Results are excerpts from the referenced publication, and may not be current at the time of the search. Please also note the database is currently in its testing phase. We would welcome any feedback at [email protected]

  • Peru offers work and study permit to Venezuelan asylum seekers
  • Peru
  • An erosion of Venezuela’s socio-political stability coupled with a rise in State repression – and further exacerbated by shortages of food and medicine – has left Venezuelans seeking safety and security in neighbouring countries. Peru’s introduction of a new work and study permit for Venezuelan asylum seekers has been hailed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights as ‘an example for the region of how States can protect migrants who are in a vulnerable situation by regularising migration’. The Permiso Temporal de Permanencia (PTP) is a work and study permit provided exclusively to Venezuelan citizens for a period of one year, with the possibility of renewal. Over 10,000 Venezuelans have been approved for the new program, assuring them freedom of movement, personal liberty and self-reliance. While it is important that Peru continue to assess Venezuelan asylum-seeker claims and apply formal protection instruments under the Cartagena Declaration, the PTP represents a successful and positive alternative to detention.
  • Policy
  • Minimum Standards
  • Formal status and documentation
  • Asylum seekers
  • All
  • Holistic care for unaccompanied children in Italy
  • Italy
  • The Zampa law, as the new measure is known, is the first comprehensive act for unaccompanied children in Italy. It calls for a series of measures - fully aligned with UNICEF recommendations - to protect refugee and migrant children, including: Unaccompanied and separated foreign children will not be subjected to “refoulement” or returns that may cause them harm; Reduce the time these children spend in first-line reception centres; Promote guardianship for children by using trained volunteers from the regional child and youth agency and promote foster care and host families for children; Harmonize and improve procedures for age assessment in a child-sensitive manner; Establish a structured and streamlined national reception system, with minimum standards in all reception facilities; Roll out extensive use of qualified cultural mediators* to communicate and interpret needs of vulnerable adolescents. The new law includes additional budgetary provisions on top of €600 million which the Government of Italy had already allocated in 2016 to municipalities, groups and caregivers to help them cope with the large influx of refugees and migrants in reception centres.
  • Policy
  • Placement Options
  • Community without conditions
  • Migrants
  • Refugees
  • Unaccompanied and Separated Children
  • Work permit program for refugees in Jordan
  • Jordan
  • In January 2016 at Davos, the forum for global business, Queen Rania of Jordan acclimatised CEOs to the idea that corporate social responsibility to refugees did not mean diverting some profits into sending blankets; rather, it meant putting their core skills to use by integrating them into global supply chains. In the context of emerging business interest in solutions to the refugee crisis, a range of manufacturing company CEOs began to take notice. The formal launch of the pilot project came as part of the London conference on Syrian refugees on 4 February 2016. The basic deal on the table – called the Jordan Compact – was that Jordan would receive around $2bn (£1.6bn) in assistance and investment. In exchange, it would offer up to 200,000 work permits to Syrians. One of the main vehicles for this would be through a series of five new Special Economic Zones, in which refugees would be employed alongside Jordanian nationals, partly building upon existing development areas.
  • Policy
  • Minimum Standards
  • Basic needs
  • Refugees
  • All
  • Transit
  • Trainee program for migrants in South Korea
  • Korea
  • Republic of (South Korea)
  • Until 2003, South Korea had no official provisions for the entry of temporary low-skilled foreign labor. Instead South Korea used its industrial trainee scheme which was originally intended to upgrade the skills of foreign workers employed abroad by overseas South Korean firms. In 2002, the government increased the number of industrial trainees under the foreign trainee program by 20,000, to 145,000. ... The presence of unauthorized foreign workers eventually caught the government's attention, and, in June 2002, it recognized the need to give temporary legal status to low-skilled foreign laborers for the first time. This initiative, known as the Employment Management System, was limited to temporary foreign workers in the service sector with Korean ancestors (mainly Chinese Koreans). Due to the program’s limited scope (in 2002, it issued 156 worker visas), it did not significantly decrease the number of unauthorized workers. In July 2003, the government introduced the Employment Permit System (EPS), a guestworker scheme, and the following year the Employment Management System and the EPS were made to operate side-by-side, with the government examining the number of workers in one when considering how many to admit into the other. ... When EPS was introduced, it gave many unauthorized foreign workers the opportunity to apply for a permit, depending on how long they had been in the country illegally. At the same time, unauthorized migrants who did not qualify for a permit were given a chance to leave the country without paying any fines. Foreign workers who had been in Korea for less than three years as of March 31, 2003 were able to stay for an additional two years at most. Those present for three to four years could leave Korea with an advance approval certificate to re-enter, and if they did so within three months of their departure, they could work for a maximum of five years, including their illegal stay in Korea. Those illegally present in Korea for more than four years were required to leave Korea or face deportation. This amnesty boosted the authorized foreign worker population by 57.2 percent—from 320,558 at the end of 2002 to 504,038 one year later.
