News Articles

Victory for asylum seekers in Constitutional Court

Source: Groundup, 06/04/2020

In an important victory for the rights of asylum seekers, the Constitutional Court has found that their temporary permits must automatically be extended while their case is under judicial review.

South Africa is home to at least 400,000 asylum seekers and refugees. An asylum seeker is someone who claims, in an application to the Department of Home Affairs, to have fled from a place where they have been persecuted or where they are in danger. A refugee is someone who has been granted asylum either by government or a court.

Before asylum seekers get official refugee status they are granted a temporary permit which allows them to remain in the country until their application has been dealt with. Official refugee status can often take time and many applications are rejected.

When an application is rejected, an asylum seeker can go through an internal appeal, up to the Refugee Appeals Board. If that too fails, he or she can take the matter on judicial review in the High Court. During this time, the Refugees Act allows a Refugee Reception Officer to extend the asylum seeker’s temporary permit from time to time.

The question that arises is: up to what point is such an extension allowed? And is the extension automatic or does a Refugee Reception Officer have the discretion to refuse an extension?

Background

The case before the Constitutional Court was brought by several asylum seekers from Cape Town whose applications for official refugee status had been rejected. They were represented by the Legal Resources Centre. After exhausting internal appeals, they applied for an extension of their temporary permits pending judicial review. The extension was not granted.

The High Court found that a Refugee Reception Officer does have the discretion to extend a permit pending judicial review. However, the Court found that the extension is not automatic but at the discretion of the officer.

The Supreme Court of Appeal largely upheld the decision of the High Court.

Home Affairs appealed to the Constitutional Court to rule that a Refugee Reception Officer can only extend a permit until internal remedies in terms of the Act have been exhausted.

The asylum seekers cross-appealed and wanted the Constitutional Court to go further than the Appeal Court decision and find that an extension is not only permitted but also automatic.

The Constitutional Court explained that two legal issues had to be addressed

whether a Refugee Reception Officer has the power to extend a permit pending judicial review; and
if so, whether an extension is automatic or whether the Refugee Reception Officer must exercise discretion.

Is there a power to extend pending judicial review?

At issue was the interpretation of the word “outcome” in the Act. Home Affairs argued that this referred to “the final administrative outcome” in terms of the Act.

The Act provides for two layers of appeal if an application for official refugee status has been rejected: first, asylum seekers may approach the Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs, and if this fails they may approach the Refugee Appeals Board. According to this logic, once this outcome is reached no further extensions are permissible. For this reason, the outcome of a judicial review of the decision of the Appeals Board wouldn’t qualify as an “outcome” in terms of the Act.

The court rejected this approach. Firstly, it emphasised that when courts interpret legislation they must do so in order to fulfil the key purpose of a piece of legislation.

And one of the key purposes behind refugee law, the court said, was to ensure that refugees are not returned to the circumstances from which they were seeking refuge. This means that “no one shall expel or return a refugee against his or her will, in any manner whatsoever, to a territory where he or she fears threats to life or freedom.”

Adopting the Home Affairs approach would mean that asylum seekers who have exhausted internal remedies in terms of the Act would be at risk of being deported, even if they were seeking refuge for valid reasons. It would be “cold-comfort” to argue that an asylum seeker would still have the option of approaching a court for interim protection: this could be unsuccessful for technical reasons, and anyway it would be expensive and impractical for an asylum seeker to institute legal proceedings once he or she had already been deported.

The Constitutional Court also emphasised that courts must prefer an interpretation of legislation that protects fundamental rights in terms of the Bill of Rights. If Home Affairs’s interpretation were adopted an asylum seeker’s rights to just administrative action, access to courts, life, human dignity, and freedom and security could be infringed.

For all these reasons, the court rejected Home Affairs’s interpretation and found that a Refugee Reception Officer does have the power to extend a permit, pending judicial review.

Is an extension automatic?

Here, the court found that the principle of “non-refoulement” �` not sending a person back to a place where he or she would be in danger �` would suggest that an extension must be automatic.

