Home Affairs says it will clear 68-year backlog in refugee applications in four years

28 January 2022 -  Groundup 

The UNHCR and Home Affairs have announced a US$9.6 million asylum seeker backlog project

On Monday, The Department of Home Affairs, the Refugee Appeals Authority and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) launched a US$9.6 million asylum seeker backlog project.

The UNHCR said: “Problems in the asylum system led to some claims being stuck for over a decade waiting to be heard. Of the 266,694 refugees and asylum-seekers in South Africa, two-thirds of them do not have access to the full rights and privileges of refugee status.”

In a previous statement the UNHCR said: “The project will eliminate the backlog over the next four years, and strengthen the system to ensure another one does not form. During the time frame, the appeals of 153,391 people will be heard.”

In his address, Minister Of Home Affairs Dr Aaron Motsoaledi said that up until 2008 the department was able to clear asylum applications which it was receiving each year. In 1998 it received 11,135 applications; in 2006, it processed 53,361. But not after 2008, when the number of applications shot up nearly fourfold to 207,206. Another 223,324 applications were received in 2009.

“These numbers overwhelmed a system which was functional in dealing with 53,000 applications a year. Suddenly, the system had to process over 400,000 applications which came in just two years,” he said.

“The Auditor General of South Africa said if nothing changed, it would take 68 years to clear the backlog without taking new cases. Since the Auditor General’s pronouncements in February 2020, a lot of things have changed to help us deal with the backlog.”

For many asylum seekers news that the backlog may be cleared will be welcome news.

Francine Nduwimana, a Burundian asylum seeker, told GroundUp about her ordeal fleeing from militia in her home country. She said she was separated from her six-year-old child in Tanzania en route to South Africa in 2011. Since then she has repeatedly had to relate her story to Home Affairs officials, renewing her document every three to six months. She is still waiting for her case to be determined.

Nduwimana is currently in the Bellville refugee camp with other asylum seekers who protested outside the UNHCR in 2019, demanding to leave South Africa.

Zainabu Safi, originally from the Democratic Republic of Congo, said she fled war in Kivu and has been in limbo in South Africa since 2012. Every time she has to renew her papers she has to travel to Musina. She has to take her children with her since Home Affairs requires them to be present in person. She says the process usually takes her a week in Musina.

“This is the reason why I joined the protest and why I am here at the [Bellville] camp. I have nothing. The little money I made from piece jobs I used to travel to Musina. Without a proper document, I can’t study, find a job or start a business. We had a spaza shop in Marikana informal settlement but it was burnt down during a protest.”

“Ten years I am still an asylum seeker … Every time you are told we will give you a refugee status when you come back,” said Safi.

www.samigration.com

 

Home Affairs struggles to tackle 2-year backlog

Businesstech  - 26-01-2022

Permanent Residency Permit (PRP) applications for South Africa have been on hold since March 2020 when the president declared the country to be in a national state of disaster, and the arrival of the Omicron variant could push things out even further, warn immigration experts.

When the Department of Home Affairs was forced to down tools, PRP applications quickly began piling up, says Moeketsi Seboko, immigration manager at Xpatweb.

“Foreign nationals hoping to settle in the country more permanently were shocked by the delays because it prevented them from being able to open bank accounts or renew car licenses, among other things. In fear that they would not be allowed back into South Africa, they were also reluctant to leave the country.

“Business owners who were waiting for their permanent residency permit to be approved, found themselves stuck in limbo. They were obligated to continue with their trade and to provide for themselves while being unsure about what the future would hold for them.”

Before long, the department was compelled to begin processing PRPs due to a backlog of thousands of applicants, said Seboko.

In June 2021, it announced that applications would resume from 1 January 2022. However, nearly two years after the onset of the pandemic, the discovery of the mutated Omicron variant, could see the state of disaster being extended well into the new year, leaving those who dream of becoming permanent residents possibly perturbed.

“The DHA has yet to confirm whether they would continue with their plans to tackle the backlog in the new year,” he said.

Critical skills

The DHA advised that, from past information, the predominant applicant for permanent residency are dependents, like spouses or life partners.

There are, however, numerous cases where the primary applicants were migrants who have been working in South Africa for more than five years or experienced foreign nationals who qualified for a PRP based on their critical skills, said Seboko.

“This means that, with the release of the revised Critical Skills List looming, and the draft CSL having been handed over to the DHA for consideration, they consulted with various government departments, including the Departments of Health, Tourism, Public Enterprises and NEDLAC for additional input.

“Thousands of skilled foreign nationals are now hoping that their vocation will be listed as in-demand in South Africa so that they can commence a career path in the country.”

Seboko noted that the DHA is notoriously understaffed and wrestles with an archaic IT system, which makes the PRP and visa processes treacherously slow. In response to these concern, the department has assured applicants that it was working to reduce processing times.

www.samigration.com

 

 

Home Affairs botch up leaves Durban widow 'divorced'

New24 26 Jan 2022

Durban - After being happily married for more than 30 years, Durban resident Gourie Bryce was shocked when she received her husband’s death certificate which listed her marital status as “divorced”.