  • Policy
  • Case Management
  • Case resolution
  • Undocumented or irregular migrants
  • All
  • Time limit reduces the numbers of children and their families in detention in the United Kingdom
  • United Kingdom
  • Published Home Office detention policy sets out a a series of groups of vulnerable individuals who are only considered suitable for detention in very exceptional circumstances. : Where a decision is taken to detain someone falling into one of these categories, they would be detained alongside individuals not considered to be vulnerable. The UK does not have accommodation specifically set aside within immigration removal centres for detainees who might be considered vulnerable. Families with children under 18 being returned are only detained as a last resort where they have failed to cooperate with attempts to encourage them to leave the UK voluntarily. They are held at Cedars Pre-Departure Accommodation for the last few days before their removal from the UK, which is a dedicated facility specifically for families with children . The duration of stay at the PDA is limited to 72 hours prior to the family's planned removal date, though there provision for them to remain for up to seven days in exceptional circumstances, subject to Ministerial approval. Families live in their own self-contained apartments at Cedars, with a lower level of security than would be found in an IRC. Cedars is run by the private contractor G4S in conjunction with the children's charity Barnardoâs, which provides welfare support to families there.
  • Policy
  • Minimum Standards
  • Fair and timely case resolution
  • Returnees / Deportees
  • Children
  • Vulnerable individuals considered suitable for detention only in very exceptional circumstances in the United Kingdom
  • United Kingdom
  • Published Home Office detention policy sets out a a series of groups of vulnerable individuals who are only considered suitable for detention in very exceptional circumstances. : Where a decision is taken to detain someone falling into one of these categories, they would be detained alongside individuals not considered to be vulnerable. The UK does not have accommodation specifically set aside within immigration removal centres for detainees who might be considered vulnerable. Families with children under 18 being returned are only detained as a last resort where they have failed to cooperate with attempts to encourage them to leave the UK voluntarily. They are held at Cedars Pre-Departure Accommodation for the last few days before their removal from the UK, which is a dedicated facility specifically for families with children . The duration of stay at the PDA is limited to 72 hours prior to the familyâs planned removal date, though there provision for them to remain for up to seven days in exceptional circumstances, subject to Ministerial approval. Families live in their own self-contained apartments at Cedars, with a lower level of security than would be found in an IRC. Cedars is run by the private contractor G4S in conjunction with the children's charity Barnardoâs, which provides welfare support to families there.
  • Policy
  • Liberty
  • Prohibit the detention of vulnerable individuals
  • Migrants
  • Children
  • Business-led refugee resettlement program
  • Australia
  • In September 2015, the Australian Government announced an additional one-off allocation of 12,000 resettlement places for Syrian and Iraqi refugees.125 This announcement inspired the Friendly Nation Initiative,
a business-led project which seeks to improve employment pathways for refugees resettled from overseas. The Initiative was developed by Tony Shepherd, former President of the Business Council of Australia, and Carla Wilshire, CEO of the Migration Council Australia. The Friendly Nation Initiative aims to help Syrian refugees and employment as quickly as possible after arrival. Businesses can support the Initiative in a range of ways: as ‘Corporate Mates’, through raising funds, hosting cultural awareness seminars and participating in corporate volunteering and mentoring programs; as ‘Corporate Mentors’, through offering industry mentoring, retraining or assistance with skills recognition, and donating services such as banking support and business planning; or as ‘Corporate Champions’, through providing employment training programs, sponsoring projects and programs to assist refugees to settle and develop skills, and recruiting other businesses to participate in the Initiative. The Friendly Nation Initiative has been met with an enthusiastic response from Australian businesses and industry groups. It has been supported by the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, as well as major companies such as Wesfarmers, Woolworths and Harvey Norman.
