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]

  • Housing and basic care for families in Austria
  • Austria
  • Since October 2011, a facility in Zinnergasse in the outskirts of Vienna serves as a non-secure facility to house people benefitting from a non-custodial measure. It accommodates up to 17 families (or 50 persons) in family apartments. In 2013, 154 people were housed in this facility, including 75 families. Non-citizens accommodated in this facility can leave at will, but they must notify officers. There are always two police officers in residence. The facility is jointly operated by the police and the association Menschen.Leben. The association’s team is present during the day and is in charge of admission to the facility, daily care, food distribution, crisis intervention, interpretation, and conflict prevention (see GDP Profile for Austria, accessed 29 March 2015). Note that Zinnergasse also operates as a secure facility and the detention unit is used to detain both families and unaccompanied minors under the age of 16 for up to seven days.
  • Practice
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Migrants
  • All
  • Restrictive migration policy in Argentina
  • Argentina
  • On January 30, 2017, Argentina’s president Maruicio Macri announced an urgent decree (Decreto de Necesidad y Urgencia 70/2017) that modifies the country’s current immigration law, replacing it with a more restrictive migration policy that represents a concerning step backward in terms of international and regional human rights commitments. This change comes as part of more restrictive migration policy and practice observed generally in Argentina, including increased operations to seek out and arrest irregular migrants, along with the creation of a new immigration detention center in 2016, the first in the country. Among other changes, Decree 70/2017 increases maximum time limits for immigration detention from 30 to 60 days and establishes indefinite detention for anyone who legally challenges a removal order. The decree allows for persons to be detained at the beginning of the immigration, even before a removal order is issued, and no longer considers family reunification as criteria for limiting unnecessary detention. The result is that immigration detention in Argentina is no longer the exception, as required by international human rights law. These new regulations also seriously limit access to justice and due process, allowing for a limited three days to challenge a removal order, and only three days more to appeal an initial decision on this order. Additionally, these measures are only available to those who are able to gain access to legal representation.
  • Law
  • Liberty
  • Establish a presumption of liberty
  • Migrants
  • 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
  • Unaccompanied and Separated Children
  • UK regulations assessing individual risk of absconding
  • United Kingdom
  • In response to a decision in the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) relating to a case in Czech Republic, the United Kingdom introduced "The Transfer for Determination of an Application for International Protection (Detention) (Significant Risk of Absconding Criteria) Regulations 2017". The case relates to an Iraqi male and his two minor children who were detained by the Czech police in May 2015 pending their transfer to Hungary pursuant to the Dublin Regulation and Article 129(1) of the Czech Aliens Act. The court held that the Czech legislation contained no objective criteria defining “risk of absconding” as required by Article 2 (n) of the Dublin Regulation. Therefore, the legislation under Article 28 of the Dublin Regulation was not applicable in the Czech Republic, and the decision to detain the applicants was unlawful. The court referred in its reasoning to similar judgments of the German and Austrian highest courts.
  • Law
  • Screening & Assessment
  • Individual case factors
  • Migrants
  • All
  • An obligation to report victims of trafficking in Sweden
  • Sweden
  • Officials in Sweden are obliged to notify the social welfare committee on any suspicion of trafficking of a child, even if evidence is not clear. The obligation to notify is absolute in the sense that it is not up to the staff to decide whether it is a clear-cut case of trafficking. Difficulties in identifying child trafficking victims stem from a lack of human resources and the subsequent backlog in individual needs assessments that should be done for each child upon arrival at the municipality. These assessments frequently reveal past or ongoing exploitation. Due to the decrease in arrivals in the first four months of 2016, the municipalities have started to reduce this backlog. In view of the high risk of trafficking of unaccompanied children, the National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) has developed guidelines (riktlinjer) and recommendations (råd) on this topic for the municipalities. At the accommodation centres for unaccompanied children in Sweden, access to NGOs has been reduced to decrease the risk of unauthorised persons contacting children. Besides this measure, the Swedish Health and Social Care Inspectorate (Inspektionen för vård och omsorg) has not observed any specific safeguards or information material at these centres. According to the Inspectorate, the number of children placed at the centre, their whereabouts at night or contacts with unauthorised persons have been unknown at some accommodation centres.
