| Description |
1. Authorities in several Member States, Norway and
Switzerland observed travels of beneficiaries of
international protection (hereafter BIPs) to their
country of origin. To date, the exact extent of the
number of BIPs travelling to their country of origin
remains difficult to estimate. In addition, available
data in a few States of the number of decisions to
withdraw international protection motivated by travels
to the country of origin shows these numbers are low
overall. Between 2015 and 2018, increased attention
given to this issue in some Member States, as evidenced
in national parliamentary debates and media reports,
contributed to changes to national policies and practices,
as well as changes in legislation to provide national
authorities with supplementary means to address and
monitor such travels and contacts.
2. Where some evidence of contacts with authorities
of and travelling to the country of origin become
known, they are weighed differently by competent
authorities in the Member States, Norway and
Switzerland. In a majority of States, contacting
authorities of and/or travelling to the country of origin
can be considered as an indication that international
protection may no longer be required. However, the
act alone would not automatically lead to cessation.
This type of evidence could lead national authorities to
examine the purpose of the contact(s) and/or travel(s).
3. There are numerous reasons BIPs contact the
authorities of their country of origin or travel
there. As observed by national authorities, the most
commonly invoked motives to travel related to: visiting
family members, illness, and attending weddings or
funerals. Generally BIPs contacting the authorities
of their country of origin (in the State of protection)
was not contentious, except in cases whereby the
contact led to the allocation or renewal of a passport.
Other circumstances have also been taken into
account to verify whether re-availment of protection
or re-establishment could be concluded, including:
voluntariness of these acts, length of stay in the country
of origin, and frequency of contacts or travels. Thus the
circumstances of each case and criteria set out in EU
and national asylum law need to be jointly assessed to
justify the cessation of protection.
4. The assessment of a BIP’s travel and of its
impact on his/her protection status is generally
a challenging task for national authorities, as is
obtaining undisputable and objective evidence that the
person had travelled to his/her country of origin. Even
where national authorities are aware of the travel, they
may still face challenges in verifying information on the
motives of the travel and other circumstances relating to
the nature of activities pursued by BIPs during their stay
in the country of origin.
5. A majority of States informed BIPs about the
potential consequences of travelling to their
country of origin by including travel limitations
on the refugee travel document, indicating that it
was not valid for travel to the country of origin.
Additional channels used to inform about consequences
on the protection status included delivering this
information orally or in writing, at the moment of issuing
the protection status decision or upon request.
6. In all States, the withdrawal of protection status
also can have consequences for the right of
residence of a (former) BIP on the territory of the
State concerned. While in some States, the withdrawal
of protection status was automatically followed by a
decision to end their right of residence, most States
examined the individual circumstances of the person
concerned. National authorities thus generally consider
whether the conditions for other legal grounds to stay
(subsidiary or national protection status, residence based
on legal migration reasons) would be fulfilled by the
individual concerned.
7. A reassessment of international protection
status, withdrawal of protection and/or end of
right to stay of a (former) BIP could also affect
the international protection status and right
of residence of his/her family members and/
or dependants. In most States, this depends on how
family members obtained their status. Where the
right of a family member derives from the protection
status of a BIP, the right to stay generally ends at the
same time as the BIP’s loss of status and residence
permit. Where family members were granted their own
protection status separately, withdrawal of protection
status of a BIP would not automatically lead to the
withdrawal of protection of his/her other family
members. However, reassessment of the BIP’s protection
status on cessation grounds could lead national
authorities to check whether circumstances granting
protection status of the family member were still valid.
|