To make matters worse, the Department of Home Affairs has not yet rectified the mistake – despite repeated requests – leaving her unable to settle his affairs.

Bryce, 59, said her husband, James Hogg Bryce, died of natural causes last October. When her son collected the death certificate from the funeral parlour, he immediately called her.

“My son phoned and said, ’are you hiding something from us, we never knew you were divorced’?

“I was so shocked when I learnt that the marital status on my husband’s death certificate stated ‘divorced’.

“We were married in 1989 and we never even argued, let alone got divorced.

“Anyone will tell you, my husband was a wonderful man,” she said.

Bryce has three grown-up children, with one daughter in Durban and her other daughter and son living in the UK. She said her son and daughter had immediately travelled to SA on being told of their father’s death.

“We had been chatting with them just the night before, as they were together in the UK for the weekend. My husband died three hours later in the early hours of the next morning,” she said.

After learning about the error on the death certificate, Bryce immediately went to the Department of Home Affairs in Umgeni Road.

“It was a time of grief and trauma for our family. It was not an easy time at all.

“I asked them (Home Affairs) to rectify the death certificate and the official told me ‘not to worry, it happens all the time’.”

She was told by Home Affairs to go to the High Court to prove she and her husband were not divorced, which she did. She also got a court letter confirming there was no record of divorce in her husband’s name.

“While I was there, the lady helping me also said ‘this happens all the time’,” she said.

The court letter was submitted with a copy of her husband’s ID document to the head office of Home Affairs, yet despite repeated queries, the mistake has not yet been rectified.

“How did this happen? Who changed my husband’s marital status and what would be the reason for changing it?

“I need to wind up his affairs, but I need the correct certificate. Anything I do needs paperwork, but I can’t do anything until the death certificate is correct,” she said, adding that she had also sent numerous emails to the department about the issue and had no response.

Bryce said that on Tuesday this week, she was asked to submit an affidavit to Home Affairs confirming her marriage, which she had done.

She described her family as close-knit, recalling happy times and holidays spent together while their children were growing up.

Her husband was from England, but when they met in Durban in the late ’80s, she said “we clicked immediately. We got married here in Durban and we had so many good times”.

“My husband was calm, solid, humble, caring and loving. This situation has been so frustrating and when two different departments tell you ‘it happens all the time’, the public needs to know.

“What is being done to rectify these matters?” she asked.

Despite repeated requests for comment via WhatsApp and email, the Department of Home Affairs did not respond to questions on the matter.

www.samigration.com

I am in a same-sex marriage, and Home Affairs has denied my application to change my surname to my spouse's. Is this legal?

News24 – 26-01-2022

 

I am in a same-sex marriage, and Home Affairs has denied my application to change my surname to my spouse's. Is this legal?

The short answer

Home Affairs is wrong, but it is complicated.

The whole question

"I am a South African citizen living in the USA. I got married (same-sex marriage) in 2016 and applied for a new passport reflecting my new name change (surname) on the passport in 2019.

I received confirmation from Home Affairs that they have now refused to change my name because they do not recognize same sex marriages and name changes are not allowed on the passport. Below is the correspondence from them:

"Please note that we have received verification of the status of your passport: Your passport application was received by DHA on the 12 July 2019.On the 16 August 2019 your application was moved to the Citizenship for verification of SA Citizenship. On the 25 October your application was moved to the Marriage Section to confirm your marital status. According to the DHA, with regards to same sex civil unions name changes are not permitted, thus all parties concerned will keep their last name. ie: Jason Roelof Saunders will remain Jason Roelof Saunders and not Turner. On the 04 November 2019 your passport was moved for capturing and processing and will take another 6-8 Months."

Is this allowed?

I feel that this is some sort of discrimination, as I have many women friends from South Africa who got married and changed their names to match their husbands with no issue. I would not care if it were not for my line of work. I am an airline pilot and am having many issues when travelling to different countries because my passport and green card documents all have mismatched names. It is now directly affecting my job." 

The long answer

Thank you for your email asking if Home Affairs can declare that you may not change your surname to your partner’s on your passport because "with regard to same sex civil unions, name changes are not permitted."

This is most certainly wrong: in South Africa both partners/spouses in a civil union partnership are allowed to choose what surnames they will be known by. Section 13 of the Civil Union Act explicitly gives spouses/partners this choice.

The Civil Union Act does not make any explicit provisions to recognise foreign same-sex unions, but under the common-law definition of marriage, a foreign same-sex marriage is recognised as a marriage in South African law.