  • Practice
  • Screening & Assessment
  • Vulnerability
  • Migrants
  • Unaccompanied and Separated Children
  • Coaches to help navigate a family's options in Belgium
  • Belgium
  • Under Belgian law the families staying at these units remain legally “detained”; in practice however, the family units are not closed and families have a large degree of freedom of movement albeit with some restrictions. Although there is a 10 pm to 8 am curfew and one adult family member must always remain in the house, this is applied with some flexibility with the prior authorization of the coaches. The families receive a weekly allowance, food vouchers and non-food items. Children are able to attend schools in the locality and families have regular access to physical and mental health services if requiredFamilies are required to sign a “contract” that sets out their rights and obligations while in the family unit as well as the consequences of absconding. Each family is assigned a “coach”, who is in effect a case manager, employed by the Belgian Immigration Department. Coaches are responsible for providing families with individual and holistic support. This support centres on helping families to achieve case resolution, whether this is a right of residence in Belgium, or return with dignity if they are found to have no legal basis to remain. In doing so, they provide logistical and administrative support to families, ensuring that they have access to pro bono legal services and arranging meetings with diplomatic and consular representatives where appropriate, in cooperation with the Immigration Office
  • Practice
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Migrants
  • Children
  • Ensuring migrant children have the same care as citizen children in Sweden
  • Sweden
  • Swedish law provides that all children should receive the same level of care, irrespective of whether they are citizens or foreigners. UMC are usually accommodated in a children’s home (‘home for care or residence’ or ‘HVB housing’ which may be special housing established specifically for the reception of UMC) or a foster family (foster families are drawn from the same pool of families that care for Swedish children in need). While their applications are being processed, UMC asylum seekers are treated as “asylum applicants” and provided access to a certain number of rights, such as the rights to accommodation, schooling, health and dental care. As with adult asylum applicants, they are provided with the LMA identity card. Pursuant to the Act on Guardians Ad Litem for Unaccompanied children, a temporary legal representative or guardian ad litem will be appointed by the Chief Guardian to represent and assist the UMC during the asylum procedure, and to generally look after the child’s interests during this period. The role of the guardian ad litem is to act both as a legal guardian and custodian of the child, with the right and duty to decide all matters relating to the UMC’s affairs, however, this does not extend to daily care and supervision of the child
  • Practice
  • Minimum Standards
  • Basic needs
  • Migrants
  • Unaccompanied and Separated Children
  • Legal aid for people in immigration detention in the United States
  • United States of America
  • The Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, Arizona. Since 1989, this nongovernmental agency has been permitted entry to immigration detention facilities (Florence INS Service Processing Center) to give daily legal rights presentations to between 20-40 detainees at a time prior to their first hearing before an Immigration Judge. The presentations assist detainees in evaluating whether to go forward with their case, increasing the efficiency of the immigration court process and reducing the overall costs of detention. The group orientations are followed by individual interviews with those who request them. The Project also provides instructions for writing supporting/bond letters for parole hearings and directly represents a portion of those applicants at their bond hearings. In 1998, based on the success of the Florence Project, the US government (administered via EOIR) funded legal orientation projects in three different sites, with three different agencies, for three months each. The Department of Justice’s findings from these pilot projects were that providing such rights information to immigration detainees made the immigration proceedings more efficient and reduced overall bed days in detention by 4.2 days per detainee. Such legal orientations have now been funded nationwide. At an estimated cost of detention of $65.61 per day, such orientations should lead to a $12.8 million saving. If the legal orientations cost $2.8 million, the government will still save $10 million
  • Practice
  • Minimum Standards
  • Legal advice and interpretation
  • Migrants
  • All
  • Placement options
  • Egypt
  • Kenya
  • Libya
  • Tanzania
  • United Republic of
  • Zambia
