22c. If a status is granted, what advantages and disadvantages does the granting of such status to those who

cannot return / be returned bring to the authorities of your Member State? (e.g. advantages may include the

possibility to maintain contact with the non-returnee in case return becomes viable in the future, the possibility for

the non-returnee to contribute to society in the Member State, etc. and disadvantages may include the increased

pressure on resources and the threat to the credibility of the asylum system)

Q23. What rights are available to rejected asylum seekers who are not able to return immediately? Please answer

this question by completing the table below.



of 29

Table 2.1: Rights and services available to rejected asylum seekers who cannot be immediately returned

Questions … according to law … as carried out in practice Provide here evidence to

suggesting this contributes to

encouraging or deterring return

Accommodation

Is the rejected asylum seekers who cannot be

immediately returned provided with

accommodation? Yes/no

When removal cannot be enforced

immediately, the chief of the

provincial police authority orders

the detention of the foreign national

in the closest Centre for

Identification and Deportation for

the time that is strictly needed.

N/A

If you stated yes above, please describe the

circumstances under which the

accommodation can be provided

N/A

Employment

Are rejected asylum seekers who cannot be

immediately returned authorised to access the

labour market? Yes/No

N/A N/A

If you stated yes above, please describe the

circumstances under which they can access

the labour market

N/A

Welfare


immediately returned entitled to receive any

social benefits? Yes / no

N/A N/A

If you stated yes above, please briefly describe

what these benefits are

N/A


under what conditions these benefits can be



of 29

provided

Healthcare


immediately returned entitled to healthcare?

Yes /no

Yes. Yes.

Does it include all healthcare or only

emergency healthcare?

It includes primary healthcare and

emergency healthcare.

It includes primary healthcare and

emergency healthcare.

Education


immediately returned still entitled to

participate in educational programmes and/or

training? Yes / no

N/A N/A


under what conditions they can participate in

educational programmes and training

Only for minor children of

compulsory school age

Other?

Are any other measures taken which are

relevant to mention here? Please describe

None



of 29

Q24. In terms of status and/or rights, does your Member State make a difference between those who cannot

return / be returned through no fault of their own and those who are considered to have hampered their own

return? Yes / No

If yes, (i.e. if you differentiate between these two groups), please describe the reasons for this differentiation and

the method used to distinguish the two.

Yes. Under Legislative Decree No 286 of 25 July 1998, when removal (either by escorting the person to the border or by refusing entry) cannot be enforced immediately due to

temporary situations preventing the arrangement of the return or the execution of the removal, the chief of the provincial police authority orders the detention of the foreign

national in the closest Centre for Identification and Deportation for the time that is strictly needed (Article 14). The foreign national is detained in the centre in a way to ensure the

assistance he or she may need and the full respect of his or her dignity.

Q25. Can persons who are not immediately returnable also be eligible for regularisations? Yes / No If so, under

what circumstances?

No.

Q26. Does your Member State regularly assess the possibilities of return for rejected asylum seekers who could

not immediately return / be returned? If so:

a. what are the mechanisms for this assessment?

b. How regularly is it undertaken?

c. Which types of persons does it cover (i.e. does it cover all persons who cannot return / be returned or

only those not granted a status)?

d. Is there a point at which an alternative to return (e.g. regularisation) becomes possible? If so, on what

criteria is it decided that the alternative to return should apply?

See Q24

Q27. Do you have any evidence that rejected asylum seekers who could not be immediately returned were

eventually returned during the period 2011-2015? Evidence may include government reports, studies conducted

by research institutes or migrant rights groups or testimonies of returned individuals.

N/A



of 29

Section 5: Linking return policy to the asylum procedure: Member States’ policies and measures to ensure that unfounded claims lead to swift removal and to prepare

asylum seekers for return

SECTION 5.1 ACCELERATED PROCEDURES

Q28. Did your Member State make use of accelerated asylum procedures, as stipulated in Art. 31 (8) of the recast

Asylum Procedures Directive 2011-2015? Yes / No

Yes. Legislative Decree 142/2015 amended Article 28 of Legislative Decree 25/2008 on the

examination of asylum applications on a priority basis. In particular, the following practices

have been established:

- Of the applications for international protection examined by the Territorial Commission on a

priority basis, preferential treatment is given to those of unaccompanied minors.

- It is also a priority to examine well-grounded applications, applications submitted by detained persons and applications from people from the countries for which protection status

may be granted even without an interview with the applicants. These countries are shown in a list drafted by the National Commission. It is for the President of the Territorial Commission to

identify the cases to be handled under a priority and/or accelerated procedure (Article 25 1)(u)).

