Politiques de retour

Our analysis of Ukrainian national legislation demonstrates that it envisages procedures of readmission, compulsory return and expulsion, as well as voluntary return of foreigners and stateless persons. The Law 3773-VI of 22.09.2011 “On legal status of foreigners and stateless persons”1 The Law also determines procedures of voluntary and compulsory return of foreigners and stateless persons from the Ukrainian territory, as well as expulsion procedure, but offers no definitions for the terms ‘voluntary return’, ‘compulsory return’ and ‘expulsion’. provides definition only for the term ‘readmission’ (par. 22 of the preamble). According to the Law, readmission represents transfer from the Ukrainian territory or admission to the Ukrainian territory on the grounds and according to procedure set forth in the international treaties of Ukraine. Definitions of the terms ‘compulsory return’ and ‘compulsory expulsion’ are introduced in subordinate legislation, such, for instance, General decree of the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior, Administration of the State Border Service and Security Service of 23.04.2012 No. 353/271/150 “On approval of Instruction on compulsory expulsion of foreigners and stateless persons”2 According to this Decree, ‘compulsory return’ and ‘compulsory expulsion’ represent the system of administrative and legal measures aimed at forcing a foreigner or a stateless person to leave the territory of the state against his or her will. . We have established that Ukrainian legislation in principle does not give a comprehensive definition for the term ‘voluntary return’, and from our point of view this is an oversight, as far as legislation determines procedure of application, but does not give a definition for this legal term.

IOM offers AVRR services to migrants who are unwilling or unable to remain in Egypt and wish to return to their country of origin. The AVRR programme in Egypt started in 2011 and since then stranded and vulnerable migrants mainly from Africa and Asia were assisted. Each of these migrants have a distinct migratory story of how they got to Egypt and why they wanted to return. Some of these migrants survived exceptional circumstance, such as trafficking, abuse, as well as other numerous forms of exploitation. Returning migrants receive reintegration grants in their country of origin and the vast majority use in starting-up their own business, specifically in the agriculture sector.

The provision of reintegration assistance to migrants in their countries of origin is an essential element to ensure sustainability of returns. IOM and partners in countries of origin provide migrants with socio-economic support to promote their self-sufficiency and contributions to their local communities. The sustainability of returns may, however, ultimately only be ensured in tandem with socio-economic development. IOM strives to support sustainable reintegration of migrants returning to a variety of contexts, recognizing, that the factors affecting the reintegration process and subsequently its sustainability are not dissimilar from those that resulted in the decision to migrate in the first place. IOM therefore asserts that reintegration can be considered sustainable when returnees have reached levels of economic self-sufficiency, social stability within their communities, and psychosocial well-being that allow them to cope with (re)migration drivers. Having achieved sustainable reintegration, returnees are able to make further migration decisions a matter of choice, rather than necessity. To achieve this objective, it is necessary to approach migrant reintegration in a comprehensive manner, considering the factors that can affect reintegration and addressing them in a way to respond to the needs of the individual returnees as well as the communities to which they return in a mutually beneficial way, and address the structural factors at play. Assistance to migrants, communities of return, and structural environments in countries of origin is therefore an essential element to ensuring sustainability of reintegration.

The acceptance of Russian citizens residing abroad and returning to Russia voluntarily or by force is not so relevant for the Russian Federation (although, obviously the problems of their integration are underestimated and ignored), as are the issues of the return of foreign citizens and stateless persons, especially those who violated national legislation, or under readmission agreements. The problem is aggravated by the fact that, readmission agreements have not been signed with most of the donor states from which migrants arrive to Russia on a massive scale. In fact, most of the migrants arrive from the countries that have visa-free regimes with the Russian Federation. The latter circumstance, allied to the inefficient organization of expulsion of undesired foreigners from the country, provokes the growth of xenophobic spirit and the popularity of suggestions to introduce visa regimes with donor states; above all, with Central Asian and Transcaucasian states. It is probably fair to say that governmental institutions as well as non-governmental organizations in Russia should pay more attention to the issues of voluntary return of foreign citizens to their countries of citizenship or permanent stay.

