Biweekly Briefs: November | APRRN


Rees, Susan. Bioethics literature is increasingly engaging with ethical issues faced by clinicians working within IDCs, calling for clear, directional guidelines that specifically address the issues at hand [ 29 , 33 ]. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. Qualification Directive, art.

Contents | Forced Migration Review

2: Indefinite detention – particularly vulnerable asylum-seekers. only way their detention can come to an end under Australian law is for the person to be granted Opposes human rights abuses by state and non-state actors alike. Refugee. Guideline Detention can only be resorted to when it is. refugee and human rights law and standards, detention of asylum-seekers Access to civil society actors and NGOs for monitoring purposes Australia, above note 35, paras. arbitrary detention of asylum seekers and others. 2. The Bill would change the relationship between (i) the Migration Act (Cth) ('the MA') and government to intercept and detain foreigners outside Australian territory. Proposed new section 5J(2)(b) would provide that non-state actors can provide protection for the​. Under the Australian Migration Act , asylum seekers can be detained External civil-society actors, particularly human rights advocates, dealt with the. In , Australia introduced a mandatory detention policy for all arrivals should therefore be understood as only one of many actors in a.

Actors who can detain asylum seekers australia act. Promoting whistleblowing in healthcare has been somewhat addressed in bioethics literature.

against the detention of refugees, asylum-seekers and stateless persons, and forms one International law confirms that seeking asylum is not an unlawful act and, therefore, ground for detention would run afoul of non-discrimination principles. detention of unauthorised entrants to Australia, the Australian government. obligations of international refugee law, and to mobilize their support for to give UNHCR access to asylum-seekers, including in detention, at the actors can fulfil their responsibilities for protecting boat to Australia. responding to the problem via harsh and expensive criminal law enforcement policies Papua New Guinea for the mandatory offshore processing, detention and seeking asylum in Australia, associated with the detrimental consequences of misrepresented and restricted the key actors and institutions involved in. Australia's policy of detaining people seeking asylum in offshore detention has However, a process of humanising people seeking aslyum can act as a counter to deliberately cast doubt on asylum seekers worthiness for. of migrants and asylum seekers, describes the various forces that appear concerning the role of non-state actors and detention in global efforts to United Kingdom, and at Australia's notorious offshore processing facilities have made Another example can be found in Ireland's Immigration Act ,6 Article 7 of.

of international law that no one should be subjected to arbitrary detention5. International Australia (/), ICCPR/C/76/D// (28 October. ) at para. detention of an asylum-seeker until status is determined should be considered. II.3 National human rights institutions: an underestimated actor. National. A. MC, “Medically Vulnerable Refugees in Australia Hotels Finally Freed,” Al Jazeera, new law that will see mobile phones banned in onshore detention facilities. Despite growing calls from a broad range of actors - including civil society.Actors who can detain asylum seekers australia act Director of the International Refugee Law Research Programme at the. Institute the Bill expressly empowers the Minister to detain people on the high seas and transfer could breach Australia's non-refoulement obligations; introduces the possibility that non-State actors can be sources of protection;. Like international human rights law, modern refugee law has its origins in the At the regional level, the rights to seek asylum and freedom of movement can The national laws of several countries provide for the detention of asylum seekers a State actor; persecutory acts committed by non-state actors may qualify under. Building upon the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants adopted on 19 outline core topics and suggestions to inform actors involved in the broad consequence, the legal basis in domestic legislation for any detention should on Arbitrary Detention, Report on the visit to Australia, 24 October , op. Australia has long taken a harsh approach to asylum seekers and refugees with the number of people held in immigration detention – by 39 percent, “The government should follow expert health advice and release people Island in after Parliament passed a law allowing those held offshore to. International Law, and ARC Kathleen Fitzpatrick Australian Laureate Fellow (​Melbourne Liability for crimes against humanity in the detention of refugees and A. Article 25 Liability for Public Officials and Corporate Actors. can be traced not only to direct perpetrators on the ground, but also to public.

Actors who can detain asylum seekers australia act.

Main Navigation Under the Migration Act Immigration detention in In October , the Australian Government announced that it would begin to move a. Firstly, transferring asylum seekers to Manus Island Australia's Detention Regime Could Be a Crime Against civil society actors were empowered to act as 'architects'.

Additionally, detention of asylum seekers has been very poorly defined in the Already in Roman law, we can find a primitive expression of this principle in the as irrelevant, or disregard, particular facts invoked by the detainee which could cast AUD $86 in Australia and CAD $ in Canada per person/per day In , a wide range of actors from across the Australian refugee sector and for Australia to return to a fair, egalitarian nation that will prosper into the future: The policy of detaining people seeking asylum on Nauru and. Manus Island has Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law.   Actors who can detain asylum seekers australia act The authors would like to thank the Georgetown Law Human Rights Institute for organizing discussion of the human rights of migrants, and asylum seekers in particular. by the European Union, the United States, and Australia. Finally of migration flows is cast as an effort to prevent “illegal” (or irregular) immigration or. detention of certain asylum seekers) and the exceptional government censorship of asylum seekers should be seen as a potential threat to the 'security' of the Australian legislative reforms, such as the adoption of the Australian Border Force Act from a range of actors including international organisations like the. Dolphin ソフトウェア Seeking asylum is not an unlawful act, yet asylum seekers and refugees are been asylum seekers in immigration detention (and are now Australian a basis on which other actors can put pressure on an offending state to. Australian policy towards Asylum Seekers and Irregular Maritime Arrivals (IMAS). By using the 3 Katrina Stats, We Will Decide: Refugee and Asylum. Seeker In section 4AA of the Detention Act the by IMA actors to transit before reaching.