  • Policy
  • Minimum Standards
  • Basic needs
  • Refugees
  • All
  • Legislation guarantees migrant children will not be placed in immigration detention in Mexico
  • Mexico
  • On December 2, 2015, the Mexican government took an important step forward in guaranteeing migrant children’s right to freedom by directly prohibiting immigration detention of children in the official regulations for the National Child Rights Law. Article 111.  At no time will migrant children or adolescents, regardless of whether or not they are traveling with adults, be deprived of their freedom in Immigration Stations or in any other immigration detention center (unofficial translation). The regulations establish national norms for the implementation of the Child Rights Law and represent significant progress in protection policies for refugee and migrant children. The regulations recognize that immigration detention is no place for children. Article 111 provides greater protection for migrant children’s freedom, going further than the current Immigration Law, which states that only children traveling without their parents or guardians should be transferred to the family welfare system (DIF) instead of being placed in immigration detention centers. Article 111 also requires that Mexico adopt and implement mechanisms to prevent children accompanied by their parents or guardians from being detained for immigration purposes. The Child Rights Law and Regulations also create a National Child Protection System with a new Federal Office for the Protection of Children’s Rights. The federal office, in coordination with the National Institute of Migration will be responsible for developing a protocol in order to ensure that immigration processes always put the best interests of the child first (Article 105 of the regulations). Furthermore, the Child Rights Law and Regulations mandates the creation of a database on migrant children, including information on if they were victims or witnesses of crime, as well as on possible international protection needs. Thus, the law and its regulations serve as part of an important legal and informational foundation from which to work toward eradicating immigration detention of children.
  • Policy
  • Liberty
  • Prohibit the detention of vulnerable individuals
  • Asylum seekers
  • Migrants
  • Refugees
  • Children
  • Transit
  • Bail program in the United Kingdom
  • United Kingdom
  • Bail is available upon request in the UK within the first 8 days of detention by making an application to an Immigration Officer not below the rank of Chief Immigration Officer (CIO). After the 8 days, they can apply for bail to an Immigration Judge. There are some exceptions. Bail guidance for judges presiding over immigration and asylum hearings instructs them to consider: (a) the reason or reasons why the person has been detained; (b) the length of the detention to date and its likely future duration; (c) the available alternatives to detention including any circumstances relevant to the person that makes specific alternatives suitable or unsuitable; (d) the effect of detention upon the person and his/her family; and (e) the likelihood of the person complying with conditions of bail. Detained asylum-seekers may be required to produce a surety, an individual who agrees to be held responsible for ensuring compliance with bail conditions. This requirement is not automatic: due regard should be given to the fact that people recently arrived in the country may have nobody to whom they could expect to stand surety for them. If there are no reasonable grounds for concluding that the applicant will abscond, a surety would be unnecessary. The Bail guidance and its annexes further describe bail conditions that can be imposed. They make clear that stringency of the conditions should vary according to the circumstances of the applicant and the level of monitoring required. Indication about how to fix the amount of any financial bond is also given.
  • Policy
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Immigration detainees
  • All
  • Screening and assessment: The United States
  • United States of America
  • In March 2013, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deployed a new Risk Classification Assessment instrument nationally. This is the first automated system of individualised assessment used to assist placement determinations. The Risk Classification Assessment tool was developed in response to criticism over the increasing numbers of people being unnecessarily detained or detained for prolonged periods. Such detention was taking place without uniform, individualised assessment or determination that their detention was proportionate or justified, including whether they were a danger to society, or a flight risk.