The issue of non-return of rejected international protection applicants does not enjoy a high political profile on its own, but has been discussed as part of a global debate on asylum. Significant efforts are required when considering the wide spectrum of possible reasons of non-return, some reasons depending on the countries of destination, others on the returnee himself/herself. In this respect, reasons of non return range from the non-respect of deadlines, the issuance of travel documents, postponement of removal for external reasons to the returnee, for medical reasons, the resistance of the third-country national and the lack of diplomatic representation of Luxembourg, to name but a few. In regards to the procedure, in Luxembourg the rejection of the international protection application includes the return decision. The Minister in charge of Immigration, through the Directorate of Immigration, issues this decision. The return decision only becomes enforceable when all appeals are exhausted and the final negative decision of rejection of the competent judicial authority enters into force, as appeals have suspensive effects. This decision also sets out the timeframe during which the rejected international protection applicant has to leave the country. In case the applicant does not opt for a voluntary return, the decision will also include the country to which s/he will be sent. In general, the decision provides for a period of 30 days during which the applicant has the option to leave voluntarily and to benefit from financial support in case of assisted voluntary return through the International Organization for Migration (IOM). There are two exceptions to this rule: the applicant who is considered a threat to national security, public safety or homeland security and the applicant who has already been issued a return decision before. The declaration and documentation provided during the procedure of international protection can be used to facilitate return. Subsequent applications are possible, in particular if new evidence of facts appears resulting in an increased likelihood of the applicant to qualify for international protection. For rejected international protection applicants who did not opt for voluntary return and did not receive any postponement of removals, a certain (limited) support is available while waiting for the execution of the enforceable return decision. As such, they continue to stay in reception facilities and to receive certain social benefits unless they transgress any internal rules. If an urgent need exists, rejected applicants may be granted a humanitarian social aid. However, they are not entitled to access the labour market or to receive ‘pocket money’ or the free use of transport facilities. They benefit from an access to education and training, however this access cannot constitute a possible reason for non-return. These benefits are available to rejected applicants until the moment of their removal. In order to enforce the return decision and prevent absconding, the Minister may place the rejected international applicant in the detention centre, especially if s/he is deemed to be obstructing their own return. Other possible measures include house arrest, regular reporting surrendering her/his passport or depositing a financial guarantee of 5000€. Most of these alternatives to detention were introduced with the Law of 18 December 2015 which entered into force on 1st January 2016. As a consequence, detention remains the main measure used to enforce return decisions. A number of challenges to return and measures to curb them are detailed in this study. A part of these measures have been set up to minimize the resistance to return from the returnee. First and foremost is the advocacy of the AVRR programme and the dissemination of information relating to this programme but also the establishment of a specific return programme to West Balkan countries not subject to visa requirements. Other measures aim at facilitating the execution of forced returns, such as police escorts or the placement in the detention centre. Finally, significant efforts are directed towards increasing bilateral cooperation and a constant commitment to the conclusion of readmission agreements. No special measures were introduced after 2014 in response to the exceptional flows of international protection applicants arriving in the EU. While the Return service within the Directorate of Immigration has continued to expand its participation to European Networks and in various transnational projects in matters of return, this participation was already set into motion prior to the exceptional flows of 2014. As for effective measures curbing challenges to return, this study brings to light the AVRR programme but especially the separate return programme for returnees from West Balkan countries exempt of visa requirements. The dissemination of information on voluntary return is also considered an effective policy measure, the information being made available from the very start of the international protection application. Among the cases where return is not immediately possible, a considerable distinction has to be made in regards to the reasons for the non-return. Indeed, in cases where the delay is due to the medical condition of the returnee or to material and technical reasons that are external to the returnee, a postponement of removal will be granted. This postponement allows for the rejected applicant to remain on the territory on a temporary basis, without being authorized to reside and may be accompanied by a measure of house arrest or other. In cases of postponement for medical reasons and of subsequent renewals bringing the total length of postponement over two years, the rejected applicant may apply for a residence permit for private reasons based on humanitarian grounds of exceptional seriousness. Nevertheless, apart from this exception, no official status is granted to individuals who cannot immediately be returned. Several measures of support are available to beneficiaries of postponement to removal: they have access to accommodation in the reception centres they were housed in during their procedure, they may be attributed humanitarian aid, they continue to be affiliated at the National Health Fund, they continue to have access to education and professional training and they are allowed to work through a temporary work authorization. The temporary work authorization is only valid for a single profession and a single employer for the duration of the postponement to removal, although this is an extremely rare occurrence in practice. OLAI may allocate a humanitarian aid might be allocated if the individual was already assisted by OLAI during the procedure of her/his international protection application. All of these measures apply until the moment of return. The study also puts forth a number of best practices such as the Croix-Rouge’s involvement in police trainings, their offer of punctual support to vulnerable people through international networking or the socio-psychological support given to vulnerable people placed in the detention centre among others. A special regard has to be given to AVRR programmes and their pre-departure information and counselling, the dissemination of information and the post-arrival support and reintegration assistance. Indeed, stakeholders singled the AVRR programme out as a best practice and the Luxembourgish government has made voluntary return a policy priority for a long time. However, this increased interest in voluntary returns has to be put into perspective as research shows that sustainable success of voluntary return and reintegration measures is only achieved for a very restricted number of beneficiaries (namely for young, autonomous and dynamic returnees with sizeable social networks and who were granted substantial social capital upon return). Hence, returning women remains a sensitive issue, especially if they were fleeing abusive relationships. Another factor contributing to hardship set forth by research is the difficult reintegration of returnees that have lived outside of their country of return for a prolonged period of time and are therefore unable to rely on social networks for support or for a sense of belonging. Based on these considerations, NGOs and academia cast doubts on the ‘voluntary’ nature of these return programmes, their criticism targeting the misleading labelling of these policy measures.