"Couples who marry in terms of the Civil Union Act may choose whether their union is registered as a marriage or a civil partnership. In either case, the legal consequences are identical to those of a marriage under the Marriage Act, except for such changes as are required by the context. Any reference to marriage in any law, including the common law, is deemed to include a marriage or civil partnership in terms of the Civil Union Act; similarly, any reference to husband, wife or spouse in any law is deemed to include a reference to a spouse or civil partner in terms of the Civil Union Act." (Wikipedia).

But the problem is that there are contradictions between Section 26 (1) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act and the Civil Union Act: on the DHA website it states that "Passports are issued in accordance with your names as they appear in the National Population Register (NPR) at the time of your application. Any changes to your names must be applied for, finalised and recorded in the NPR before you submit your passport application."

It seems that it costs R375 to apply for a change of name to the NPR.

A Rhodes University thesis by LLB student Chris McConnechie notes that section 26(1) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act says that no individual may describe himself by any other name than the one recorded in the NPR without permission of the Director General of Home Affairs – except that women can change their surnames upon marriage without applying for permission.

In a marriage as opposed to a civil union, a man cannot change his surname without permission while a woman can; in a civil union both partners are able to change their surnames.

As you know, all discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and against same sex couples is outlawed by Section 9 of the Constitution and by the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act.

But given the difficulties, delays and frustrations routinely experienced by people when dealing with Home Affairs, it may be quicker and easier in the short term to apply to the Director General of Home Affairs for permission to change your surname, and then to re-apply for your passport

www.samigration.com

 

 

 

 

 

Why your phone and laptop can be seized at an international Australian airport - and there’s nothing you can do about it

 

7NEWS -  25/01/2022

An Australian man who says he was forced to hand over his phone to Border Force officers at the airport after returning to Sydney has labelled the experience as “traumatic”.

James and Mandy had returned to Sydney airport from a holiday in Fiji when James (who does not want to use his surname) says they were intercepted by a Border Force officer who asked the pair - who are Australian citizens - to step aside.

They were then taken to a separate room where they were required to surrender their mobile phones and passwords.

James says the officers informed them it was a random data security search and the pair were required to hand over their mobile devices or face the prospect of being arrested.

An Australian Border Force (ABF) spokesperson told 7NEWS.com.au that officers have the power to examine all goods at the border, including electronic documents, photos on mobile phones and other personal electronic devices.

Barrister and member of the Australian Lawyers Alliance Greg Barns says the current laws meant Australians were not well protected when returning home.

“The issue is because we don’t have proper privacy protections in Australia, we are not well protected and this can lead to an abuse of power by ABF officers,” he said.

Inside Australia’s borders, however, state and federal police are generally required to obtain a warrant to compel you to grant access to a device.

“In respect there are more limitations for them, but in a lot of cases ... they would need to have a warrant,” Mr Barns said.

James said his and Mandy’s phones were taken to a another room to be examined.

A Sydney couple have been left confused after their mobile phones were randomly seized and searched for over an hour upon their arrival into Australia.

He told 7NEWS.com.au they weren’t given any indication of why the search was being conducted nor how long it would take.

“They took our phones with them out of the room and away from us, so we had no idea what they were doing with them or what they were going through,” James said.

“In that moment, they had access to the most intimate details of our lives.

“I’ve got family photos, passwords, bank account details and emails dating back 15 years or so.

“We had no idea what our rights were as I’m sure a lot of Australians probably wouldn’t.”

James said it was the first time the pair had ever experienced that kind of interaction with law enforcement.

“Neither of us have ever had that kind of confrontation before with authorities and we just aren’t used to it so we didn’t know what our rights were or anything,” he said.

“So to anyone who’s not used to that kind of confrontation with authority, it can be quite traumatic.”

He added that even though they understood the officers were just doing their jobs, they would have appreciated an explanation.

“I feel as though they should have to have some strong evidential grounds to do that and to invade our privacy like that,” he said.

“And at the end they didn’t apologise for any of it or tell us anything about the process and what happened we were just told we were free to go home.”

Home affairs responds

“The ABF exercises these powers in order to protect the Australian community from harm and deliver upon its mission to protect Australia’s border and enable legitimate travel and trade,” they said.

They urged anyone with concerns to raise them with the ABF officer or to log onto the Department of Home Affairs website.

“If a passenger has any concerns about questioning or examination they should raise these with the officer or their supervisor at the time of questioning and can provide feedback on the Department of Home Affairs website.”

However, the spokesperson also warned if an individual refused to comply with a request for an examination of their electronic device, they may be referred for further law enforcement action.

Lawyer’s perspective

Barrister Greg Barns said ABF officers must have reason to download or copy any information from an individual’s device and must record their reason for doing so.

Not all documents on a device can be copied by an ABF officer either - they must be considered for relevance before they are downloaded.

Mr Barns said Australians had the right to compensation if any harm was done to their property.

“You can appeal for compensation, however, if the officers damage or lose any of your data or belongings,” he said.

www.samigtration.com