Derek Achong
Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
Asylum seekers and refugees can be deported from this country despite T&T being a signatory to a United Nations Convention that advises against such action.
High Court Judge Frank Seepersad made the statement yesterday as he dismissed a hybrid judicial review and constitutional motion lawsuit brought by a Venezuelan refugee, who was ordered to be deported by National Security Minister Fitzgerald Hinds in March. In his judgment, Justice Seepersad noted that the convention could not apply as its terms were not incorporated into local immigration laws.
According to the evidence in the case, in April, last year, the man–whose identity was withheld over concerns that he may face repercussions if he is eventually deported–was granted refugee status by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
Several months later, he was arrested while travelling in a taxi in Fyzabad and charged with entering the country illegally.
The 33-year-old father of four pleaded guilty to the offence and was fined $2,000.
He was then placed on an order of supervision by the division after providing a $2,100 bond.
In March, the division detained him and issued him with a deportation order.
In the lawsuit, he is claiming that his proposed deportation is illegal based on this country’s international obligations to refugees.
His lawyers pointed to the United Nations’ 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which this country signed on to in November 2000 and advocates against returning refugees to a country where they would probably face persecution (non refoulement).
The man, who admitted that he is ultimately seeking to be resettled in Spain or Canada, is also claiming that his legitimate expectation as a registered asylum seeker with the UNHCR was frustrated.
The man was initially seeking an injunction barring his deportation pending the determination of his lawsuit.
However, the injunction application was not considered by Justice Seepersad as the division agreed to grant him conditional release on a supervision order.
In its response to the application, the division denied any wrongdoing.
It claimed that it was following standard operating procedures developed by the Ministry of National Security in 2017 pending the passage of legislation to incorporate the provisions of the UN Convention and the enactment of the National Draft Policy to Address Refugees and Asylum Matters in T&T of 2014.
Justice Seepersad, noting that the convention could not apply as its terms were not incorporated into T&T’s immigration laws, said, “International treaty obligations cannot alter domestic law in this Republic and there is a need for domestic incorporation of treaty obligations.
“There are obligations within the 1951 Refugee Convention which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Immigration Act and as a sovereign democratic State, the Parliament of T&T has the sole and absolute right to make laws for the good governance of this twin-island nation,” he added.
He noted that the court could not usurp the Government’s authority to formulate its macro-economic and socio-policy positions as he pointed out that 2014 did not suggest that T&T unequivocally agreed to accept refugees and asylum seekers.
“As a consequence, no legitimate expectation could have arisen from the 2014 document,” he said.
As part of his judgment, Justice Seepersad lightly criticised the UNHCR, which was an interested party in the case, and backed the refugee’s claim.
“At times, international organisations emboldened by unlimited resources and the support of developed nations can lose sight of the prevailing economic, societal, and infrastructural limitations under which small nations such as T&T operate,” he said.
“The Government’s articulated approach to migrants offended neither the Constitution nor the rule of law but was a proportionate response based upon its rational and reasoned macro-economic and socio-political concerns which required decisive responses as a global pandemic was ongoing.”
Dealing specifically with the refugee’s case, Justice Seepersad stated that Hinds’ decision to issue a deportation order was reasonable, rational, fair, and proportionate.
He also noted that the refugee admitted that he violated several immigration laws when he entered the country illegally.
“This type of disrespect and disregard for the laws of T&T, the supremacy of the Republican Constitution, and the Sovereignty of this State must be condemned and cannot be condoned,” he said.
As part of his decision in the case, the refugee was ordered to pay the legal costs incurred by the State in defending it.
The man was represented by John Heath, SC, Shalini Sankar, and Annesia Gunness. The division’s legal team included Sasha Sukhram, Jayanti Teeluckdharry, and Vincent Jardine.