REFUGEES and asylum-seekers can be deported if they run afoul of local immigration laws since obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, and the principles of non-refoulment, do not apply to TT as they are not incorporated into domestic law, the High Court has ruled.
This means all migrants are subject to provisions of the Immigration Act and they, asylum and refugee seekers can be deported even if they register with the UN’s Refugee Agency (UNHCR).
These declarations were made by Justice Frank Seepersad on Tuesday as he settled the long-standing issue over the applicability of local immigration laws on refugees.
The judge was presiding over a judicial review and constitutional claim of Venezuelan national Yohan Jesus Rangel Dominguez who challenged a deportation order by the Minister of National Security in March.
Seepersad was asked to consider whether local immigration law was compatible with this country’s international obligations to refugees.
Dominguez, 33, was charged with illegal entry in August. His application said he fled Venezuela in fear of being persecuted by that country's government. He was granted refugee status by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in April, last year, but was arrested months later while in a taxi in Fyzabad.
The father of four pleaded guilty to illegally entering TT and was fined $2,000. In March, he was issued a deportation order.
In the lawsuit, he claimed his proposed deportation was illegal based on this country’s international obligations to refugees.
His lawyers pointed to the UN’s 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees which advocates against returning refugees to a country where they would probably face persecution (non-refoulement). TT signed on to this convention in 2000.
[caption id="attachment_1023828" align="alignnone" width="716"] Justice Frank Seepersad -[/caption]
Seepersad said the enactment of legislation to incorporate provisions of the 1951 refugee convention fell squarely in the legislature’s remit.
“This body must invariably respond to the macro-political and macro-economic policies and directives as determined by Government.
“No court can legitimately usurp the authority of a Government to formulate its macro-economic and socio-policy positions.”
He said although there was a 2014 policy developed by Government to address the situation of refugees and asylum seekers, which was adopted by Cabinet, it did not make the unambiguous statement that TT agreed to accept refugees or asylum-seekers.
“Notably, no evidence was adduced before this court to suggest that by virtue of the said policy that any 1951 Refugee Convention implementing procedure or process was actually adopted and/or engaged.”
Seepersad said the Executive could not, by way of policy formulation, circumvent the legislative authority of Parliament.
“Cabinet does not make law and that power falls under the sole remit of the Legislature. The contention that the 2014 policy formalised and/or incorporated the 1951 Refugee Convention obligat