    The Risk Classification Assessment tool is used during the detainee intake process to determine (a) whether a person should be released or detained, (b) if released, what levels of supervision should be placed on the individual, and (c) if detained, the individual’s custody classification level. The tool guides ICE officers through a multi-staged process of decision-making, starting with a legal assessment of whether the individual is subject to mandatory detention, or whether detention would otherwise be required. In respect to the latter, the Risk Classification Assessment tool uses objective classification scales and mathematically weighted factors/algorithms to score the risk that an individual poses to the community. Persons who do not pose a risk to the community and who are eligible to be released are then assessed using additional factors that score the risk of absconding. The results determine the type of alternative best suited to the individual.

    The Risk Classification Assessment tool requires ICE officers to screen for the existence of family
    ties, immigration history including compliance with previous immigration decisions, as well as medical, mental health and other vulnerability triggers at the outset. It includes prompting questions for a number of vulnerability triggers including disability, advanced age, pregnancy, nursing mothers, sole caretaking responsibilities, mental health issues, and victimisation, including aliens who may be eligible for relief under the Violence against Women Act, survivors of crime, or survivors of human trafficking. It is designed to take eight minutes to complete. It remains to be seen how effective the tool is in a context where conditions are applied rigorously and there is a historical predisposition to detain.
  • Policy
  • Screening & Assessment
  • Healthy, identity and security checks
  • Migrants
  • All
  • Multi country Europe- Tools to identify vulnerability
  • Austria
  • Bulgaria
  • Greece
  • Croatia
  • Italy
  • Romania
  • Sweden
  • Slovenia
  • In some cases, indicators or manuals for identification and referral focus on specific groups, such as women or children (Bulgaria) or address specific actors such as healthcare or detention staff (Slovenia) or transit situations (Croatia). In Slovenia, police and border guards use Frontex material, such as the Trainer's Manual on Anti-trafficking and the Handbook on Risk Profiles, to identify victims. In Greece and Sweden, the International Labour Organization’s operational indicators for adult and child victims of trafficking for labour and sexual exploitation are used together with specific national guidelines for first level identification. In Sweden, this includes, for example, guidelines concerning unaccompanied children developed by the National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) for social workers at municipal level. In a joint initiative, Austria, Italy, Greece and Romania have developed training material in the context of the AGIRE project on identifying and protecting children who are or might be trafficking victims. Italy further developed specific guidelines in its National Action Plan on this topic.
  • Policy
  • Screening & Assessment
  • Vulnerability
  • Migrants
  • Trafficked
  • All
  • Transit
  • Using exisiting child welfare systems to protect migrant children in Hungary
  • Hungary
  • Since May 2011, following the recommendations set out in a report of the Parliamentary Commissioner, UAM asylum seekers (UAMAS) and UAM beneficiaries of international protection have fallen within the scope of the general child protection regime and a child protection facility in Fót (‘Fót Children’s Home’) has been designated to host them. This change resulted in the qualification of UAMs, primarily, as children and only secondarily as migrants. UAMAS (and non-asylum seeking UAMs who are provided interim placement) have to thereafter be appointed a child protection guardian by the Guardianship Authority, who is legally responsible for the overall care, property management and legal representation of the minor. The child protection guardian is employed by the Department of Child Protection Services (TEGYESZ) and can ensure the guardianship of max. 30 children. Non-asylum seeking UAMs are accommodated in a child protection facility in Hódmezővásárhely run by the Catholic Church within the framework of a contract concluded with the Social and Child Protection Directorate. However, the limited capacity (18 UAMs) of the facility remains an issue. Age assessment must take place within 24 hours of detection of the UAM. It has been reported that the lack of uniform age assessment procedures may lead to the detention of UAMs. In case of doubt, until the minority of the UAM is confirmed, he/she is treated as an adult, thus may be accommodated either in an adult reception facility for asylum seekers or put in immigration/asylum detention if the conditions are met.