- Moreover, an accelerated procedure is carried out for manifestly unfounded applications,

subsequent applications and applications submitted by applicants apprehended trying to escape border controls or staying in the country illegally, if it is presumed that the application

was submitted only to delay or prevent the enforcement of an expulsion order (Article 25(1) (v)).

As regards subsequent applications, the Decree establishes that the President of the

Commission should make a preliminary examination to verify that new relevant elements have arisen or have been provided by the applicant. When submitting a subsequent

application, an applicant may present observations to support the admissibility of his or her claim (Article 25(1) (z).

If yes, for what reasons/in what circumstances does your Member State make use of such accelerated procedures?

Please complete the table below Please indicate in the “comments” column if the measure is no longer applied,

describing, if possible, why the measure was discontinued.

Grounds for

accelerating the

examination

procedure

Is it policy

accelerate the

examination

procedure when

the application

presents these

characteristics?

Yes/No

If policy, is the

policy applied

in practice to

date? Yes/No

How often

does this

happen in

practice? in

all cases,

most cases,

some cases,

rarely, never

What was the Member

State experience of

accelerating the

examination procedure in

these circumstances –

has it helped to ensure

swift removal?

Applicant only raised

issues not relevant to

yes N/A N/A N/A



of 29

the examination

Applicant is from a safe

country of origin

yes N/A N/A N/A

Applicant can return /

be returned to a safe

third country in line with

Art. 38 of the Asylum

Procedures Directive or

equivalent national law

yes N/A N/A N/A

Applicant misled the

authorities by

presenting false

documents/information,

withholding of info/docs

yes N/A N/A N/A

Applicant destroyed

documents intentionally

to make assessment

difficult

no N/A N/A N/A

Applicant made

inconsistent,

contradictory, false

representations which

contradict country of

origin information (COI)

yes N/A N/A N/A

Applicant lodged an

inadmissible subsequent

application

yes N/A N/A N/A

Applicant lodged an

application to delay or

frustrate enforcement of

removal

yes N/A N/A N/A

Applicant irregularly

entered the territory

and did not present

him/herself to the

authorities

yes N/A N/A N/A

Applicant refuses to

comply with the

obligation to have his/

her fingerprints taken

no N/A N/A N/A

Applicant poses danger

to national security or

public order

yes N/A N/A N/A



of 29

Other? (please specify

and add rows if

necessary)

Q29. Does your Member State have a list of safe countries of origin / safe third countries? Yes / no

If yes, when was this introduced and which countries are included? Please note that this question was posed as

part of Ad-Hoc Query 2016.1024 requested on 3rd February 2016. Please refer to your Member State response to

this AHQ and provide only updated information.

No. Italy has not published a list of safe countries yet

Q30. Does your Member State implement any other measures to ensure that unfounded claims lead to the swift

removal of concerned persons? Please describe such measures

An application may be rejected as unfounded when the requirements provided for in the

decree concerning the qualification of third-country nationals are clearly not met, or when the application appears to have been made solely for the purpose of delaying or preventing the enforcement of a removal or refoulement order.

Q31. Have there been any recent changes to policy or practice to ensure that claims considered unfounded

lead to swift removal (e.g. these may include changes to policy or practices with regard to accelerated

procedures and the use of a list of safe countries of origin and/or other measures)? Yes / No

If yes, what are these changes? Why were they introduced (please specify if in response to the exceptional

increase in asylum applications since 2014)? What are the likely effect of these changes (in particular to what

extent will they contribute to ensuring the swift removal of applicants with unfounded claims)?

Please note that this question was posed as part of Ad-Hoc Query 2016.1024 requested on 3rd February 2016.

Please refer to your Member State response to this AHQ and provide only updated information.

By Legislative Decree 18 August 2015 No 142, implementing Directives 2013/33/EU and

2013/32/EU, and on the basis of the agreement made at the level of the Unified Conference (State, Regions and Local Authorities) on 10 July 2014, Italy revised its reception system. Under the new rules, an accelerated procedure is now in place for manifestly unfounded

applications, subsequent applications and applications submitted by applicants apprehended trying to escape border controls or staying in the country illegally, if it is presumed that the

application was submitted only for delaying or preventing the enforcement of an expulsion order.

SECTION 5.2 PREPARING ASYLUM SEEKERS FOR RETURN



of 29

Q32. Is it part of your Member State’s policy on return to, early on and throughout different stages in the asylum

procedure, prepare asylum seekers for return should their application be rejected? Yes / No If yes, is this policy

formalised in:

a) official communications,

b) soft law or is it

c) standard practice of the authorities?