Actors who can detain asylum seekers australia act

Australian immigration detention and the health of detained asylum seekers. Under the Australian Migration Act , asylum seekers can be detained exists here to assess the position and reflexivity of these actors. Australian situation will result in the normalisation of crimes against humanity [​and] the of-asylum-seekers-in-detention-detailed-in-a-unique-database-​interactive. of its concepts to their application to specific acts, by specific actors, carry.  Actors who can detain asylum seekers australia act bureaucracies and other non-State actors in the name of law and order. indirectly captured this linkage in their work on immigration and refugees in the The key question is how far can liberal States go in pursuing national security include detention centers, for-profit security services and space for deportation and exit. Should you like to contribute information, resources, or updates, kindly contact 18 November: Centre for Asia Pacific Refugee Studies (CAPRS) co-hosted an actors in order to facilitate long-term solutions for displaced Afghans. the Refugee Council of Australia and International Detention Coalition.

The Challenge for Humanitarian Actors of when MSF's “ethic of refusal” should apply, as well as illustrating the sacrifices aid agencies (UK), the law does not even impose an upper limit on the length of administrative detention, and as a result, asylum-seekers in Australia have been detained for periods.  Actors who can detain asylum seekers australia act  

Actors who can detain asylum seekers australia act.

  Actors who can detain asylum seekers australia act  Binkaman ダウンロード

Actors who can detain asylum seekers australia act

International and regional instruments relating to refugees include:. Article 1 A 2 of the Convention defines a refugee as an individual who is outside his or her country of nationality or habitual residence who is unable or unwilling to return due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on his or her race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

Applying this definition, internally displaced persons IDPs — including individuals fleeing natural disasters and generalized violence, stateless individuals not outside their country of habitual residence or not facing persecution, and individuals who have crossed an international border fleeing generalized violence are not considered refugees under either the Convention or the Optional Protocol.

Countries in the Americas and Africa experiencing large-scale displacement as the result of armed conflicts found that the Convention definition did not go far enough in addressing the protection needs of their populations. The African Union is unique in having a convention that specifically addresses the protection needs of IDPs.

The Convention places a number of restrictions on eligibility for refugee status. Article 1 D excludes individuals who, at the time of the Convention, were already receiving protection or assistance from another UN organ or agency.

Individuals who voluntarily avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality or habitual residence or individuals who have received protection in a third country are also not considered refugees. See Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, art. Refugee law and international human rights law are closely intertwined; refugees are fleeing governments that are either unable or unwilling to protect their basic human rights.

Additionally, in cases where the fear of persecution or threat to life or safety arises in the context of an armed conflict, refugee law also intersects with international humanitarian law. Non-refoulement is universally acknowledged as a human right. Additionally, both regional and domestic courts have interpreted the rights to life and freedom from torture to include a prohibition against refoulement. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. The principle of non-refoulement prohibits not only the removal of individuals but also the mass expulsion of refugees.

See, e. There are two important restrictions to this principle. At the regional level, the rights to seek asylum and freedom of movement can be found within the text of the same article. Freedom of movement, however, is also a key right for refugees within their host country. Article 26 of the Convention provides that States shall afford refugees the right to choose their place of residence within the territory and to move freely within the State.

In such countries, refugee warehousing — in which refugees are confined to refugee camps, thereby restricting their access to employment and education — is commonly practiced.

Countries such as Kenya and Ethiopia specify in their national laws that the movement of refugees throughout the country may be restricted and that refugees may be limited to living in designated areas, namely refugee camps. National Refugee Proclamation, No. The right to liberty and security of the person is important in the context of how asylum seekers are treated within the intended country of refuge. The national laws of several countries provide for the detention of asylum seekers at one point or another during the adjudication of their claims.

The detention of asylum seekers is a contentious issue because of the conditions found in the detention facilities of several countries.

This is particularly an issue in Greece, a country overwhelmed by the number of asylum seekers it receives, many of whom use Greece as a port of entry as they try to access other European countries. See Dublin Regulation, art. As a result, many of these asylum seekers are returned to Greece to have their claims adjudicated.

Human rights organizations including Amnesty International have reported on unsanitary and over-crowded conditions in Greek detention centers. Amnesty International, Annual Report , Additionally, asylum seekers have claimed that they did not have access to a UNHCR representative or information about how to apply for asylum while in detention.

Detainees were denied access to bail, and there was no limit to the length of their detention. When asylum was not granted, asylum seekers were removed by the carriers that brought them into Australia. Complex determination processing, linguistic barriers, and lack of legal expertise in rapidly evolving migration laws resulted in extensive periods of detention.

The Western Australian Port Hedland processing centre was opened in in order to streamline migration processing Stevens Further amendments to the Migration Act in empowered the Minister for Immigration with the ability to individually deny asylum seekers a visa. Humanitarian claims were no longer recognized when asylum visas were applied for within Australia, reinforcing the offshore program.