Das beantragte Forschungsprojekt untersucht Abschiebungen und "freiwillige" Rückkehr aus Deutschland nach Pakistan und fokussiert dabei auf die "politische Ökonomie der Emotionen" in der Remigration, verstanden als Produktion, Austausch und Zirkulation von Emotionen im Gefüge von Beziehungen, Erfahrungen, Verpflichtungen und Erwartungen zwischen (Re-)Migranten, verwandtschaftlichen, lokalen und transnationalen Kontexten, sowie staatlichen und nichtstaatlichen Institutionen. Nachdem Deutschland in den vergangenen Jahren vermehrt zum Zielland pakistanischer Migranten geworden ist, nehmen im Zuge verschärfter Asylpolitik Abschiebungen und die Förderung "freiwilliger" Rückkehr zu. Das Projekt geht davon aus, dass Migration nie ein rein "rationales", "interessengeleitetes" Phänomen ist, sondern dass Migration, Remigration eingeschlossen, stark mit Emotionen verbunden ist. Das Projekt gliedert sich ein in das wachsende ethnologische Forschungsinteresse an Abschiebungen, das jedoch bislang vor allem auf Afrika und Lateinamerika gerichtet ist. Die Untersuchung beginnt mit der sehr unübersichtlichen Situation hinsichtlich Abschiebung und Rückkehrförderung in Deutschland. Darauf aufbauend werden die Emotionen, mit denen die Motivationen, Erwartungen und Erfahrungen der (Re)Migration einhergehen, untersucht, bezogen sowohl auf pakistanische Migranten in Deutschland, denen eine Rückkehr bevorsteht, als auch auf Remigrierte, die schon in Pakistan angekommen sind. Schließlich will das Projekt die gesellschaftlichen Konsequenzen und Effekte der Abschiebung und/oder "freiwilligen" Rückkehr in Pakistan erforschen, indem es das soziale Umfeld von Remigranten (Familie, Verwandtschaftsnetzwerke, peer groups, Dorf oder urbane Nachbarschaft, soziale Netzwerke), seine ökonomischen und (lokal-)politischen Strukturen, und die in diesem Kontext produzierten und zirkulierenden Emotionen untersucht. Neben der empirisch-ethnographischen Untersuchung von Abschiebung und Remigration nach Pakistan beabsichtigt das Projekt, einen theoretischen und methodologischen Beitrag zur Rolle von Emotionen im Kontext von Remigration und Abschiebung zu erarbeiten und damit einen Beitrag zur "anthropology of removal" (N. Peutz) zu leisten.

The issue of regulating migratory processes has drawn increasing attention in Georgia over the last few years. Entities are being established within different ministries and normative acts for regulating this sphere are being published. Recipient countries have to deport illegal immigrants back to their countries of origin. However, there are now attempts to make their return to the homeland, including, inter alia, their deportation, as humane as possible complying with internationally recognized human rights principles.

It is now two years since the enactment of the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia concerning the readmission of persons residing without authorization. In this context, it may be interesting to discover whether the expectations regarding the threat of mass deportation of irregular Georgian migrants which arose during the negotiation period have been justified. According to one segment of the society and political groups in Georgia1 , the en masse forcible return of migrants to a country with an estimated unemployment rate of 32%2 (as assessed by experts) would generate economic challenges for these people and their families; moreover, it would also place a heavy burden on the country as a whole. Nor is the assumption, which holds that the EU-Georgia Agreement would serve to further impair the poor conditions in which irregular labor migrants residing in the EU countries live and work, groundless. This can be explained by the fact that the attitude of a foreign employer towards such persons might become stricter, and that he/she could be expected to increase pressure upon them3 . The other part of the aforementioned society and political groups is well aware that the coming into effect of the agreement concerning visa facilitation procedures between the European Union and Georgia was dependent upon the signing and introduction of the readmission agreement. Both treaties can be regarded as a transition step to a new phase of the relationship between Georgia and the EU.

