Delays to US visas mean that Chinese students are snubbing American higher education in favor of studying in the UK. According to the Chinese embassy in the UK, nearly 216,000 Chinese students are pursuing their studies in Britain. Both the US and UK currently have a strained relationship with China, mainly over new security laws imposed on Hong Kong.

 The US, in particular, has hit China with several visa sanctions in recent years amid an ongoing tit-for-tat spat. Meanwhile, according to the Chinese embassy in the UK, the number of students arriving in Britain from China means Chinese students are quickly becoming the largest group of international students in the UK.

Statistics published by the Higher Education Statistics Agency show that, since the 2012/13 academic year, the number of students from China in the UK has exceeded the number of students from all EU countries and is constantly rising, surpassing the 100,000 mark in the 2019/20 academic year.

 Fully remove restrictions

Jia Guoqing, professor at the school of international studies at Peking University, said: “There is still work to be done before the US decides to fully remove student visa restrictions  imposed on Chinese nationals.”

“Even though the US began to ease the visa restrictions on Chinese students earlier this month, former US President Donald Trump still had both a long and negative impact on its China policy, which has made it harder for the Biden administration to turn the tables,” Guoqing added.

The US is suspicious of Chinese students, Guoqing claimed, fearing them to be spies. “For this reason America has imposed visa restrictions,” he said. Those applying for majors in the area of technology have been hit hardest, according to Guoqing.

Analysts claim that this could be one of the reasons why Chinese students are considering other destinations for study, including the UK.

 

UK-China relations

Commenting on China-UK relations, Shi Yinhong, the director of the Center for American Studies at the Renmin University of China, said: “As the relations between the two countries continue to deteriorate, the UK does not want to end exchanges with China on a cultural level, emphasizing that Chinese students remain an important source of income for the UK’s education sector.”

In March, the Annual Report on the Development of Chinese Students Studying Abroad (2020-21) from the Center for China and Globalization, highlighted that Chinese students aiming to study abroad have been negatively impacted by the coronavirus pandemic. However, the report added that interest in studying abroad remains strong.

While Chinese students can enter the UK, the Chinese embassy has stressed that international students must take measures due to the prevalence of race crimes triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, plus the fact that the UK blames China for Xinjiang issues.

Meanwhile, the US State Department recently announced that international students from Brazil, China, Iran and South Africa who hold a US visa would be allowed to enter the US in the fall.

 

US-China relations

In recent years, US-Chinese relations have deteriorated rapidly, particularly under the Trump administration. Chinese students, in particular, have suffered most amid the fallout, culminating in more than 1,000 Chinese students and researchers having their US visas revoked back in September 2020.

www.samigration.com

CAPE TOWN, SOUTH AFRICA

Dozens of refugees were left vulnerable on Thursday, when the City of Cape Town removed the fence separating the refugees camp from the notorious Bellville taxi rank. 

The heavy steel gate brings women and children little comfort.

“Now anyone can come in and anyone can go out,” says Hafiz Mohammad, a spokesperson for the temporary shelter. 

Shortly after the fence was removed a minibus driver is seen on video using the women’s ablution facility, ignoring a request not to do so.

Caroline Hajira, a refugee and mother of nine children, said she fears for her children’s safety and that of the other 200 children living in the shelter. 

The removal of the fence might only be the beginning of more services at the shelter drying up. 

Law enforcement officials tasked to safeguard entrances to the camp were withdrawn months ago, says Mohammed. 

It is not clear when the remaining tent, which houses hundreds of people — 580 according to Mohammed — and the ablution facilities will be removed. 

Minister of Home Affairs Aaron Motsoaledi reiterated in April that no South African law 

provide government authorities, including the City of Cape Town, with a mandate to allocate money to citizens and non-citizens. 

Felicity Purchase, the city’s mayoral committee member for transport, confirmed that the fence was removed by the contractor because the contract had ended in March. 

She said the issue of removing the fence has been ongoing since early April after “several failed attempts due to the refugees preventing the service provider from removing the fencing”.

The fence — called speed fencing — was initially put up to separate the shelter and the Bellville public transport interchange holding area for minibus taxi operators. 

“This site is intended for use by public transport service providers, namely, the minibus taxis. The site was occupied by the refugee tent at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic without the city’s consent,” says Purchase. 

With the easing of lockdown restrictions and an increase in traffic volumes, the city’s transport directorate had to “reclaim a portion of the land by way of a temporary fence”, said Purchase. 

The City of Cape Town did not respond to the question of refugees’ safety raised by removing the fence. 

