25% of people who applied for protection status in 2022 were Syrians
25% of people who applied for protection status in 2022 were Syrians, a report published on Wednesday shows.
The Asylum Information Database report (AIDA), which covers 2022, was researched and written by the aditus foundation and edited by the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE). The report provides in-depth information on the various aspects of the asylum regime : asylum procedure, reception conditions, detention and content of international protection. “It is based on months of desk research, complemented with information provided by various entities”, aditus said in a statement.
The report shows that in 2022 there were 973 applicants requesting protection status. At the end of the year, there were 1,730 applications pending. Throughout 2022, 15 applicants were granted refugee status, 172 applicants were granted subsidiary protection and 783 applicants were rejected. Statistics on decisions cover the decisions taken throughout the year, regardless of whether they concern applications lodged that year or in previous years.
“The top three nationality groups of applicants in 2022, representing 44% of all applicants, were persons fleeing armed conflict or undemocratic regimes : Syrians (243, 25%), Eritreans (93, 10%) and Ukrainians (92, 9%)”, the report reads.
It also read that in 2022, no Syrian applicant was recognised as a refugee, whilst 89 applicants were granted subsidiary protection. Two Syrian applicants were rejected. “64 Syrian applicants were found to be inadmissible, probably on the basis that they already enjoyed international protection in another EU Member State.”
The report reads that at the end of 2022, the majority of pending applications were from applicants who would, “at least prima facie, be eventually granted international protection by Malta : Syrians (359), Eritreans (178) and Somalis (166). Looked at in conjunction with figures of new applications, it is clear that many of these applications have been pending at first instance for at least one year.”
It is also noted that all decisions relating to applicants from Egypt, Bangladesh and Senegal were based on the safe country of origin concept, “as no substantive rejections were issued in relation to any of these applicants.”
As for the asylum procedure, it “is still characterised by long waiting times and differential treatments based on nationality. The unlawful accelerated procedure implemented by the International Protection Agency (IPA) and the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) was severely criticised by the European Court of Human Rights in a recent Judgement. The quality of the assessment is reportedly very low across all nationalities, and the credibility assessment is reported to be excessively relied upon the determination process. Appeals before the IPAT remain pending for years with no prospect of success for appellant. A new trend of automatic, template-based rejections was noted in relation to Libyan nationals and Non-Arab Darfuri from Sudan. The independence and impartiality of the Tribunal remains an issue of concern which has yet to be addressed by the Government. The same concerns were expressed in relation to age assessment appeals before Division II of the Immigration Appeals Board (IAB).”
Sea arrivals and pushbacks
The report reads that the substantial drop in arrivals “is reported to be a direct consequence of Malta’s involvement in pushbacks incidents and its reluctance to carry out rescues at sea. More than 7,000 people in distress at sea are reported to have been ignored by the authorities, and Malta was accused of being directly involved in at least 14 pushback incidents.”
The report provides further details. “It is estimated that Malta ignored calls of distress and failed to rescue around 7,459 people in distress at sea in its SAR zone. Malta was also accused of being involved in 14 pushbacks for a total of 789 people. These numbers are an estimation based on incidents reported by rescue NGOs and news agencies.”
Between January and December 2022, “the UNHCR recorded 444 sea arrivals to Malta (12 persons were airlifted by AFM, at least 23 persons arrived spontaneously, whilst 409 persons were rescued by AFM at sea). This is a 48% decrease in arrivals compared to the same period the previous year. In a new trend during 2022, two boats that departed from Lebanon were rescued by the AFM in the Maltese SAR zone and disembarked in Malta. The top five nationalities arriving by sea to Malta were from Syria (26%), Bangladesh (53%), Egypt (8%) and Lebanon (7%). The average age of those arriving by sea was 26.”
It further detailed some examples. “In January 2022, Malta was allegedly responsible for the pushbacks of 2 boats of more than 69 people. Malta refused to reply to repeated distress calls from 1 boat with approximately 100 total passengers. The outcome of 2 people from 1 boat in the Maltese SAR in January remains unknown. The following month, Malta allegedly refused to reply to repeated distress calls from 1 boat with 90 total passengers, and instructed a merchant vessel not to carry out the rescue.”
“In May 2022, Malta was allegedly responsible for two pushbacks of two boats of 195 people. Malta reportedly refused to reply to repeated distress calls from six boats with 800 total passengers. It was reported that the AFM refused to communicate information to a Frontex Fundamental Rights Officer who filed a ‘serious incident report’ in relation to incidents that occurred between 12 and 13 May 2022. The AFM reportedly declared that ‘Maltese authorities consider that the Fundamental Rights Office or Frontex do not have the right to demand feedback on issues that fall outside the Agency’s mandate’, and that ‘allegations of boats sinking, being left adrift or hindering rescue are false’. NGO Doctors without Borders, who responded to the incidents from 11th of May to 17th of May, had declared being ‘appalled by the fact that the Maltese Armed Forces, who were primarily responsible for the rescues in the area, were informed but remained silent and inactive, neglecting their legal obligation to provide or coordinate assistance.’ The Maltese Home Affairs Minister, Byron Camilleri, responded to the allegations and denied that Malta was refusing to rescue migrants, declaring that ‘over the years the AFM always carried out its duties in the best way possible, and this attack on the AFM is unjust and coming from who expects Malta to become a migration hub in the Mediterranean’”, the report reads.
Amongst other things highlighted in the report are that concerns have been raised regarding the criminalisation by the authorities of the use of false documentation by asylum-seekers in their attempt to enter Malta. “Asylum seekers entering Malta with fake documents are brought before the Magistrates Court (Criminal Judicature), and in most cases condemned to serve a prison sentence. The prosecutions are based on the Maltese Criminal Code and the Immigration Act, which foresee the use of false or forged documents as invariably constituting a criminal offence, with no exception for refugees in law, practice or jurisprudence. The person is generally remanded in custody at the Corradino Correctional Facility for the entire duration of the criminal proceedings, which generally last for about one to two months from the date of institution of the proceedings. The accused are entitled to request the appointment of a legal aid lawyer, or to hire a private lawyer should they have access to one. If found guilty, the Court may sentence the asylum seeker to either a fine of not more than around €12,000 or a maximum imprisonment term of two years, or for both the fine and imprisonment. It is noted that decisions are largely unpredictable, as some individuals have also been sentenced to imprisonment, yet with a suspended sentence, for a number of years.”
“In the past years, several cases of applicants for international protection imprisoned and convicted for that reason have been reported, including cases of very young individuals. NGOs expressed their concern over the situation as this criminalisation goes against the provisions of the 1951 Geneva Convention, and penalises persons opting not to risk their lives at sea. Unless a lawyer or an NGO assists them, it is unlikely these individuals will be given the chance to lodge their international protection application before the end of their sentence.”