  • Four out of six countries have legislation that permits certain migrants, including refugees and asylum seekers, to reside in the community as an alternative to immigration detention. For example, Zambia’s Immigration Act provides for bail [Section 57) or report orders [Section 14]. Egyptian law allows for directed residence pending deportation, and South African law states that children and pregnant women must be held in appropriate and open shelters. Five out of six countries provided further examples of positive practices. Emergency housing and shelters for vulnerable migrants, asylum seekers and refugees – run by civil society organisations, government agencies, or both in partnership – are in use in Egypt, Kenya, and Zambia. In Kenya, asylum seekers are removed from detention and escorted to refugee camps pending the determination of their claim. In Egypt, Libya and Tanzania, there is evidence of good practice that is not prompted by law. It was reported that asylum seekers arriving in Egypt who are awaiting refugee status determination (RSD) by UNHCR, are not arrested when they approach immigration authorities. However, there is no Egyptian law authorising the residence of migrants and asylum seekers pending RSD. By conducting intake screening that looks not only at the vulnerabilities but also strengths of individuals, some detention centre managers in Libya have created innovative release-to-work programmes whereby migrants are issued ID cards and released under the protection of an employer, whose treatment of the migrants is regularly reviewed. Finally, despite law prohibiting refugees and asylum seekers from traveling more than four kilometres from camps in Tanzania without permits, the Ministry of Home Affairs issues exit permits to refugees who have a credible reason for exiting. Refugees arrested outside camps without permits are usually sentenced to community service rather than imprisonment, fines, and deportation – as was previously the case.
  • Law
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Migrants
  • All
  • Transit
  • 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
  • Supported work experience
  • Australia
  • The National Australia Bank’s African-Australian Inclusion Program provides six months of paid, supported work experience to skilled African Australians (many of whom are from refugee backgrounds). The program was developed in response to feedback from the African-Australian community indicating that ‘lack of local experience in the Australian business sector was a significant barrier to employment’. Participants in the program receive an entry-level salary, receive cultural training and mentoring, are assigned a coach to assist them with career goals and obtain a professional reference at the end of their placement. More than 180 people have participated in the program since 2009, 86 per cent of whom have subsequently found work in their chosen eld in NAB or elsewhere.
  • Practice
  • Minimum Standards
  • Basic needs
  • Migrants
  • All
  • Supporting migrant education
  • Australia
  • The Australia Awards Scholarships program, administered by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, provides opportunities for people from developing countries to undertake study at participating universities and TAFEs. It aims to assist these students to ‘develop skills and knowledge...to drive change and contribute to the development outcomes of their own country.’ The Award covers a range of costs, including tuition fees, return airfares, a contribution to living expenses, health cover and pre-course English training.136 Participating countries include several of the major refugee-producing countries in the Asia–Pacific region (namely Myanmar (Burma), Pakistan and Sri Lanka),137 suggesting that there may already be potential to extend similar opportunities to people in humanitarian need. However, to offer an effective solution for refugees, some aspects of the program may need to be adjusted. For example, the requirement that scholarship recipients leave Australia for a minimum of two years after completing their scholarship would need to be waived in order to prevent refoulement.
  • Practice
  • Minimum Standards
  • Basic needs
  • Migrants
  • 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
  • Migrants
  • Children
  • Transit
  • Law prohibiting the detention of specific vulnerable groups in China
  • China
  • The People’s Republic of China’s (China) Exit and Entry Law, which came into effect on 1 July 2013, aims to limit the use of immigration detention for vulnerable individuals.

    The Exit and Entry Law excludes certain vulnerable migrants from detention including minors under 16 years of age, persons with disabilities, persons with serious illnesses, pregnant women, and those over 70 years of age.

    The Exit and Entry Law also contains provisions allowing refugees and asylum seekers to stay in China after obtaining an identification card from public security authorities.

    Additionally, the July 2012 revisions to the Procedural Provisions for the Handling of Administrative Cases by Public Security Organs also excludes other individuals from detention including: those who voluntarily ask for inspection by entry-exit department, pay fines, and buy tickets to voluntarily return to their home country; those who entered through irregular means and stayed, received no help from family members or embassies; survivors of trafficking; and foreigners married to Chinese nationals, especially those with children born in China.