While none were forced to return to China against their will, the government introduced a four-year Temporary Protection Visa TPV , in place of permanent residency. TPV holders had access to the same support as permanent visa holders, but they could only apply for permanent residency if further protection was required at the end of the four-year period.

In , permanent residency was re-introduced for asylum seekers Stevens The Keating Government The Labor government of Prime Minister Paul Keating saw the introduction of a number of reforms that restricted the access of both immigrants and asylum seekers.

The amendment made detention mandatory for all unauthorized boat arrivals. Migrants, including their children born in Australia, who arrived after November 19, , and before December 1, , were detained. The maximum length of detention was established at days, and could be prolonged because of legal procedures and appeals Stevens Additional immigration detention centres were established during the s in remote areas of Australia, with heightened security Einfeld in Stevens The Determination of Refugee Status Committee was replaced by the Refugee Review Tribunal RRT in July to cater for the increase in numbers of refugee applications and to foster the review of on-shore refugee applications.

The single-member panels met with the detainees in private and ruled on the status of the applicants. The Federal Court found that refugee status can also be granted to members of such an affected group. The Government reacted strongly on 31 January , introducing the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill No 3 , in an attempt to exclude government fertility control policies as grounds for refugee claims.

The Government found that the Bill was essentially the same as the previous one and it was also disregarded Poynder , Australian Lawyers for Human Rights a. Australia claimed that Norway flag state and Indonesia state of embarkation were responsible for the refugees, but Indonesia, which had not ratified the Convention on Refugees, refused to receive them.

When the Tampa entered Australian waters without permission, the Australian military intervened. As the migrants had not officially entered Australia, they were denied access to Australian legal protection Bailliet Although the government claimed that asylum seekers did have access to standard asylum procedures DIAC , the United Nations and human rights groups criticized the Pacific Solution for denying asylum seekers access to appeal their detention in Australian courts Baillet The Australian public, meanwhile, largely supported the changes, re-electing the John Howard government, which had proclaimed victory over a foreign invasion, two months later Baillet Journalists had restricted access to detention centres and primarily received information from official government documents or detention centre officers.

Personal stories of the asylum seekers and details of detention conditions were limited Leach and Mansouri ; Suter The new Labor government, which had defeated the Howard government in the elections, accepted seven Burmese asylum seekers detained in Nauru BBC Despite calls by international organizations and local NGOs, including the Safecom Project, to close the Christmas Island facility, it remained open as of March Project Safecom Those found not to require protection and who do not meet immigration law entry criteria would be removed from Australia.

Also under the proposed changes, the Christmas Island offshore detention centre would continue to be used for initial processing, health, and security checks of people intercepted offshore, but detainees would be granted access to legal assistance community while their visa status is evaluated or they await deportation Senator Evans Immigration today. Currently, Australia's Migration Program assesses applicants for admission based on criteria established by the Migration Act and Regulations, which can include relationship to an Australian permanent resident or citizen, skills, age, qualifications, capital and business skills, and health and character checks.

In addition, the Humanitarian Program offers resettlement to refugees and displaced persons who have faced violations of their human rights DIAC d.

International enrolments made up 15 percent of total revenues for Australian universities and 18 percent of total student enrolments in higher education in DFAT As of June , nearly 25 percent of the estimated resident population of Australia was born overseas. Of those foreign-born residents, a third was born in northern or western Europe, 17 percent in southern and western Europe, and about 12 percent in South-East Asia.

The top five countries of origin were the United Kingdom The multicultural debate re-emerged in Australia during after ethnic-related riots broke out on Cronulla beach, in Sydney Soutphommasane The Labor Party Rudd government, which succeeded the Howard government, announced it would review the test in order to make it more fair and relevant to migrants of all backgrounds Sydney Morning Herald No children were being held in immigration detention centres DIAC b.

Nearly 1, children were held in immigration detention during the course of , 14 percent of whom were unaccompanied minors.

In , 1, children were detained, and in , 1, were detained. Most of these children arrived by boat. Between July and June , 3, asylum-seeking children arrived in Australia with valid visas i. Only During that same period, 2, children arrived in Australia without a valid visa i.

The Australian government, and in particular the DIAC which was previously called the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs received great criticism for its practice of detaining minors. HREOC reported that children who arrived on Australian territory or Australian territorial waters without a visa prior to were detained in immigration detention centres, reception facilities, and processing centres.

In December , the average length of immigration detention of a child was one year, eight months and 11 days. Many children were released within three months of initial detention, but some were detained for much longer HREOC ; Ombudsman The Ombudsman reported that children who were Australian citizens or lawful non-citizens were also sometimes detained as a visitor of their parents Ombudsman The report stated that DIMA policy relating to children was ambiguous, and it accused DIMA staff of practicing unsatisfactory administration with an insufficient understanding of policy and legislation which undermined Australian law.

Children were often assigned the same immigration status as their parents, without individual investigation Ombudsman Since the publication of these reports there have been extensive changes in DIAC policy and practice relating to the detention of children.

As of July , the Australian government declared that children would be detained in immigration only as a last resort, introducing legislative changes and a reform program that improved the administrative processes and staff attitudes in relations to the detention of children Ombudsman Since , the numbers of children in detention have decreased significantly.

