Post-Deportation Risks and Monitoring of Asylum Seekers

Whenever one thinks of deportation of refugees or asylum seekers, two words immediately come to mind: “refoulement and non-refoulement”. The dictionary defines refoulement as “the forcible return of refugees or asylum seekers to a country where they are liable to be subjected to persecution”.

 

According to the documents of UNESCO:

“Refoulement means the expulsion of persons who have the right to be recognised as refugees. The principle of non-refoulement has first been laid out in 1954 in the UN-Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which, in Article 33(1) provides that:

“No Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”

The UNESCO documents further say:

It is important to note, that the principle of non-refoulement does not only forbid the expulsion of refugees to their country of origin but to any country in which they might be subject to persecution. The only possible exception provided for by the UN Convention is the case that the person to be expelled constitutes a danger to national security (Art 33(2)).¹

The UNESCO documents describe the problems with refoulment:

Although the principle of non-refoulement is universally accepted, problems with refoulement frequently arise through the fact, that its application requires a recognised refugee status. However, not all countries are members to the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or may not have established formal procedures for determining refugee status”.

The ‘refoulement’ or deportation of asylum seekers or refugees to their countries of origin carries tremendous amounts of risks of various types. The deportees are, because of their social or political status, vulnerable people.

According to the report of the Refugee Studies Centre of the University of Oxford, the deportees are:

“…. vulnerable and face considerable risks after deportation. These risks include loss of belongings, lack of identity papers, homelessness, destitution, trauma, depression, suicide, extortion, detention, and inhumane and degrading treatment – indicators that deportation in some cases may in fact constitute refoulement”.

One very appalling post-deportation risk that has not been included in the report of the Refugees Studies Centre of the University of Oxford’s list is the ‘loss of life’ due to inhumane and brutal manner deportees are treated by the state authorities in the country of their origin (Everybody knows that Aasiya Bibi, the Pakistani Christian woman recently released from prison after staying in death cell for eight years, is likely to be killed if she ever returns or forced back to Pakistan).

 

The nature of risks faced by deportees depends upon the political, cultural, religious and social atmosphere of the country where the asylum seeker is returned. In Middle Eastern and South-Asian countries the situation is different from the African countries. Pakistan, for instance, is a very conservative religious society where political or faith-based off-tracking is non- forgivable. A Muslim relinquishing his/her religion and accepting another faith is labelled as a ‘Murtad’ (apostate) and is to be punished by beheading with a sword. Even if the society forgives a person he/she will never be accepted as a respectable and trustworthy member of society. In the case of a Christian returning to Pakistan is a tale of woe and misery. The person, together with his/her family will be on the run from pillar to post for the rest of his/her life hiding his/her face/identity from public. The socio-economic life for the entire family will be hell because the person concerned will be excluded from society unable to find a permanent job, face deprivation and possibly face death.

What happens to people who experience refoulement is evident from the news report of AsiaNews.it, dated 7/21/2015. It is a sad story of two young Christians who were arrested for blasphemy upon their return to Pakistan:

“Lahore: Two Christians arrested for blasphemy could get the death penalty

 The two brothers have been accused of posting disrespectful content on their website. After four years on the run abroad and at home, Qaisar and Amoon are now in the same Lahore prison. The Centre for Legal Aid, Assistance and Settlement (CLAAS) is dealing with their case.

 

Lahore (AsiaNews/CLAAS) – Two Christian brothers have been arrested on blasphemy charges after one of them was accused of posting disrespectful material on his website.

A case has been registered against Qaisar and Amoon Ayub of Lahore in relations to accusations dating back to 2011.

According to Qaisar, he closed his account in 2009 but one of his Muslim friends, Shahryar Gill, somehow managed to restore the website, while ownership remained in Qaisar’s name.

The story goes back to 2010 when Qaisar worked at the Raja Centre, Lahore, at the international office.

Qaisar is married to Amina and they have three children, while Amoon is married to Huma who is a teacher at the Cathedral School, Lahore.

One day an argument broke out at Qaisar’s office between his friends, when one of them made a comment about another’s sister.

The aggrieved friend blamed Qaisar and warned him that it is a serious matter in Pakistan. Qaisar started to receive death threats from his friends and then went into hiding.