    Note: section 61 of the Exit-Entry Administrative Law simply prohibits the detention of vulnerable groups for "investigation", but says their "activity scope" may be restricted, i.e. they may not leave the restricted locations without approval of authorities. The period for restricting activity scope is not to exceed 60 days. Unclear if these vulnerable groups can be detained for other reasons other than "investigation"
  • Law
  • Liberty
  • Prohibit the detention of vulnerable individuals
  • Migrants
  • Children
  • Elderly Persons
  • Pregnant and nursing mothers
  • Respecting the right to liberty in Argentina
  • Argentina
  • Immigration detention is limited in law and practice to rare instances during deportation procedures. Deportation and detention are both decisions that can only be authorized by judicial order, with detention used only as a final resort after all other remedies are exhausted. Such an order can only be issued in two cases: (i) for a specific period of time as a precautionary measure before a final immigration decision where a risk of non-compliance with a deportation order is proven; and (ii) for a maximum of 15 days to effect deportation where the judge determines that a removal order is final. Before deportation, a person must be given the opportunity to explore all options to regularise their status, within a set deadline. In practice, migrants who have been committed to prison for criminal offences are the only immigration detainees (Article 70, Immigration Law No. 25.871; Article 70, Regulation 616/2010)
  • Law
  • Liberty
  • Establish a presumption of liberty
  • Migrants
  • 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
  • Identifying risks for children as soon as possible in Norway
  • Norway
  • In June 2014, Norway’s Immigration Authority (UDI) introduced a new fast-track procedure for cases of UAMs where there was a perceived risk that the minor could disappear or be in need of urgent assistance both due to security issues (trafficking in human beings, forced marriage or other forms of severe abuse) or due to severe health problems. In the fast-track procedure the registration by the National Police Immigration Service (PU), the initial conversation by the UDI and the carpal and teeth x-rays are all carried out on the same day, or as fast as practically possible. The purpose is to secure enough information at an early stage in order to carry out the age assessment, to make a decision in the asylum case, and to follow up on identified needs.
    The initial conversation with UDI, in addition to mapping the reasons for seeking protection, also investigates whether the UAM is at risk of issues such as trafficking, violence or health issues. If there is concern about such risks or other forms of severe abuse, Child Welfare Services are notified of this concern, and the minor may be referred to special accommodation by Child Welfare Services (see above). The following groups of asylum seeker UAMs are put through the fast-track procedure: those from North-Africa, those who apply for asylum after having been apprehended by the police, those who have resided in Norway for some time already, those who have previously absconded from reception centres, and those who can be at risk of trafficking or other forms of severe abuse (indicator-based approach). The fast-track procedure also aims to better coordinate between the different agencies that work with UAMs who disappear.
  • Practice
  • Liberty
  • Establish a presumption of liberty
  • Migrants
  • Unaccompanied and Separated Children
  • 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
  • All
  • Transit
  • Treating children as children, first and foremost in Ireland
  • Ireland
  • It is official policy in Ireland not to refuse any minor entry to the Irish State. The policy is based on the premise that the best interests of the child must always take precedence regardless of whether or not a child claims asylum. According to the Immigration Act 2003, the provisions for the arrest and detention of persons refused leave to land shall not apply to persons under 18 years of age if the Immigration Officer believes that the person is a minor. The Refugee Act 1996 further states that in cases where it appears that a minor presenting at the border or within the territory is alone, or in the company of an adult with whom the Immigration Officer is not satisfied has a genuine relationship with the child, the Immigration Officer must contact TUSLA (the Child and Family Agency).
    Thereafter, the provisions in the Child Care Act 1991 apply, meaning that TUSLA assumes responsibility for the child. In practice, Immigration Officers exercise caution with regard to the age of UAMs presenting at the border/ within the territory, giving the benefit of the doubt and working closely with the relevant social work teams in order to ensure that UAMs are not refused entry to the Irish State. A decision to refuse leave to land is not solely taken by an individual Immigration Officer but is checked by a supervisor.