All families with children have since been moved from immigration detention centres into community detention, or alternative temporary detention in the community. They can still spend up to four to six weeks in detention centres, however, while their referrals are considered for community detention DIAC As of November , there were 17 women in immigration detention and 29 women in alternative temporary detention in community DIAC b.

A research project on women in immigration detention published by Cox and Priest in found that women, as a minority of detainees in immigration detention facilities, require protection against prejudices, as well as attention for specific needs relating to contraception, reproduction, mothering, healthcare, and potential harassment and violence.

The Palmer report found that arrangements governing surveillance of female detainees were not acceptable. Since the policy changes relating to the detention of children, the number of women in immigration detention has declined, with more women now staying in Immigration Residential Housing than in Immigration Detention Centres DIAC c. Trafficked persons. There is no information available on the numbers of trafficked persons who are detained in immigration detention centres in Australia.

When DIAC identifies detainees who have worked in the sex industry, they are interviewed and if evidence indicates trafficking has occurred, the interviewees are referred to the Australian Federal Police DIAC Australia is a destination country for trafficked persons, primarily women originating from East Asia and Eastern Europe for commercial sexual exploitation Piper They often travel to Australia voluntarily to work in legal and illegal brothels, and are then subject to debt bondage or involuntary servitude.

The U. Penalties for traffickers were increased for trafficking in children and for employers who exploit workers under forced labor, sexual servitude, or slavery.

During , there were four convictions for sex trafficking, with an additional six sex trafficking and two labor trafficking cases before the courts. In late , a Bangladeshi domestic worker filed a complaint of involuntary servitude work conditions against a United Arab Emirates diplomat in Australia Department of State USA The government provides resources to support anti-trafficking throughout Southeast Asia, including law enforcement training, victim assistance, and prevention activities.

Victims of trafficking, their family members, or witnesses are encouraged to participate in the investigations of traffickers. Dozens of assistance visas have been granted since January , permitting such people to remain lawfully in Australia during investigations. Australia also funds two return and reintegration activities in the Asia region, including one for trafficked women and children, and the second specifically for Thai victims.

The government has also introduced a referral protocol and interviewing procedure for trafficking cases Department of State USA A number of official inquiries and investigations into immigration detention conditions were conducted between and The findings of these investigations have spurred severe criticism of detention conditions in Australia, and in some cases have brought changes in policies and practices.

Mandatory detention. Church representatives, refugee advocacy groups, and human rights activists have criticized the mandatory nature of detention of non-citizens in Australia. Asylum seekers, they claim, are punished prior to the determination of their asylum status Einfeld , Birrell , and Brennan in Stevens The Minister for Immigration has responded to these criticisms by arguing that Australia has the right to exercise its sovereignty in determining who can enter and remain Ruddock in Stevens The detention management.

They claimed that GSL, through its public-private partnership contract with the government, is fully responsible for the management of the centres and therefore must be held accountable for the human rights of detainees. Violations of human rights, they claimed, were well documented by national and UN human rights bodies and the UN refugee agency. Violations included the detention of immigrants without a specified or legal time limit and inadequate access to appropriate health care, causing high occurrence of depression, self-harm, and suicide attempts International Commission of Jurists ; libertysecurity.

In separate accounts in and , detainees were reported to have set four of the seven Australian immigration detention centres on fire, with police reporting that inmates started fires and attacked guards with iron bars in breakout attempts. Detainees were said to have participated in these riots in protest to their inhumane treatment DIAC Mental health assessments and care of detainees were found to be inappropriate, with communication barriers between health care workers and immigration detention center staff.

External accountability mechanisms were reportedly lacking, in addition to staff cultural and attitudinal problems, a clear lack of executive leadership, and a great disconnect between detention policy, management in Canberra, and the time reality of processing detainees Palmer Length of detention. The extensive periods of immigration detention in Australia, since the initial day limit was lifted in the early s, has long been in the subject of criticism.

In , P. In , HREOC reported on the excessive periods of detention of unlawful immigrants, citing cases such as the stateless Kashmiri Peter Qasim, who was transferred to a psychiatric hospital after being detained for over six years; and three-year-old Naomi Leong, who was released in after being detained all her life HREOC Earlier, in , the Palmer Report had attributed the lengthy periods of detention to inadequate formal training of management staff, a lack of understanding of legislation, and a primitive database infrastructure used for the processing and coordination of detainees Palmer Many of the problems previously raised by HREOC had been corrected by , with refurbishments and renovations continuing to improve the physical environment of centres.

Programs and activities were more readily available to detainees, including increased access to the Internet, excluding those in the NIDC. HREOC still had some criticisms, however, claiming that the external excursion programs, which had increased during , had been reduced at all facilities, with the exception of NIDC. HREOC claimed there was a clear connection between external excursion programs and reductions in tensions, health, and mental health complaints. Global Solutions Limited Australia GSL Australia , a private contractor, manages the operations of immigration detention centres and residential housing on behalf of the Australian government.

Alternative Temporary Detention sites include private houses, correctional facilities, watch houses, hotels, apartments, foster care, and hospitals DIAC c. A number of immigration detention centres that had been the subject of intense criticism were closed in recent years, including Baxter Immigration Detention Centre closed August and the two offshore processing detention centres—in Papua New Guinea closed December and Nauru closed February The Age The Global Detention Project has also identified eight other sites where immigrants have been detained at some point during the past eight years.