When the situation deteriorated both brothers fled to Singapore without telling their wives, but after a month they returned to Pakistan and then Amoon told his wife the whole story.

The situation was still tense, so they left again in November 2009 for Thailand, in search of security, but could not stay there for too long time and in 2012 went back to Pakistan.

Qaisar was informed by one of his friends that the authorities were looking for him and that he could be arrested at any time because a blasphemy case had been registered against him.

On 10 November 2014, while on his way to work at the Kids Campus DHA, Amoon was arrested and told that a case had also been registered against his brother. The police asked him about his brother Qaisar and he told Amoon to stay hidden because he was accused under section 109-A PPC.

Qaisar was later arrested and sent to District jail Jhelum. 

Fed up with life in Pakistan, Amoon finally decided to leave the country. On 17 November 2014, he was arrested by Immigrant Police at Lahore Airport. Later police sent him to Jhelum District Jail charged with the same offence as his brother.

Huma has done all she could to get her husband released but has failed. However, she has not lost hope and finally approached the Centre for Legal Aid, Assistance and Settlement (CLAAS) in June of this year for legal aid and support.

CLAAS is an interdenominational organization working for Christians persecuted for their faith in Pakistan. It works for religious freedom, and against persecution of Christians in Pakistan under blasphemy and other discriminatory laws.

Qaisar’s 14-year-old son became mentally unwell because of his father’s imprisonment, and CLAAS has arranged treatment for him and is trying its best to support both families, but prayers are equally important.

CLAAS is providing both brothers with free legal advice and have visited them in Jhelum, jail.  It is also going to apply for their bail once the Eid holidays are over”.

Qaiser and Amoon took the desperate step of moving to Singapore, then to Pakistan, then back again to Thailand. Eventually, the pressures around them, the toxic environment of asylum seekers in Thailand and their overall circumstances became so unbearable that they were forced to return to Pakistan.

Although Qaiser and Amoon were not deported by the legal Thai authorities, their return to their country of origin exposed them to the risk of their lives. The case reflects the vulnerability and the risks faced by a Pakistani Christian deportee upon return to Pakistan. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is an ultra-religious state where the clergy wields enormous political, social and street power. The country’s creation was based upon two-nation theory which emphasizes the philosophy and belief that Hindus and Muslims are two different nations because they follow two different faiths. The Muslims are in absolute majority in Pakistan. There are only less than two percent Christians the majority of whom are menial workers. The Christians are much below the socio-economic and academic strata as compared to Muslims. The Christians are thus politically, economically and socially a very weak and vulnerable community.

What happens to asylum seekers when they are deported back to Pakistan can be very well assessed by looking at the current socio-political scenario that developed after the Supreme Court of Pakistan exonerated Aasiya Bibi on 31 October 2018 from the death sentence and ordered that she be released immediately. There were nationwide violent protests. The entire country was ransacked by the religious leaders with clergies inciting the masses to loot and arson of the life and properties of the public. The government and state authorities were helpless and silent. The Government, despite the support of the Military and other establishment agencies, bent on its knees before the extremist elements to sign a deal with the fanatic religious leaders. The entire nation, it seemed, wanted Aasiya Bibi hanged to death. The Muslims of Pakistan, it was declared openly, do not have any forgiveness for a person accused of blasphemy against Islam or the Prophet.

The case of Qaiser and Amoon is only the tip of the iceberg. The country is replete with untold stories of persecution and torture which go unnoticed because the state, society and media is hushed about them. Everybody is scared to speak about anything related with the Blasphemy Law. Even reading or looking at a blasphemous text is tantamount to blasphemy. With this scenario the deportation of a failed refugee or asylum seeker back to Pakistan will be like a certain death sentence.

 

One of the problems of the deporting countries is that they are unable to monitor the nature and severity of persecution to which the deportees are exposed to upon return to the country of origin. The international immigration research organizations need to develop a mechanism that gives them informational feedback on the current situation faced by deportees. They need to find out the means of communication that bring to light all those cases of faith-based violence and persecution which go unnoticed or are kept hidden from public. Until and unless the world community develops a foolproof system that ensures the safety and security of failed refugees and asylum seekers in countries of their origin, the deportation process will remain an act of cruelty and a death sentence for the deportees.

Mumtaz Shah