Two temporary shelters — Paint City in Bellville and Wingfield in Maitland — were erected during the hard lockdown under the Covid-19 Disaster Management Act in 2020 after the City of Cape Town enforced its bylaws to end a six-month protest by refugees and asylum seekers in Greenmarket Square in the city centre. 

The shelters, initially housing 1 500 people, were to have closed on 30 April, when the department of home affairs decided to withdraw all state departments and agencies from its temporary shelters. 

But the two camps were not closed on the due date. 

Siya Qoza, the spokesperson for the minister of home affairs, referred the Mail & Guardian to a press statement, which stated that law enforcement authorities have opted to give immigration and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) officials time to complete their work.

The parliamentary portfolio committee on home affairs was told last week that efforts between various parties, including the government and the UNHCR, facilitated the voluntary repatriation of 305 refugees and asylum seekers. Hundreds more opted to settle locally. 

But a few hundred refugees refuse to move from the camp, demanding to be resettled in a third country, an option that is only available to a few refugees who are extremely vulnerable. 

The home affairs department did not respond to queries sent to them.

www.samigration.com

According to Order nº 4857-A/ 2021, air traffic to and from mainland Portugal is authorized to:

1.Flights to and from countries belonging to the EU and countries associated with the Schengen Area (Liechtenstein, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland), only for essential travel to and from the following countries: Cyprus, Croatia, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Sweden.

2.Flights from Australia, China, South Korea, New Zealand, Rwanda, Singapore, Thailand, and the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau, subject to reciprocity;

3.Flights that are not from/to EU countries or associated with the Schengen Area are exclusively for essential travel (namely, those intended to allow the entry into Portugal of citizens travelling for professional, study, family reunion reasons, for health or humanitarian reasons;

4. Flights planned to allow the return to Portugal of nationals or foreign citizens holding a residence permit in Portugal and flights destined to allow the return of foreign citizens who are stranded in Portugal to their countries of origin, as long as they are promoted by the competent authorities of those countries.

LABORATORY TEST RT-PCR
Before boarding, all passengers must present proof of RT-PCR test for screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection, with a negative result, performed within 72 hours prior to boarding, with the exception of children who have not completed 24 months of age. To all foreign citizens who embark without the aforementioned test shall be refused entry into national territory.

MANDATORY PROPHYLACTIC ISOLATION IN PORTUGAL
Passengers from Brazil, Croatia, Cyprus, India, Lithuania, the Netherlands, South Africa, and Sweden must comply with a 14-day prophylactic isolation period after entering mainland Portugal, at home or in a location indicated by health authorities.
Passengers who come from the countries mentioned above must complete the form on the travel.sef.pt platform.

ATTENTION:
Prophylactic isolation is also applicable to passengers on flights with initial origin in Brazil, India, and South Africa, who have made a stopover or transited through other airports, and to passengers on flights, regardless of origin, who present a passport stamp with a departure record from Brazil, India and South Africa in the 14 days prior to their arrival in Portugal.

Regarding processing of all national visas, restrictions to short-term visas processing still remain until further notice, with the exception of visas for EU citizens' relatives and for essential travels (third country nationals traveling for professional reasons, study, family reunion, for health or humanitarian reasons.

Short-stay visas for non-essential travel may only be issued to foreign citizens legally residing in the countries and Special Administrative Regions listed in Annex I of the above referred Order: Australia, China, New Zealand, Rwanda, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand and the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau

www.samigration.com

The refugees locked themselves inside the Central Methodist Church and refused to move on day seven of the lockdown on 2 April 2020. (Photo by Gallo Images/Brenton Geach) Less

The window is closing for refugees and asylum seekers protesting in Cape Town to either reintegrate into local communities or repatriate. But a small group of ‘hardliners’ are holding on to the vain hope of resettlement to Canada – a promise made to them by persuasive leaders who have since been deported or imprisoned.

Jean-Pierre Balous, Papy Sukami and Aline Bukuru made headlines as the leaders of an ongoing protest against xenophobic violence in South Africa. 

In the demonstration, which began in October 2019 outside the offices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Cape Town, hundreds of refugees and asylum seekers demanded resettlement to Canada. 

After being forcibly removed from the UNHCR offices, the group occupied the Central Methodist Church on Greenmarket Square. This continued until the Covid-19 pandemic struck when the group, which had split into two factions, was moved to separate, temporary shelters at Paint City and Wingfield.  

The camps are now earmarked for closure on 15 May. 

Protesters who had pinned their hopes on a one-way ticket to Canada are now left with two options: To reintegrate into communities in and around Cape Town, or be voluntarily repatriated to their countries of origin.  