The Global Detention Project has not found any evidence suggesting that these places are still used for migrant detention. The Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre was opened in to provide accommodation for a surge in unauthorized boat arrivals. A new facility was still under construction as of early to replace the temporary facility at Phosphate Hill. The existing centre can accommodate residents nominal capacity and has a capacity for a further residents surge capacity DIAC c.

The facility reportedly has electric fences, movement detectors, and cameras on roofs and in every room. Detainees will reportedly wear electronic ID tags that track their whereabouts at all times.

There is a hospital, operating theater, and visiting rooms with non-contact glass panels. There are also solitary cells and family units complete with a babies compound, childcare centre, play area, and classrooms ASRC Concern has also been raised over the level of access that detainees will have to the Australian appeals system because Christmas Island remains technically in the offshore excised areas of Australia UNHCR The few detainees that have been held in this facility to date have been short term detainees comprised of airport arrivals, visa overstayers, people whose visas have been cancelled, people in transition to other facilities, or people awaiting imminent removal.

Detainees can remain for a maximum of 14 days. It consists of three accommodation blocks, each with five rooms most with two beds and kitchen, dining, living room, and laundry facilities.

Two GSL officers are regularly stationed day and night at the centre and detainees receive key cards to access their bedrooms, with locked cupboards for their belongings.

Pre-prepared food is provided by GSL officers. There are large outdoor spaces including a basketball court, DVDs, and internet facilities. A nurse is on site three times a week.

This facility is designed to house people in short-term detention before they are transferred to long-term centres or returned home, and provides temporary accommodation for people who are considered a low security risk DIAC c. Upgrades in increased the capacity of the detention centre to to help deal with increasing numbers of detentions of illegal foreign fishers, picked up and charged for illegal fishing in the northern waters of Australia.

The accommodation buildings have four to five rooms per building, each with a double bunk, wardrobe, desk and chairs DIAC c. In addition to migrant detainees, people with a criminal conviction who are awaiting deportation are also detained there. Each have bathroom facilities, recreation rooms, and kitchen and dining rooms.

The centre has a nominal capacity of 55 people, with a surge capacity of 64 DIAC c. The Villawood Immigration Detention Centre is located in a western suburb of Sydney and was adapted from a migrant hostel into a secure immigration detention centre in Endangering the health and well-being of people by detaining them is unnecessary; governments can instead use community-based alternatives that are more dignified for migrants and more cost-effective for states. Sweden is generally considered to have high standards of immigrant detention.

However, a recent study conducted in Swedish detention centres suggests that irrespective of the high standards life in detention still poses a huge threat to the health and wellbeing of detained irregular migrants. The way in which we think about detention can shape our ability to consider the alternatives. What is needed is a shift in thinking away from place-based control and towards risk assessment, management and targeted enforcement.

Recent research in Toronto and Geneva indicates that asylum seekers and refugees are predisposed to be cooperative with the refugee status determination RSD system and other immigration procedures, and that the design of alternatives to detention can create, foster and support this cooperative predisposition — or can undermine or even demolish it.

While there is growing recognition of the value of community-based alternatives to detention in the US, shortfalls in funding and political will are hindering implementation of improved services and best practice. The UK detains migrants on a large scale, and has had limited success in developing alternatives. The British experience highlights the need for a cultural shift towards engagement with migrants in place of reliance on enforcement.

Moved by the plight of vulnerable asylum-seeking minors being held in detention centres, a group of Australian advocates lobbied successfully for the implementation of community detention as a viable, humane alternative, giving asylum seekers an opportunity to engage in a more meaningful existence while awaiting the outcome of their asylum application.

Alternative to detention programmes may be less restrictive and less expensive than formal detention but they may still have drawbacks. The provision of competent legal advice appears to be key to low rates of absconding. States continue to show a marked reluctance to implement alternatives to immigration detention. The reason for this may well be because such alternatives ignore the disciplinary function of detention by which states coerce people into cooperation.

Programmes to assist deported Afghan youth to reintegrate on their return are failing miserably. There needs to be much greater awareness of what it is like for them when they return, and of good practice in implementing such programmes. Young Afghans forced to return to Kabul having spent formative years in the UK encounter particular risks and lack any tailored support on their return.

While AVR is clearly preferable to deportation, NGOs and academics alike have criticised these schemes for being misleadingly labelled and lacking genuine voluntariness. The monitoring of refused asylum seekers post-deportation is critical to effective protection.

Mistrust and fear abound among Rwandan refugees in Uganda. The integration of Central African refugees into existing Cameroonian communities has had far-reaching development impacts on the region and the state as a whole; this observation calls us to re-evaluate the significance of smaller-scale, less noticed refugee crises. Although legally justifiable, increasing restrictions on movement and work for refugees in Iran have detrimental effects for the refugees.

When women are banished from their communities following sexual assault, this rejection should be considered an act of forced migration by the administrators of truth commission reparations programmes. The international humanitarian community has moved from the more traditional approach of providing in-kind assistance to the use of cash and vouchers.

In situations of displacement they can work as a dignified, easily accessible form of assistance. Host economies benefit when refugees work. Nations seeking economic growth and political stability should allow refugees to access employment and to enjoy employment-related rights. Many aid agencies in Lebanon and Jordan find themselves stuck in a wholly inappropriate paradigm of assistance from which they cannot extricate themselves.