  • Law
  • Liberty
  • Establish a presumption of liberty
  • Migrants
  • Children
  • 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
  • Reporting and Monitoring Requirements in Egypt
  • Egypt
  • Article 30 of Entry and Residence of Aliens in the Territories of the United Arab Republic and their Departure Therefrom (1960) (Amended by laws Nos.49/1968, 124/1980, 100/1983, 99/1996 and 88/2005) – should a deportation decision be difficult to enforce, the Director of Passport, Immigration and Nationality may order the non-resident in question to reside at a particular place and report to a specified police station according to a specified time frame until deportation occurs. Non-citizens who violate the terms of an order of deportation or banishment, fail to reside at a designated residence, or provide false statements or knowingly submit false documentation to Egyptian authorities can be sentenced with up to two years imprisonment and/or to pay a fine of up to two thousand pounds (Arts. 38, 40).

    (Editor's note: United Arab Republic is Egypt's law).
  • Law
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Migrants
  • All
  • Transit
  • Status for migrants in Romania
  • Romania
  • Emergency Government Ordinance 194/2002 on aliens’ regime in Romania - tolerated status (and accompanying 'tolerated document') is granted by the General Inspectorate and provides individuals with permission to remain in Romania. Tolerated status may be granted (a) when persons are 'forbiden' from leaving the territory and they do not fulfil the conditions for a residence permit (b) when the measure of public custody taken against them has ceased (c) when their presence on Romanian territory is required by important public intersets (d) when they cannot be removed from the territory and cannot be granted or extended a stay right (e) when there are reasons to consider they are victims of human trafficking (f) when a measure of removal from the territory is suspended (g) when forced/escorted return cannot be executed within 24 hours and they are not taken into public custody (h) when the General Inspectorate for Immigration ascertains they are temporary in impossibility of leaving Romania due to other objective reasons. Tolerated status is granted for a period of maximum 6 months that can be extended for new periods of 6 months up to the cessation of the toleration reasons. While holding tolerated status, persons have access to the labour market under the same conditions as Romanian citizens.
  • Practice
  • Minimum Standards
  • Formal status and documentation
  • Migrants
  • 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
  • Alternative to detention provisions in Austria
  • Austria
  • Art. 77 para 1 Aliens Police Act stipulates that individuals shall be provided with an alternative to detention if detention grounds (Art. 76) are present and the purpose of detention can also be achieved by their provision. The following forms of alternatives to detention are provided in Art. 77 para 3 APA: 1. Residing at a particular address determined by the authority; 2. Reporting periodically to the police station; 3. Lodging a financial deposit at the authority. • Administrative High Court, 17 October 2013, 2013/21/0041 - individuals shall be provided an alternative to detention if detention grounds are present but the purpose of detention can be achieved by the alternative. However, if the necessity of detention to secure a procedure or measure terminating residence is not present, no alternatives to detention shall be imposed either. According to the handbook of the Aliens Police Act (as of 1 July 2011), the facts that justify the assumption that the purpose of detention cannot be achieved through alternatives include the existence of a criminal conviction or the misuse of a previous alternative to detention with the aim to abscond.
  • Law
  • Liberty
  • Mandate to apply alternatives in the first instance
  • Migrants
  • All
  • 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
  • Pre-removal risk assessment
  • Canada
  • Although not specifically designed to address the needs of children, asylum seekers whose cases have been rejected and who are expected to depart Canada can apply for protection under the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment process. This process takes into consideration a change in circumstances in asylum seekers’ countries of origin, new information demonstrating that asylum seekers will be at risk of persecution, torture or to cruel, inhuman or unusual treatment or punishment, or the possibility that asylum seekers’ lives may be otherwise endangered should they be compelled to leave Canada. The PRRA is not an appeal against earlier decisions and consideration is given only to new information or evidence. The PRRA decision is usually made on the papers. Only a very small percentage of applicants are granted the right to remain in Canada under the PRRA.