Please describe the main features of this policy / what it involves (e.g. informing asylum applicants of voluntary

return opportunities, making AVR available to all asylum seekers).

Please note that this question is about policy. Please do not provide here information on the different approaches

to inform asylum seekers about (voluntary) return. Such information is available in the EMN study on

dissemination of information on voluntary return and should not be duplicated here, but can be cross-referenced

to.

Yes, See Q33a.

Q33a. Have any recent changes taken place in your Member State policies with regard to the preparation of

asylum seekers for return during the asylum procedure (notably following the exceptional flows of asylum seekers

arriving in the EU since 2014)? Yes / No If yes, please describe such changes

Please note that this question was posed as part of Ad-Hoc Query 2016.1024 requested on 3rd February 2016.

Please refer to your Member State response to this AHQ and provide only updated information.

In addition to what has already been reported above, the policies planned by Italy in 2015, within the framework of the National Programme AMIF 2014-2020, Objective 3, Return, the

following were provided for:

Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR): the return of 9,500 people; and

Removals: 18,500 returns with or without escort, to be carried out by the Department

of Public Security of the Ministry of the Interior.

By Decree (Ref: 19738 of 24/12/2015) an AMIF call for proposals was launched for Assisted

Voluntary Return and Reintegration (AVRR) projects. These projects, to be implemented by 31 March 2018, are intended for 3,200 vulnerable third-country nationals who are not eligible for AVR, and include measures favouring the reintegration of returnees in their countries of

origin. Under these projects, the following services should be provided.

(a) Identification of possible recipients eligible for the AVRR programme.

(b) Preparation for departure through counselling by specialised staff, information services, cultural mediation and psychological support, if needed, to develop the applicants’ profiles and determine the reasons for and feasibility of the return.

(c) Definition of an individual reintegration plan for each returnee/returned family. Moreover, for implementation of individual plans, a reintegration benefit of € 1.500,00 to € 2.000,00 has

been allocated for each person or head of household. This amount is increased by 50% for any dependent adult and by 30% for any dependent child. This benefit is provided in kind,

that is, in goods and services that are instrumental in plan implementation.



of 29

(d) Assistance in the pre-departure phase. This includes activities in cooperation with consular authorities and immigration services in the countries of origin for faster issuing of travel

documents.

(e) Assistance with the return trip: trip arrangement, airport assistance at departure and

arrival, including medical assistance, if needed.

(f) Payment of an initial accommodation allowance of € 400 at the time of departure.

(g) Implementation of the reintegration plan and specific assistance in the country of origin, as defined in the individual reintegration plan, for at least six months, starting from the day of return.

(h) Monitoring of the outcome of the reintegration plan to be carried out by the promoting body while the plan is being implemented and after completion.

Q34. If no specific approaches/measures are currently implemented, is your Member State planning to introduce a

specific approach/measures to prepare asylum seekers for return whilst they are still in the asylum procedure?

Please specify when these will be implemented, explain what they will entail and further elaborate on their main

drivers? (E.g. new measures to reach out to newly arriving asylum applicants to inform them of return options will

be introduced in July 2016 in response to the exceptional flows of asylum seekers arriving in my Member State).

Even if no specific approaches appears to be implemented, the National Commission for the Right to Asylum regularly trains all the members of the Territorial Commission on a number of

topics, including returns.

Support measures under the AMIF 2014-2020 include awareness raising activities concerning return intended both for those who work in this area and for third-country nationals. Besides

this information activity, training will also be given to the staff from Prefectures, provincial police authorities (Questure) and reception centres. Finally, a national information campaign

on this topic is being planned.

Section 6: Conclusions

Q35. Based on your answers provided, does your Member State tailor its return policies to rejected asylum

seekers, and if so, how?

N/A

Q36. Based on the evidence provided, which practices or policies in your Member State can be described as good

practice approaches to return rejected asylum seekers?

N/A



of 29

Annex 1

Q37. With reference to Question 2, please complete the following table with national statistics on the (estimated)

number of rejected asylum seekers, if available.

The estimates have been provided by the National Commission for the Right to Asylum in the Ministry of the Interior. This Commission collects and processes aggregated data on rejections and positive decisions, based on the information given by the individual territorial

commissions that are responsible for deciding on the applications received.

These are the same estimates that are published on a regular basis.

EMN FOCUSSED STUDY 2016 Approaches to rejected asylum … · EMN Focussed Study 2016 Returning...

Documents

Transcript of EMN FOCUSSED STUDY 2016 Approaches to rejected asylum … · EMN Focussed Study 2016 Returning...