About 100 police officers had to break down the church doors to get in. The refugees were then loaded onto buses and moved to a location in Bellville. (Photo by Gallo Images/Brenton Geach)

Parliament’s Home Affairs Committee said 414 refugees and asylum seekers had opted for reintegration while 305 have chosen voluntary repatriation. 

Those reintegrating have been offered three months’ rental and food supply.  

However, concerns remain over about 350 “hardliners” who are refusing to leave the camps and continuing their demands for resettlement.  

According to the committee, the hardliners are part of the faction led by Balous and his wife, Aline Bukuru, both of whom run a registered NGO called Women and Children at Concern (WCC). Balous is languishing in Prison, reportedly Pollsmoor,  after he was arrested for assaulting police officers during a court appearance in early March. He is at risk of deportation once his criminal case has run its course. He is due to reappear in court in June 2021.  

Bukuru was deported to Congo on 31 March, along with Sukami, the leader of the rival faction.  

In total, 32 protesters have been deported since October 2020. According to Home Affairs they were undocumented persons who did not qualify for asylum and international protection.  

For Sukami, who was also battling a criminal case, his asylum-seeker papers were rejected by the Refugee Appeals Authority of South Africa (Raasa).

He was arrested in January 2020 on charges of assault and robbery relating to an incident outside the UNHCR offices in October 2019. Accompanied by a few men, Sukami allegedly beat and robbed two Congolese freelance journalists. 

The journalists, Serge Shaumba and Jurol Loemba, accused Sukami of being a propagandist and the ringleader of a gang. 

Steered by Balous, the three protest leaders had fashioned themselves as champions for refugee rights.

On Sukami’s Twitter page he has frequently spoken out against the Department of Home Affairs, in one instance comparing xenophobia to the apartheid regime. His Twitter bio labels him as a human rights activist, an evangelist, civil engineer and chairperson of a Congolese political party called Kongomani Green. 

According to the organisation’s Twitter page set up in May 2019, the party is in “exile” and based in the US, Norway, South Africa, the UK, France and Belgium. 

In a social media post, Sukami said the party’s objectives were to protect Congo’s environment:

During a Home Affairs parliamentary committee meeting on Tuesday, Minister Aaron Motsoaledi used Sukami’s leadership position in the Kongomani Green party to cast aspersions on his asylum-seeker claims.

“There was a story that people were running away from their countries because they were running away from persecution, yet no one is persecuting them and one is even able to form a political party. He tweeted about it for the whole world to see without the DRC chasing him away. Meaning when he came here and claimed to be a refugee, that was a lie already,” he said.

Sukami denied on social media that he had been deported but rather voluntarily repatriated to the DRC. 

Congolese refugee protest leader Jean-Pierre Balous at the Cape Town High Court on 17 February 2020. The refugees had been staying in and around the Central Methodist Church on Greenmarket Square since October 2019. (Photo by Gallo Images/Brenton Geach)

He had been Balous’s right-hand man until the pair had a violent falling out in December 2019, which caused a factional split. Balous was accused of raising money through his non-profit WCC for personal gain.

Balous’s supporters claim the NPO pioneered the protest. According to its website, WCC, which is based in Grassy Park, Cape Town and embedded in a Christian ethos, “strives to uplift refugees and asylum seekers, especially women and children”.

Fingers were often pointed at Balous for misleading protesters into believing resettlement was imminent although the UNHCR had announced that the demand for group resettlement was not possible under international law.

Balous, who is proficient in English was often the intermediary between authorities and the protesters, a position of power that was considered exploitative.

During a court case in February 2020, where the City of Cape Town was granted a court order to remove protesters who were sleeping outside the Central Methodist Church (Sukami’s faction had been banished outside), Judge Daniel Thulare accused Balous of “abusing the right to protest” and creating a “a self-governing territory within the City of Cape Town”.

The group had initially sought shelter in the church after being forcibly removed from the UNHCR offices. They, however, overstayed their welcome and refused to leave. By the time they were relocated to Paint City and Wingfield when the country went into lockdown, they had caused approximately R600,000 worth of damage.

Balous also had a notable violent streak.

He was accused of harassing, intimidating and/or assaulting anyone who challenged his authority. New Frame reported that a number of refugee and migrant organisations in Cape Town had distanced themselves from Balous and at least three people had protection orders against him.

According to New Frame, those who know Balous claim that he and his wife had tried unsuccessfully to be resettled to a third country more than once.

Balous was also accused of instigating an attack on a delegation of faith leaders who were engaging protesters at the Central Methodist Church in November 2019. Anglican Archbishop Thabo Makgoba, SAHRC Commissioner Chris Nissen and Reverend Alan Storey were among those assaulted.