  • Policy
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Asylum seekers
  • Unaccompanied and Separated Children
  • Alternative to detention pilot project in Japan
  • Japan
  • In Japan, following a Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Immigration Bureau, the Forum for Refugees Japan (FRJ) and the Japan Federation of Bar Associations (JFBA), a new framework has been established for the improvement of the asylum system, including the issue of detention of asylum-seekers. As part of an alternative to detention pilot project, identified cases are referred by the Immigration Bureau to the FRJ. Eligible persons include those who could possibly be granted either landing permission for temporary refuge, provisional release, or permission for provisional stay. FRJ, after consideration of the cases, identifies accommodation and appoints a case manager. FRJ provides assistance such as psychological counselling and secures access to education and medical care; JFBA provides free legal assistance to asylum-seekers.
  • Policy
  • Minimum Standards
  • Basic needs
  • Asylum seekers
  • All
  • Legal status and social assistance to asylum seekers in Chile
  • Chile
  • In Chile, once an asylum-seeker has lodged an asylum application, he/she is issued with a renewable temporary stay permit, valid for eight months with the entitlement to work. Based on an agreement signed between the Department of Social Action under the Ministry of Interior and Public Security and the Fundación de Ayuda Social de las Iglesias Cristianas, UNHCR partner organisation, a comprehensive social assistance scheme is organized to facilitate the integration of asylum-seekers and refugees into local social and economic structures. The programme comprises: assistance for asylum-seekers and accompanying family members, an integration scheme for refugees, and services for vulnerable persons and cases with specific protection profiles. In particular, the assistance programme aims to cover basic needs for the duration of the asylum procedure, in particular food, housing (including furniture), documentation and transportation. Over the first three months of his/her stay in Chile, the applicant is entitled to full support. The amount provided respectively decreases to 75 per cent after three months and 50 per cent after six months. The support normally ends after twelve months, but the implementing agency can request the Department of Social Action to extend the support owing to special circumstances
  • Policy
  • Minimum Standards
  • Formal status and documentation
  • Asylum seekers
  • All
  • Options for people being deported from the Netherlands
  • Netherlands
  • In the Netherlands, a number of different alternatives to detention are available as part of the Government's returns policy., The Repatriation and Departure Service (DT&V) and the police when assessing the need for an alternative to detention consider the following factors: the prospects of return, the alien's willingness to actively work towards return, the risks of absconding and any new facts or developments in the alien's personal situation. The DT&V collaborates with local NGOs if the alien is willing to work on return with an NGO instead of the DT&V. Every year the DT&V accepts applications for grants for local initiatives dealing with return, such as case management, or other in-kind or cash assistance upon return. Different monitoring measures varying in intensity may be applied, sometimes in combination, for example, a duty to regularly report combined with DT&V assistance to prepare for return, the handing over of security deposit assessed against their financial situation, the deposit of documentation to the police or a measure of directed residence. Attention to vulnerable groups such as families, unaccompanied or separated children, elderly persons or persons with physical disabilities or medical or psychological problems is included in the returns policy. Pregnant women, for example, are entitled to postponement of return from six weeks before the due date until six weeks after the delivery, and they are provided with lawful residence and shelter and care during this period.
  • Policy
  • Case Management
  • Case resolution
  • Returnees / Deportees
  • All
  • Residential schools for unaccompanied children in Israel
  • Israel
  • In ISRAEL, based on a joint decision by an inter-ministerial committee led by the Ministry of Justice, UASC aged between 14 and 17 are integrated in residential schools called “youth villages” together with Israeli youth. Israeli youth opting for this kind of secondary education are mainly from migrant backgrounds or youth facing socio-economic difficulties.

    UASC are placed in small groups in these youth villages gathering up to 150-300 young people (the number of UASC generally constitutes a maximum of 10% of the total school population). Each child that arrives from detention centres undergoes an intake and his/her situation is monitored by the staff in charge (usually a child and youth care worker/social worker). Children are divided in the youth village by age groups, boys and girls separately, and live together with Israeli youth in the same groups. Emphasis is on a community approach – e. g. where staff live with their families alongside the students. The staff includes directors, teachers, educators, child and youth care workers, social workers and other psycho-social staff as needed and also volunteers like national service volunteers. Children are provided with a safe environment, access to local school and all other comprehensive services in accordance with their developmental needs (health care, dental care, cloth- ing, full board accommodation, sports and other social activities, pocket money, psychological counseling if needed, etc.). Wherever possible, Israeli “host families” are matched with the UASC for hosting them in vacation periods.