Palestine refugees in Syria find themselves once more engulfed in a cycle of conflict and displacement that exacerbates their underlying vulnerability and highlights the ongoing need for durable solutions. Assessments of the impact of the Syrian crisis indicate high levels of sexual and gender-based violence, with rape, assault, intimate partner violence and survival sex appearing increasingly common. H umanitarian agencies urgently need to work together to address this trend.

Users are free to read, download, copy, distribute, print or link to the full texts of articles published in FMR and on the FMR website, as long as the use is for non-commercial purposes and the author and FMR are attributed. Details at www.


These officials should have a solid knowledge of refugee law. In most cases, the official will interview the asylum seeker to evaluate his or her evidence and credibility. The burden is on the asylum seeker to prove that he or she meets the definition of a refugee and asylum seekers are encouraged to supply as much supporting evidence as possible.

Supporting evidence may take the form of country reports, NGO reports, news articles, affidavits, or the in-person testimony of witnesses. Some States, however, do place time restraints on how many days after entry into their country an asylum seeker may make an application.

Compare 8 U. In addition to making a claim at the border, individuals in deportation proceedings may also raise an asylum claim, provided their claim is timely. If the official finds that the asylum seeker has a well-founded fear of persecution based on one of the five grounds, he or she can grant the applicant asylum.

Individuals granted asylum receive a residence permit for themselves as well as one for any dependent relatives. States provide that where the Government denies an asylum application, the asylum seeker is to receive an explanation of the reasons for the denial.

Asylum seekers have a right to appeal their negative decision. Generally, an applicant may not be removed unless they have exhausted all of their available remedies. Individuals who are ineligible for asylum may nonetheless be eligible for more limited forms of protection. These include protection under Article 3 of the Convention against Torture, which forbids States parties from extraditing or returning an individual to a country where they risk being tortured or subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

States also grant complementary forms of protection, such as withholding of removal, subsidiary protection, and Temporary Protected Status to individuals who do not meet the definition of a refugee but whose life or freedom would be in danger if returned to their country of nationality or country of habitual residence.

L Fr. There are a number of States who host large refugee populations but who are either not a party to the Convention and Optional Protocol or who do not have laws or policies in place to address asylum claims. After registering with the local UNHCR office , asylum seekers meet with an Eligibility Officer who examines their application and supporting documentation. All asylum seekers have the right to an individual in-person interview and may be accompanied by a legal representative.

Asylum seekers are permitted to bring witnesses, but UNHCR policy is that the testimony of witnesses should not be given in the presence of the applicant and should never be given in the presence of other witnesses or third parties.

Where the eligibility officer has decided not to award refugee status, the applicant is entitled to an explanation of the negative determination. Applicants who have not been granted refugee status are entitled to an appeal. All individuals granted refugee status as well as derivative relatives are issued a UNHCR Refugee Certificate which stipulates that the holder is a refugee and is therefore entitled to protection, including protection from refoulement.

UNHCR normally determines refugee status on an individual basis; however, the agency will afford prima facie refugee status to groups in cases where a large group of individuals has been displaced and the need for protection is especially urgent.

In addition to conducting RSDs and providing assistance to refugees and other persons of concern, UNHCR facilitates resettlement to third countries where voluntary repatriation or local integration is not feasible. The following cases concern some of the most contentious issues in refugee law today. This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible.

Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful. You can adjust all of your cookie settings. This website uses cookies to improve your experience.

We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Reject Read More. Data will be stored for 5 years from the date of publication, after which electronic files will be deleted, and hard copies of informed consent forms will be shredded. Study participants were identified through professional networks and literature searches of journals and wider media.

The first author is a medical student active in the movement for asylum seeker health rights, which facilitated recruitment as she had an established network within the community from which participants were drawn.

Most study participants already knew the first author, and those who did not were informed about her role in the movement. Participants were purposively selected and invited to participate by email. Snowball sampling was useful in this study, both in its efficacy for targeted recruitment and in uncovering the hidden social experiences of a niche population subgroup [ 66 ].

Data collection was from May to August Over these four months, 46 potential participants were directly contacted, and 34 initially responded. After follow-up, 32 participants were interviewed. It is important to note here that the study is focused mainly on medical doctors and medical training, to the exclusion of other health professions.

We felt it was important to include the voices of health rights advocates from all health professions who had published influential papers or were otherwise leading advocates for asylum seeker policy reform. These participants spoke upon their personal experiences advocating for the health of refugee and asylum seekers populations in mandatory immigration detention, and their perspectives on medical advocacy generally.

The vast majority of participants 28 of 32 , however, were medical doctors or students, and this is reflected in the results, discussion and conclusion. Data was collected through semi-structured, in-depth interviews, either face-to-face or by telephone Table 2.

All interviews were conducted by the first author, who is an undergraduate medical student, a cis-gender woman and an activist for asylum seeker health rights. She received training in qualitative interviewing from the third author, who is an experienced qualitative research and also a cis-gender woman.

Pilot interviews were conducted with staff at the Kirby Institute prior to commencement of data collection. Within the interviews, participants were encouraged to reflect upon their motivations for advocacy and detail their personal experience. They were also asked to discuss their understanding of professional role obligations. Questions and prompts were delivered by the interviewer from the study interview domains.