This country case study aims to map the migrant support measures from an employment and skills perspective (MISMES) implemented in Tunisia. It also aims to extract from their analysis some elements for the assessment of their efficiency and their impact on migrant workers’ labour market outcomes and skills utilization. The report is based largely on desk research and on the responses received for the MISMES Questionnaire (ETF 2015b), complemented by a country mission to meet key institutions and practitioners (see Annexes 1 and 2). A MISMES case study with a more in-depth analysis of the Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration Programme implemented with Swiss cooperation in Tunisia is included in Chapter 3.

The focus of this study lies with irregular migrants who are not in contact with the authorities. Due to their irregular situation, it is difficult to provide information on the numbers of persons that are irregularly staying in Luxembourg. Several actors were able to provide some estimations on the scale of irregular migrants, but these estimations can only ever be partial. Statistics are available concerning the assisted voluntary return and reintegration from Luxembourg programme that is operated by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) as well as concerning the counselling services offered by different non-governmental organisations and associations. However, most of these numbers refer to migrants that are known to the authorities, mainly because they are rejected applicants for international protection.

Ethiopia has been facing an increased return of migrants, as a result of mass deportation from countries like Saudi Arabia, The Government of Ethiopia, together with other humanitarian actors successfully managed the return but, due to the absence of a national framework on reintegration, the reintegration component was not addressed. Hence this report presents the recommended approach for developing a reintegration package for return migrants in Ethiopia. This package is expected to serve as a point of reference and practical guide for the Government of Ethiopia, UN agencies, civil society organizations and other stakeholders to develop programs in support of the successful reintegration of returnees, back into their community and labour market.

Georgian legislation in the field of migration is generally very liberal. This kind of approach finds its expression in the provisions on return from Georgia too. Though the legislation imposes an obligation on foreign citizens to leave the territory of Georgia before the expiry of the term of legal stay in Georgia, they get an additional 10 days within which they may leave Georgia without any legal consequences. Even after the 10 days term foreigners are allowed to leave Georgia voluntarily with the payment of a fine. Legislation establishes only two levels of fine: overstay for the period of 10 days up to 3 months and overstaying for over 3 months. The fact there is this option and the low fine in place (180 GEL/360 GEL is equal to 82 Eur/164 Eur) undermines the deterrent effect of these provisions. Besides, as to the consequences there are no difference between expulsion and forced expulsion. In both cases, a foreign citizen who has been expelled from Georgia will be denied a visa and a residence permit and refused entry to Georgia for one year. This provision does not facilitate voluntary departure within the term set by the Ministry of Justice.

This paper is based on the information included in the twenty-one explanatory notes from CARIM East network members, covering the statistical, legal and socio-political aspects of return, readmission and reintegration issues in individual countries of the CARIM East region. Moreover, research papers on integration and reintegration of migrants prepared in the CARIM East framework served as a subsidiary source of information. This paper gives an overview of the basic facts concerning return, readmission and reintegration issues in Eastern Partnership countries concentrating on the existing gaps and problems.

The goal of this note is to shed light on some aspects of migration processes in Belarus, including the state policy in this sphere, through the lens of policies on readmission and return.

This report is an attempt to provide a provisional comparative analysis of policies implemented in China, India, Argentina, and Mexico to facilitate the return of highly skilled expatriates and their professional reintegration. These countries differ in terms of the outbound and return flows of highly skilled professionals, as well as in the timing and intensity of the programs they have implemented. In general, career or business opportunities, and hence the offer of a conducive professional and socio-economic environment are central to attracting returnees. Migrant networks, temporary and permanent return migration programs exist in various forms and, apart from having their own merits, can complement each other in facilitating the return migration process. A long term, pluralistic and systemic approach, which in parallel to offering incentives involves the removal of administrative barriers, is considered to be important in bringing back and successfully reintegrating large numbers of highly skilled expatriates.