    Children enjoy freedom of movement and are provided with identity certificates that are issued by each youth village separately. The Israeli immigration authority issues UASC living in youth villages a “conditional release” visa, similar to the visa all asylum-seekers receive in Israel. The youth villages are supervised and financed by the Ministry of Education. From 2008-2014, more than 400 UASC from African countries were placed in the youth villages.
  • Policy
  • Placement Options
  • Community without conditions
  • Migrants
  • Unaccompanied and Separated Children
  • Humanitarian residence permit in Hungary
  • Hungary
  • Tolerated stay /"Exile" status under Act II of 2007 on the Entry and Stay of Third-Country Nationals (entered into force on 1 July 2007, hereinafter: RRTN). A residence permit on humanitarian grounds is issued to the person who has been granted the status of exile by Hungary. The validity period of a residence permit granted on humanitarian grounds shall be one year that may be extended by a maximum of one year at a time and under Art 29 (3) of RRTN a residence permit on humanitarian grounds shall be withdrawn if any requirement for issue is no longer satisfied; the third-country national in question has disclosed false information or untrue facts to the competent authority in the interest of obtaining the right of residence; or the withdrawal is requested by the authority or body on whose initiative it was for some other reason. Exiles shall be entitled to receive provisions under the scope of personal care, including financial provisions and financial assistance
  • Policy
  • Minimum Standards
  • Formal status and documentation
  • Returnees / Deportees
  • All
  • Transit
  • Policy requires are note detained and are placed in alternatives in Malta
  • Malta
  • According to a national policy document of 2005, persons vulnerable by virtue of their age and/or physical conditions are meant to be exempt from detention and are to be accommodated in alternative centres. HOWEVER, the policy provides that children are to be initially detained and only released from detention only once their identification has been determined and they have been medically screened and cleared. There are no time limits for early release on grounds of vulnerability and, in practice, this means that unaccompanied children have been detained for anywhere from a few days to 4-5 months during the age determination process. Due to capacity constraints many children have also been detained for several weeks after they have been formally recognized as minors. Families with minor children are usually released within some days. In a welcome development in March 2014, the age assessment procedure was amended by the Agency for the Welfare of Asylum Seekers (AWAS) with some welcome reforms. These include an effort to minimize the period children spend in detention by introducing a time limit of 10 days to the first stages of the procedure and reducing the number of cases referred for a bone density analysis. Whereas it is too early to draw conclusions, preliminary findings from a pilot test indicate that the new procedure has decreased the time taken for age assessments. In March 2014, the Ministry for Family and Social Solidarity presented a new Child Protection (Out of Home Care) Bill to Parliament which proposes significant reform of Malta’s system of care for children, including unaccompanied migrant children. The draft Bill reportedly “foresees a change in the disembarkation procedure whereby the children are no longer to be placed into systematic detention, but in a determi¬nation centre where an age assessment decision will be taken within 2 weeks.” This would be a very welcome development and could ensure the presumption against detention for unaccompanied children is implemented in practice. However, concerns have been expressed that the Bill is not explicit in the principle of non-detention of children and children may still be detained under its provisions
  • Policy
  • Liberty
  • Prohibit the detention of vulnerable individuals
  • Migrants
  • Children
  • Transit
  • UK guidelines for officers regarding factors to consider in decisions to detain
  • United Kingdom
  • 55.3.1. Factors influencing a decision to detain

    All relevant factors must be taken into account when considering the need for initial or continued detention, including:

    - What is the likelihood of the person being removed and, if so, after what timescale?
    - Is there any evidence of previous absconding?
    - Is there any evidence of a previous failure to comply with conditions of temporary release or bail?
    - Has the subject taken part in a determined attempt to breach the immigration laws? (e.g. entry in breach of a deportation order, attempted or actual clandestine entry)
    - Is there a previous history of complying with the requirements of immigration control? (e.g. by applying for a visa, further leave, etc)
    - What are the person's ties with the United Kingdom? Are there close relatives (including dependants) here? Does anyone rely on the person for support? If the dependant is a child or vulnerable adult, do they depend heavily on public welfare services for their daily care needs in lieu of support from the detainee? Does the person have a settled address/employment?