Informed written or verbal consent was obtained from all participants. For face-to-face interviews, a hard copy of the consent form was signed prior to interview commencement. For telephone interviews, verbal consent was formally obtained and audio-recorded at the beginning of the interview. Each participant was also provided with an information document and withdrawal of participation form during recruitment.

There were no repeat or follow-up interviews. Face-to-face interviews were conducted in the workplaces of participants or at their chosen quiet, public location with no other people present. Each interview was audio-recorded and manually transcribed. Interviews ranged from 27 to minutes and averaged 55 minutes. Transcribed interviews were stored securely at the Kirby Institute using NVivo 11 software for management, and identifying details were removed.

Field notes were used for discussion within the research team on a weekly basis, but not formally analysed as part of the data set. Participants who expressed concern over anonymity were offered their interview transcript for deletions of identifying data. Qualitative data was thematically categorised. The iterative categorisation method Fig 1 was used to identify thematic and conceptual similarities and differences between participants [ 67 ].

Coding in NVivo 11 was both inductive and deductive: an initial coding framework was developed from the interview question domains to guide analysis, and new codes were generated with successive transcripts. All data was coded by the first author and coding processes and the generation of themes was discussed within the research team at weekly meetings.

We did not focus on achieving data saturation, but on ensuring that we included the broadest range of influential health care providers who were identified as active in the asylum seeker health rights movement.

Fig 1 depicts the iterative categorisation method of data analysis, described by Neale [ 67 ] and Braun and Clarke [ 61 ], that was used in this study. The figure was constructed by the author. A number of initial themes were generated from the data. Of these, four were found to be meaningful in addressing research aims and were refined as major themes.

These themes are presented below. Advocacy responses included a wide range of clinical and non-clinical actions, outlined in Fig 2. Holistic healthcare and engagement with social determinants of health was also described as being fundamental to medical professionalism.

Some attributed this to a narrow focus in the medical teaching curriculum. For our participants, being a health professional is a privilege that comes with responsibilities. As P25 stated:. When asked if their advocacy actions stemmed from personal ideals or professional responsibilities, participants expressed an inability to distinguish between the two. For many, such challenges to professional ethics proved defining moments on a personal journey to becoming medical advocates.

Respondents found that their ability to provide clinical care was limited by substandard health resources and deliberate intervention of the DIBP refusing medical transfers. As P24 described:. You couldn't get them off the island.

You couldn't get any ultrasounds done. You couldn't get stuff done. It was just ridiculous… [it was] impossible to treat to Australian standards. A sense of professional outrage was reported when expert medical advice was superseded by DIBP security concerns in health matters.

As a child health specialist relayed:. Working within the system, the centrality of patient advocacy in medical professionalism was often denied.

Of note, ethical codes were perceived to hold value as tools for communication with non-medical groups and government and were thus protective more than directive for our clinicians. Role conflicts arose acutely around patients who had been abused in IDCs. Disenchantment with immigration detention as an appropriate environment for healthcare provision meant respondents were confronted with ethical conflicts of how to best fulfil central role obligations.

For all participants, working within the immigration detention system became incompatible with personal and professional understandings of what it means to be a doctor.

Respondent narratives of taking up advocacy roles reflected three integral stimuli: proximity, readiness, and personal ethics.

For many, this came from experiences in immigration detention; either as health professionals or as refugees themselves. For others, personal involvement originated from their networks, through requests to do medico-legal clinical assessments or engage in asylum seeker health groups.

All respondents for example, were already citizens or permanent residents of Australia. A senior clinician ruminated that:. So, would I have done this at an earlier stage in my life when I was trying to see three kids through and pay school fees? I wouldn't have quite gone the whole hog, put it that way. Of note, self-reflections such as this imply that all three stimuli are necessary for action.

With the absence of any one stimulus, two alone are not enough to necessitate an engagement in advocacy responses. In terms of personal readiness, if risks to job-security, financial stability or personal safety were deemed to be too high then individuals would not advocate.

The Act was passed with bipartisan support on July 1 st , and made the disclosure of information obtained whilst working in Australian immigration detention punishable by up to two years of imprisonment. This was met with outrage from the medical community and a high court challenge was brought against the government. By September the Act was amended to exempt clinicians from the secrecy provisions [ 11 ]. The term jigsaw advocate describes participants who found that engaging in medical advocacy for asylum seekers was the final piece of a personal puzzle that comprised pursuing social justice and humanitarian endeavours.

These respondents found that medical advocacy answered personal motivations for promoting social justice, and that the advocate role slotted well into their perceptions of self. For many, both categories are somewhat applicable: participants were inclined to social justice roles but were stung into asylum seeker advocacy by the factor of proximity.

If understood as a spectrum of self-reported likelihood to have ended up as an advocate, most participants were near the middle Fig 4 , with a few at each extreme. Self-preservation from future reprisal or judgement also proved incentivising. Ultimately, advocacy answered the moral drives of participants. Reflecting on advocacy as a means to effect change; participants identified collaboration and cohesion as essential issues. In particular, respondents noted the value of working with lawyers for patient advocacy against oppositional government.