  • Law
  • Screening & Assessment
  • Protection needs
  • Migrants
  • All
  • 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
  • Children
  • Reception options for unaccompanied minors in Estonia
  • Estonia
  • Article 35 of the Act on Granting International Protection to Aliens says that an applicant who is an unaccompanied minor shall be placed in the reception centre or a social welfare institution for the duration of the asylum proceedings, and welfare services appropriate to the age of the applicant shall be guaranteed to him or her. An applicant who is an unaccompanied minor may be placed with an adult relative or a social care family, if the host is appropriate for taking care of a minor.
    In placing an applicant who is an unaccompanied minor in the reception centre or social welfare institution, or with an adult relative or a social care family, the rights and interests of the minor shall be the main consideration. Unaccompanied minor sisters and brothers shall not be separated, if possible. The applicant who is an unaccompanied minor may be placed in the initial reception centre until the necessary procedures are conducted.
  • Law
  • Liberty
  • Prohibit the detention of vulnerable individuals
  • Migrants
  • Children
  • Unaccompanied and Separated Children
  • Transit
  • 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
  • Access to education
  • Hungary
  • As minors, the residents of the UAM shelter are required by Hungarian law to attend school until they are 18 years old. Initially, the young people attend Hungarian classes provided on site. There have been challenges in getting these young people into the local school system. However, in partnership with a small NGO, the shelter has now developed a relationship with one of the local schools to create a class for UAMs with a dedicated teacher. The class focuses on Hungarian and maths; however, individual learning plans are developed to have these students work through the standardised exams used to graduate students through the first 8 years of school in Hungary. It is only after passing these exams that students can enrol in secondary school in Hungary. At the end of the 2008 school year, the first eight UAM students graduated in this way, allowing them to enter a secondary education scheme for refugees in Budapest.
  • Practice
  • Minimum Standards
  • Basic needs
  • Migrants
  • Children
  • Unaccompanied and Separated Children
  • Transit
  • 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
  • Conditions that can be applied in New Zealand
  • New Zealand
  • Section 315 of the New Zealand Immigration Act 2009 states that the officer may in his/her absolute discretion, decide that instead of detention, persons can

    (a) reside at a specified place:
    (b) report to a specified place at specified periods or times in a specified manner:
    (c) provide a guarantor who is responsible for—
    (i) ensuring the person complies with any requirements agreed under this section; and
    (ii) reporting any failure by the person to comply with those requirements:
    (d) if the person is a claimant, attend any required interview with a refugee and protection officer or hearing with the Tribunal:
    (e) undertake any other action for the purpose of facilitating the person’s deportation or departure from New Zealand.

    The person is subject to arrest and detention if they fail to comply with the conditions of their release or in order to execute a deportation order. The application of these conditions is at the discretion of the immigration officer.


  • Law
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Migrants
  • All
  • Immigration Officers Discretion includes consideration of alternatives to detention in New Zealand
  • New Zealand
  • Section 315 New Zealand Immigration Act 2009 - immigration officer and person liable for arrest and detention may in his/her absolute discretion, decide that instead of detention, persons can (a) reside at a specified place: (b) report to a specified place at specified periods or times in a specified manner: (c) provide a guarantor who is responsible for— (i) ensuring the person complies with any requirements agreed under this section; and (ii) reporting any failure by the person to comply with those requirements: (d) if the person is a claimant, attend any required interview with a refugee and protection officer or hearing with the Tribunal: (e) undertake any other action for the purpose of facilitating the person’s deportation or departure from New Zealand.
  • Law
  • Liberty
  • Mandate to apply alternatives in the first instance
  • 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
  • Law providing a mandate to consider alternatives to detention in Japan
  • Japan
  • Section 5 Article 54 of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (ICRRA) allows for the Provisional Release of detainees, taking into consideration such matters as the circumstances, evidence produced in support of the application, and the character and assets of the foreign national pursuant to the provisions of an Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice, upon the foreign national paying a deposit not exceeding 3 million yen as provided by an Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice, and with such conditions as may be deemed necessary, such as restrictions on the place of residence and area of movement and the obligation to appear upon receiving a summons. Alternatively, a letter of guarantee submitted by a person other than the foreign national detained may be substituted for the deposit. Such a letter of guarantee shall contain the amount of the deposit and a statement that the deposit will be paid at any time.