    - What are the individual's expectations about the outcome of the case? Are there factors such as an outstanding appeal, an application for judicial review or representations which afford incentive to keep in touch?
    - Is there a risk of offending or harm to the public (this requires consideration of the likelihood of harm and the seriousness of the harm if the person does offend)?
    - Is the subject under 18?;
    - Does the subject have a history of torture?;
    - Does the subject have a history of physical or mental ill health?
  • Policy
  • Screening & Assessment
  • Individual case factors
  • Migrants
  • All
  • Time limit reduces the numbers of children and their families in detention in the United Kingdom
  • United Kingdom
  • "There will always be a need to hold families with children at the border while enquiries are made as to whether they may be admitted and/or while they await a return flight. The power to hold families with children is in Schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971.17 5.2 Children are usually held at the border because officials believe that the children’s best interests are served better by remaining with the family group until a decision on admission is made. However, detention is exceptional and can only be authorised by a senior Border Force official. The family is held for the shortest possible time, usually in a holding room at the port of entry. The maximum period that a family can be held in a holding room is 24 hours. Where possible, families are held separately from other passengers. The Panel has again visited several of these holding rooms during this reporting period and still considers the use of some of them for anything more than a few hours to be inappropriate. ... If a family is to be held overnight or for longer than 24 hours, they are normally moved to Tinsley House Immigration Removal Centre which has a separate family unit which has been refurbished to a high specification. This decision must be authorised by a Director and for a stay beyond 72 hours ministerial authority must be gained. Border Force claim these and other measures which have been in force since August 2010 have seen a fall in the numbers of children and families being held at the border and where families have been held they have been held for shorter periods. Unfortunately the Panel has no way of challenging or supporting this assertion"
  • Policy
  • Minimum Standards
  • Regular review of placement decisions
  • Returnees / Deportees
  • Children
  • Avoiding detaining children in families pending return
  • Belgium
  • Families with children who
 are required to leave Belgium are accommodated in individual open housing units, called return-houses. ‘There are two categories of family in the return-houses: the families who were arrested on the territory and the families who asked for asylum at the border. Family unity is maintained even when children have turned 18 years old. Family members are allowed to exit the house, providing that one adult member of the family remains present in the unit. Children are allowed to attend school, even though it is sometimes difficult to ensure in practice (due to lack of available places in schools, short period prior to the return, etc). Families have access to health care in addition to an obligation to a medical check when entering the return- houses and to a fit-to fly examination before return. Within the return houses, families receive counselling from a return-coach, who works for the Foreigners Office. Each coach works with 3 to 4 families at a time and is in almost daily contact on behalf of the families with the authorities. The coach’s role is to prepare families for return whilst exploring the possibilities of them receiving a residence permit and supporting them in their current situation. They provide families with information and coordinate the involvement of other actors working with the family, for example, lawyers, and help children enrol in school. They also prepare families for regularisation of their stay. From October 2008 up to February 2011, 145 families with 268 children stayed in the return houses. Amongst them, 60 families returned to their country of origin or to a third country. In very few cases were coercive measures necessary for the return.’
  • Policy
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Migrants
  • Returnees / Deportees
  • Children
  • Guardianship arrangements for undocumented arrivals
  • Netherlands
  • Nidos is an organization commissioned by the Dutch authorities to be temporary guardians to unaccompanied minors who are refugees, asylum seekers or other migrants for whom return to their homelands is a realistic option. The organization employs social workers with specific expertise working with children cross culturally. Nidos is responsible for the minor’s reception, although the daily education and care is sourced to third parties under the supervision of the guardians. The ‘guardian is expected to focus on the promotion of the child’s best interests, his/ her education, care and protection and the prevention of abuse, disappearances and an existence in illegality.’