The projects are funded by the EU Return fund or by the individual EU countries. Projects involve limited categories of returnees, i.e. “voluntary”, “compulsory” and “forced” (these are mostly rejected asylum seekers and irregular migrants). The bulk of beneficiaries comprise returnees from the same countries. Different methods are used for organizing the activities of the appropriate entities (for example, the selection of a professional entity for all project components, and a legal contract with those entities). The working tools of the projects (e.g. needs assessment, statistical databases, etc.) for ensuring the effectiveness of the process and conducting analyses on different parameters also vary. ? Different types of support provided by reintegration projects (e.g. not all the projects have such components as educating children, social and psychological support and consultancy) Different levels of financing might not be sufficient for starting cost-effective businesses. Besides, returnees do not have their own funds to invest into businesses. In order to ensure the sustainable reintegration of returning migrants in Armenia, coordinated assistance should be provided to them. Otherwise, this deficiency can contribute to a situation where these people migrate from Armenia again.

Die durch das Forschungszentrum des Bundesamtes für Migration und Flüchtlinge (BAMF) konzipierte MIMAP soll empirisch-fundierte und anwendungsbezogene Erkenntnisse zu Verbleib, Rückkehr und Weiterwanderung Ausreisepflichtiger liefern und ein besseres Verständnis darüber ermöglichen, warum ausreisepflichtige Personen trotz geringer rechtlicher Bleibe- und Partizipationsperspektiven und Angeboten zur freiwilligen Rückkehr in Deutschland verbleiben. Darüber hinaus soll der empirische Zugang zur Untersuchungsgruppe Ausreisepflichtiger erprobt werden. Der Schwerpunkt der MIMAP liegt auf ausreisepflichtigen Personen mit Asylbezug, von denen der überwiegende Teil im Besitz einer Duldung ist. Die Forschungserkenntnisse sollen Impulse für die Weiterentwicklung der rückkehrpolitischen und aufenthaltsverstetigenden Maßnahmen geben.

Azerbaijan did not adopt any legal acts that would specifically deal with reintegration. In various normative acts one can only find some norms related to reintegration of certain groups of people. Thus, for instance, according to the Law “On combat against human trafficking”, social rehabilitation of human trafficking victims aims to encourage their integration into society and their return to normal life. It envisages measures aimed at providing legal assistance, educational opportunities, psychological, medical and professional rehabilitation, employment and housing1 . The Law “On the status of refugees and forced migrants (persons forced to move to the country)” creates conditions in which refugees can adapt to the local environment, undergo naturalization, learn the language and learn about their rights and obligations2 . As for immigrants, Azerbaijani legislation offers them an opportunity to study the Azerbaijani language, as well as the Constitution and laws of Azerbaijan

Agreements on readmission directly related to the issues of irregular / illegal1 The first of these is interstate. It deals with the current state of affairs at the official (political) level and the prospects of concluding interstate agreements on readmission. Here, the focus is on how pressing those issues are in the context of political processes in present-day Azerbaijan. and return migration should be considered while placing the analytical focus on several aspects: The second is the problem of irregular (illegal) migration from Azerbaijan and associated problems of readmission and return migration. Finally, the third is the problem of irregular / illegal migration to Azerbaijan.

The present paper explores the phenomenon of return migration and reintegration issues for Armenian citizens returning to their country of origin. It also discusses some aspects (institutional, economic and social), as well as factors (migration projects, human, financial and cultural capital) in the reintegration of returnees in Armenia. Various patterns of reintegration, as well as the institutional framework and Armenia’s experience in dealing with returnees are identified and analyzed. The research focuses on the following issues: Why do migrants return to their country of origin? What is the profile (socio-demographic traits) of return migrants? What challenges do they (and their families) face while successfully reintegrating after their return? What is government policy for their reintegration into society? How effective is government policy and what gaps are there?

Why do some return migrants reintegrate back home better than others? Why do patterns of reintegration vary so much? To what extent does gender impact on reintegration? Which factors shape the ability of some migrants to transfer their skills and social rights after return? Which resources (e.g. human capital, financial capital, networks and social capital) sustain returnees’ reintegration processes; and to what extent? In sum, what do we know about post-return conditions and how returnees’ aspirations, subjectivities and prospects back home can be analyzed and understood.

In the context of the Republic of Moldova readmission and return has a rather procedural content, while reintegration is seen as a more socio-economic process. Even at the level of implementation two different central public authorities are involved namely the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and Family. The question that arises in this regard is whether this policy should be revised and whether the competence of the authority in charge for readmission and return should play a more active role in the accommodation of the nationals. In this way they would contribute to limiting the further emigration by the same people.