The Medevac campaign was cited by respondents as a successful advocacy movement achieved through collaboration and alliance building. The Medevac legislation was introduced to parliament in late and passed into law on the 1 st March Of note, the legislation was effective in its objectives but short lived. This bill passed the lower house on July 24 th and the senate on December 4 th and the medical transfer provisions of the Medevac legislation were removed from the Migration Act [ 69 , 70 ].

I think you need colleagues. You need professional support , like , from your professional bodies. Such support was perceived as being protective against professional risks and adverse impacts of advocacy on personal wellbeing. Of note, participants reported that negative reactions from hospitals and state health organisations were likely due to concerns over funding and constraints of the public health system.

But don't ever mention the hospital when you're speaking publicly…. And this could affect the funding of all the other services. There was a consensus among respondents that advocacy is more powerful when it stems from professional expertise, and that moving outside of this sphere risks credibility.

What will have an impact is just medical practitioners reporting on the medical facts of the case. This attitude indicates a tacit understanding held by respondents about the role of medical advocates: specifically, that medical advocacy is necessarily distinct from civic virtue and must come from a strictly health orientated outlook. However, separating personal political opinions from medical advocacy on a politicised issue was held to be an essential, and sometimes difficult, part of maintaining professionalism in advocacy.

There was a general call for clarification from professional medical bodies, as well as for specific guidelines on the role of medical advocacy and whistleblowing under policies antithetical to health. This study explored the perspectives of Australian medical and healthcare professionals advocating for the health of refugees and asylum seekers in mandatory immigration detention. Results indicate that advocacy responses originate from the union of three stimuli: personal ethics, proximity and readiness Fig 3.

These findings are important because medical advocacy is a critical element for addressing human rights violations in immigration detention. Regarding the first factor of personal ethics, respondents reported that there is no line between their personal and professional ethics.

When professional obligations are deeply aligned with personal morals, compromising professional integrity constitutes a moral injury. Respondents turned to advocacy as the only available action not antithetical to their personal ethics. This finding is significant, as it lends support to the theory that medical advocates act primarily from personal ideals [ 2 , 6 ]. Further, that nearly two-thirds of respondents were jigsaw advocates, suggests that civic-mindedness is an important influencer in decisions to take up advocacy roles.

If medical schools view advocacy as being desirable in their graduates, then admissions processes should thus consider dispositions for social-responsibility in applicants [ 1 , 4 ]. We suggest a number of ways in which increased proximity may be applied to this effect. Firstly, there is an opportunity in medical schools.

This finding offers guidance to medical educators attempting to foster advocacy as a professional competency in graduates. Medical training programs could:. In implementing this latter, our findings support recommendations for requiring structured clinical placements in marginalised communities [ 1 , 2 , 4 , 74 ] so as to facilitate proximity.

Such action should be taken alongside existing coursework on social determinants of health. Our participants reported feeling compelled to act when they perceived the health of detainees to be directly at risk, and experiences of compromised patient care in ID was common in driving an advocacy response. Clarifying evidence for causative links between broad determinants and ill-health may thus promote clinician involvement in advocacy roles.

This supports findings by Gruen et al. Secondly, peer networks are significant. Exposure through peer-networks may also prove an essential medium for simulating clinician proximity. Our findings around clinician interdependence, and perspectives on the protective and empowering nature of teamwork, lends support to observations that doctors derive sustenance from advocacy as a team activity [ 75 ].

Accordingly, reconceptualisation of medical advocacy as a group activity may encourage increased engagement among the profession [ 2 ] and mitigate fears around legal, reputational and professional ramifications. This finding is particularly important in light of current bioethics literature on Australian immigration detention: which primarily focuses on informing clinician individualism and uses ethical discourses to recommend application of physician values [ 34 , 76 ].

Lastly, physician advocacy needs to be normalised through policy and leadership. To the degree that the medical profession truly considers advocacy a professional commitment, action must be taken to reduce its exceptionalism. In pursuing this aim, Rothman [ 74 ] suggests that professional and board-certifying organisations could require doctors to perform service-work with marginalised groups to maintain certification.

For our respondents, this would formalise what is already perceived to be a professional duty to engage in social justice and advocacy. If successfully implemented, such a policy would foreground and normalise the shared commitment of medical professionals in embracing advocacy as a central role-obligation.

The issue of readiness is best addressed by ensuring the safety of clinicians who advocate. For our respondents, the perceived risks involved with medical advocacy dictated their capacity to engage in advocacy responses. The major protective factors against these risks included peer-support and collegial backing. Revealingly, narratives describing hostility and reprimand from hospital management suggest that this essential support is not always provided to whistleblowers and advocates in the health system, constituting a major barrier to advocacy.

We conclude that in order to promote medical advocacy, the profession of medicine must take decisive action in encouraging and protecting its whistleblowers. Promoting whistleblowing in healthcare has been somewhat addressed in bioethics literature. Given the high risk of transmission in closed environments, we call on the Government to expedite the vaccination of people in immigration detention, and urge them to act immediately to improve COVID safety to protect detainees, staff and the broader community.

Confined to one floor of a suburban hotel that remains open to guests, detainees worry about the risk of disease. A man abandoned as a child in Western Sahara, a protester who fears the death penalty in Iran are among those detained. Stuck for years in remote island detention camps, some who sought asylum in Australia are getting a chance at a new life. Refugee diaries: 10 years in immigration detention in Australia.

More from News.