A number of people claimed that Balous had tried to gouge out the eyes of Pastor Moise Awilo, who was part of the delegation.

He was often described as a cult-like leader. Balous often used Christianity as a justification for his cause and in one instance, during a rally in the Central Methodist Church attended by Daily Maverick, Balous compared himself to Jesus. Though the migrants did not own the building, people were searched and names taken before anyone could enter the church. There was also a rule that no one except the group’s “leadership” could speak to the media. 

His wife, Aline Bukuru, had initially led a similar protest in November 2019, outside the UNHCR offices in Pretoria. The protest was quashed after the group forced their way onto the UNHCR premises and were removed by police after the North Gauteng High Court granted a court order for the City of Johannesburg to enforce its by-laws.

Bukuru then made her way to Cape Town where she joined the group protesting at the Methodist Church and assumed leadership once her husband had been arrested.

Safety and security mayoral committee member JP Smith warned that the “hardliners” who refuse to leave the temporary shelters once they close down may be dealt with by the courts. 

“If at the end of that there is a group that adamantly resists reintegration [at] the sites, both of which belong to the Department of Public Works, then they will be obligated to determine how to remove persons from those properties. That will have to take the form of an eviction application to the court.

www.samigration.com

Scalabrini court victory for people seeking asylum in South Africa

Home Affairs has been interdicted from implementing certain provisions of the Refugees Act and new Regulations (both implemented on 1 January 2020), which sought to return asylum seekers back to their home country where they could be face detention without trial, rape, torture, or death, merely because he or she was a month late in renewing a visa.

On 30 November 2020, Judge Baartman handed down judgement in the Western Cape High Court, which suspended the operation of certain provisions of the Refugees Act, 1998 and the 2018 Regulations thereto (both of which came into effect on 1 January 2020). The suspended provisions are commonly referred to as the ‘abandonment provisions’. 

The suspension will operate until the constitutional attack against the impugned provisions has been adjudicated on by the Western Cape High Court and, to the extend necessary, confirmed by the Constitutional Court.

The Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town, represented on a pro bono basis by Norton Rose Fulbright and Advocates David Simonsz and Nomonde Nyembe sought to prevent the short and long term operation of the abandonment provisions, as the provisions infringed on asylum seekers’ rights to life, freedom and security of person, dignity, and equality; and prevented South Africa from fulfilling its international law obligations towards refugees, including the international law principle of non-refoulement.

The abandonment provisions provided that in the event that an asylum seeker fails to renew their asylum visa timeously, their applications for asylum are deemed abandoned. Arrest and deportation would follow for individuals with valid and undecided claims for asylum; back to countries of origin where they could face death, torture, sexual violence, and other forms of persecution from which they originally fled, or to countries experiencing grave disturbances to the public order. Only where an asylum seeker has a compelling reason (and proof thereof) for delaying to renew a permit following a lapse (such as hospitalisation or imprisonment) can the Department of Home Affairs pardon the late renewal.

This is deeply problematic as it means that refugees can be returned to face persecution, without ever having the substantive merits of their asylum application determined. It also leaves asylum seekers vulnerable in South Africa as essentially undocumented foreigners who will struggle to access health care, employment and education while they await the decision of whether their reason for late renewal meets the Department of Home Affairs high threshold.

The reality for asylum seekers is that they are frequently required to renew their asylum visas. In the renewal process, they experience extraordinary delays caused by the administrative failures of the Department of Home Affairs. These are often exacerbated by socio-economic factors such as not having the means to travel to far away Refugee Reception Offices as frequently as is required, waiting in long queues at the Refugee Reception Offices, facing corruption from officials who refuse to renew visas without bribes, or the general inefficiency of the Refugee Reception Offices that are over-worked but under-staffed. 

In light of these realities many asylum seekers fail to renew their visas for valid reasons. Judge Baartman delivered a powerful judgment, emphasising that the case does not involve imaginary victims – the suspended abandonment provisions affect real asylum seekers who could face serious human rights violations should the provisions continue to operate. She criticized the Department’s conduct in the case, which was characterised as regrettable and unhelpful.

The judgement will come as a relief to many asylum seekers who have been unable to renew their visas for valid reasons and will give them an opportunity to do so without the fear of being treated as an illegal foreigner and returned home. This includes many asylum seekers who may have been prevented from renewing their asylum documents prior to the pausing of services at Refugee Reception Offices during the national lockdown – a pause which is set to remain in effect until at least 31 January 2021. Scalabrini Centre, represented by Norton Rose Fulbright, firmly believes the abandonment provisions are unconstitutional and persists in a challenge to this effect.

www.samigration.com