  • Policy
  • Case Management
  • Case management and support
  • Migrants
  • Children
  • Unaccompanied and Separated Children
  • Guardianship arrangements
  • Belgium
  • Guardians in Belgium are entirely unrelated to immigration authorities. They are also independent from, but monitored by, the body charged with their administration, Guardianship Services. Where a conflict arises between a guardian and the Guardianship Services, courts determine whether or not another guardian should be appointed. The guardian’s role, taking the child’s view into account, is:
    ‘To ensure the well-being of the child (which includes education, mental and physical health).
    To build a relationship of trust with the child.
    To help him/her with his/her asylum application and be present at every hearing/interview.
    To appoint a lawyer for the child and also find him/her accommodation.
    To assist the child in family tracing.
    To seek a durable solution for him/her.
    To explain the decisions and ensure the child understands all processes, manage his/her finances and provide reports on the child.’
  • Policy
  • Case Management
  • Case management and support
  • Migrants
  • Children
  • Unaccompanied and Separated Children
  • Community Assistance Scheme
  • Australia
  • Immigration advice and application assistance to vulnerable people, delivered by providers under the Immigration Advice and Application Assistance Scheme (IAAAS).
- Information and counselling services, provided by the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The IOM provides information on immigration processes and assistance to people and prepares them for their immigration outcome. Case managers are responsible for overseeing the case, meeting regularly with their clients and coordinating case conferences with client and service providers at critical incidents, such as a refusal or change of circumstance. Of the 918 people initially assisted, 560 (61%) had a final immigration outcome. Of this group 370 people (66%) received a temporary or permanent visa to remain, 114 people (20%) voluntarily departed,
37 people (7%) absconded, 33 people (6%) were removed and 6 people (1%) died. These figures show that 93% of people complied with their reporting and other obligations and that 60% of those not granted a visa to remain in the country voluntarily departed.
  • Policy
  • Case Management
  • Case management and support
  • Migrants
  • All
  • Canada - Guidance for officers to ensure individual case factors considered when assessing flight risk
  • Canada
  • Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Enforcement Manual 20 – Detention Section 5.7 (p. 10-11): R245 outlines the factors to be taken into account when assessing flight risk. This non-exhaustive list includes: voluntary compliance with any previous departure order; voluntary compliance with any previously required appearance at an immigration or criminal proceeding; previous compliance with any conditions imposed in respect of entry, release or a stay of removal; any previous avoidance of examination or escape from custody, or any previous attempt to do so.
  • Policy
  • Screening & Assessment
  • Individual case factors
  • Migrants
  • All
  • Canada - Screening & assessment guidance for officers to ensure liberty, detention applied in first instance
  • Canada
  • ENF 20 - guidance to officers in exercising their powers of detention under IRPA. 5.2 states "In exercising their discretionary authority to detain, officers need to consider all reasonable alternatives before ordering the detention of an individual. This approach requires officers to exercise sound judgment in cases involving the arrest and detention of individuals, pursuant to IRPA. Sound judgment not only requires individual assessment of the case, but also an assessment of the impact of release on the safety of Canadian society. See also 5.5 (assessment of security risk/human rights violations), 5.6 (danger to the public), 5.7 (flight risk), 5. 8 (identity).
  • Policy
  • Liberty
  • Mandate to apply alternatives in the first instance
  • Migrants
  • All
  • Policy mandating the consideration of alternatives to detention in Canada
  • Canada
  • Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Enforcement Manual 20 (ENF 20)- Officers must be aware that alternatives to detention exist. As an alternative to detention, an officer may impose conditions, require a deposit of money or direct that a person participate in a third party risk management program ( para 5.11). Officers must also consider alternatives to detention and ensure detention is avoided or considered as a last resort for: the elderly, pregnant, sick, handicapped, mentally ill, and with behavioural problems, where safety or security is not an issue - (5.13). Also, in making a decision to detain or release, officers must consider the existence of alternatives to detention (see 5.9), detention is feasible where alternatives to detention are not avaialble to mitigate any risk to public safety or flight risk (5.9).
  • Policy
  • Liberty
  • Only permit detention when alternatives cannot be applied
  • Migrants
  • Women
  • Pregnant and nursing mothers
  • Survivor of torture or trauma