The court also said that if a Refugee Reception Officer did have discretion to refuse to extend a permit this would create a discrepancy in the Act. This is because the Act enables the Minister in certain prescribed circumstances to withdraw a permit but does not prescribe the circumstances under which a decision not to extend a permit may be made. Yet a refusal to extend a permit and the withdrawal of a permit have the same effect. The court found that it would not make sense that the Act gives more discretion to the Refugee Reception Officer than to the Minister. So the court found that the only interpretation that would make sense is that an extension is automatic and the Refugee Reception Officer has no discretion at all.

The court declared �` with a minority of judges dissenting �` that a Refugee Reception Officer does have the power to extend a permit pending judicial review and that such an extension is automatic. The court awarded costs against Home Affairs.

The case will strengthen the situation of thousands of asylum seekers who are in a precarious position without official refugee status. It reduces the possibility of unjustified deportations and ensures that South Africa complies with its international obligations to protect refugees from persecution and threats to their life and safety.

www.samigration.com


Search

  •    CANBERRA, Australia (AP) ` A woman has tearfully embraced her dying sister in Australia after weeks of bureaucracy wrangling over pandemic travel restrictions. Australia had rejected Christine Archer`s request for permission to fly from New Zealand four times before her story attracted media attention. Her only sister Gail Baker was diagnosed with incurable ovarian cancer in late March after both countries stopped international travel. Baker has perhaps weeks to live. Archer was eventually allowed to fly to Sydney and spent only a week in hotel quarantine before testing negative for the coronavirus. International travelers are usually quarantined for two weeks.... Read more...
  •    In a victory for `invisible, undocumented children`, unwed fathers will soon be able to register the birth of their children without the mother being present or giving consent, GroundUp reported. In a ruling this week, three judges of the Eastern Cape High Court deemed the relevant provision of the Births and Deaths Registration Act to be unconstitutional. It still has to be confirmed by the Constitutional Court.... Read more...
  •    The Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco) has revealed that some of the South African citizens repatriated from Wuhan, where the coronavirus outbreak began, have requested assistance to return to the Chinese province. The group of 112 citizens, which included students, was the first successfully returned to South Africa as the globe grappled with the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.... Read more...
  •    JOHANNESBURG, May 20: Twenty-six Indian scientists stranded in South Africa’s Cape Town due to the coronavirus lockdown will be heading back home this week. They had been on a mission to Antarctica and stuck in South Africa three months ago after the imposition of the lockdown. The scientists are among around 150 Indian nationals who will be returning home on a South African Airways (SAA) flight that will leave Johannesburg on Friday for Mumbai and Delhi. Indian Consul General in Johannesburg, Anju Ranjan, said over 1,000 Indian nationals had registered for the flight. Passengers had to be vetted by the Indian mission based on a criteria set by the South African Department of Home Affairs. “We had to select priority passengers depending on their need,” Ranjan said in a Facebook broadcast.... Read more...
  •    Court rules on extension of temporary permits The Constitutional Court has ruled that asylum seekers’ temporary permits must automatically be extended while their case is being reviewed. Archive photo: Ashraf Hendricks... Read more...
  •    The department of home affairs has outlined temporary measures regarding visas and permanent residence permits during the lockdown. Image: Alaister Russell People whose visas to work, study or conduct business in SA expired during the Covid-19 lockdown will not be penalised, home affairs said on Tuesday.... Read more...
  •    Desperate citizens stranded in South Africa have taken to jumping the Lesotho border risking their lives to get home. Reports from Lesotho claim that hundreds of Basotho are resorting to perilous and illegal border crossings having been stranded in locked down South Africa.... Read more...
  •    THE country received 527 citizens returning from South Africa yesterday through the Beitbridge Border Post bringing the number of returnees from various countries to 3 134 since the country and other regional countries initiated national lockdowns to curb the spread of Covid-19.... Read more...
  •    All around South Africa, migrants, refugees and asylum seekers who have mostly been left out of the government`s official response to the food crisis are going hungry. For Alice Munyanyiwa, a cup of tea has become a luxury she can barely afford.... Read more...
  •    The government is working on a scheme to develop six, one-stop border posts with its neighbours to ensure greater efficiency in the movement of goods and people. Priority will be given to the Beitbridge border post connecting SA and Zimbabwe, which is the gateway for most of the land-based trade with the rest of Africa. This border post, the biggest, has long been plagued by lengthy delays, some lasting up to two weeks, which are extremely costly for business.... Read more...

Get the latest Immigration News