  • Law
  • Liberty
  • Mandate to apply alternatives in the first instance
  • Migrants
  • All
  • Conditions including designated address in Lithuania
  • Lithuania
  • In Lithuania, meanwhile, the Pabrade Foreigners Registration Centre contains both detainees and non-detainees. Oddly, therefore, it is both a place of detention and an alternative to detention. There is segregation of detainees and non-detainees, but similar services are provided to both groups. Detainees are only able to exit with permission and escort, whereas those not detained are able to leave unsupervised for a period of up to 72 hours upon notifying the management. For those asylum seekers in the full determination procedure and for children, accommodation in a more open centre (Rukla Reception Centre) is also possible, and those not in need of State support may live independently with relative ease. While there are no specific statistics on compliance with the Lithuanian system (and the number of applicants in total is currently small), it can be noted that only ten per cent of cases in 2002 and 40 per cent in 2003 were classed as ‘terminated’. As cases may be terminated for reasons other than absconding, this represents the upper limit of those that might have done so, and compares well with Hungarian figures, for example. The percentage of claimants who are detained and therefore unable to abscond must of course be taken into account when directly comparing the effectiveness of national systems. Also, the relevant legislation in Lithuania is only two years old, so it may be too soon to fully evaluate the regime’s effectiveness.
  • Practice
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Migrants
  • All
  • Transit
  • Mandate to apply alternatives to detention in the first instance in Estonia
  • Estonia
  • Article 36 of Estonia’s Act on Granting International Protection to Aliens allows for the detention of asylum seekers if the application of alternatives is “impossible”, in line with the principle of proportionality. Article 29 outlines the alternatives to detention that officials can apply to applicants instead of detention, if required. These include:
    • residing in a determined place of residence;
    • appearing for registration at the Police and Border Guard Board at prescribed intervals;
    • notifying the Police and Border Guard Board of the absence from the place of residence for a period longer than three days; and
    • depositing the travel document issued by a foreign state at the Police and Border Guard Board
  • Law
  • Liberty
  • Mandate to apply alternatives in the first instance
  • Migrants
  • All
  • Transit
  • Conditions that can be applied in the Netherlands
  • Netherlands
  • PART 2. SUPERVISION MEASURES
    Section 52

    1. Aliens may be required by Order in Council:

    (a) to give notice of any change of address or change in their place of residence in the Netherlands and of their departure to another country;
    (b) to furnish such information as may be of importance in the application of rules prescribed by or pursuant to this Act;
    (c) to assist in the recording of data with a view to identification;
    (d) to submit to a medical examination performed in the interests of public health in order to check for the presence of a disease designated by or pursuant to the Infectious Diseases Act or in the course of assessment of an application for a residence permit;
    (e) to report within a given period of their arrival in the Netherlands;
    (f) to report periodically;
    (g) to hand over the document or written statement referred to in section 9 evidencing the lawful residence.

    2. In cases in which Our Minister considers this to be necessary in the interests of public policy (ordre public) or national security, he may impose an individual obligation on an alien to report periodically to the chief of police.
  • Law
  • Placement Options
  • Community with conditions
  • Migrants
  • All
  • Hong Kong Law mandates that alternatives to detention are considered for specific vulnerable groups
  • Hong Kong SAR
  • Section 35 - Immigration Ordinance, Chapter 115 of the Laws of Hong Kong. An immigration oficer and police officer may require any person who is either detained or liable to be detained, to enter into a recognizance "in the prescribed form in such amount, with such number of sureties and subject to such conditions as the immigration officer or police officer may reasonably require or impose; and where a person who is so detained enters into such a recognizance he may be released." Conditions of a recognizance may include a condition that the person must— (a) report in person at the time and intervals, and at the office or police station, specified by the immigration officer or police officer; (b) notify an immigration officer or police officer in writing of any change in the person’s residential or correspondence address as soon as practicable after the change; (c) (if the person is a claimant as defined by section 37U(1)) attend interviews scheduled by an immigration officer under section 37ZB(1)(b).
  • Law
  • Liberty
  • Mandate to apply alternatives in the first instance
  • Migrants
  • All