Assessing asylum applications is becoming increasingly complicated, time-consuming and difficult to implement. A qualitative survey among about fifty employees and partners of the IND (Immigration and Naturalization Service) shows that between 2010 and 2020, immigration policy has become increasingly difficult. The report was written by the IND's own research department.
According to the researchers, the cause lies, among other things, in the web of internal, national and international rules, instructions, laws and judicial decisions, which became denser during that period. This is partly a consequence of the growing migration flows and the associated social and political tensions. And digitalization and (social) media interest, which in turn put pressure on implementers and decision-makers.
In the meantime, the average knowledge and experience of IND employees actually decreased due to staff turnover. New employees are not given enough space “to independently find their way through regulations and to reach independent decisions.” As a result, they often work too extensively and time-consuming, with the risk of irrelevant or unclear parts of their decisions. According to the report, the Dublin Regulation and the Return Decision have now become effectively unenforceable for “an increasing number of cases”. These rules should ensure the departure of an asylum seeker from the Netherlands in individual cases.
More and more control
In addition to the growing web of external regulations, the company's own work instructions became more extensive during that period. And 'hearing' foreigners takes more and more time (and so does the reporting). Especially because more and more checks are required. The case law of (international) judges increased accordingly and also accumulated internally. Also because it is rarely immediately clear to the IND what the scope of individual court decisions is. Does this only apply to this case or also to others? Only when there is a pile of comparable statements will the policy be adjusted. Judges should become clearer about this, is an advice.
The central question from the report 'Has the complexity of making an asylum decision changed?' is answered with a clear yes. This means that its objectives are more difficult to achieve for the entire immigration legislation. Also because its effectiveness is partly determined by external developments, in other EU member states or beyond. For example, if reception in other Member States deteriorates to such an extent that deportation or transfer is not justified, the effectiveness of the IND's work automatically decreases. While a lot of time is often invested in this.
At the same time, the researchers call increasing complexity “at some points” inevitable. For example, because it is a result of the growing amount of quickly available, high-quality information that takes time to process.
The workload is also increasing because asylum applications appear to be becoming more individualistic. The share of simple requests, for example 'due to war', is decreasing. While more personal requests are increasing according to the group studied. This concerns motives such as individual persecution, conversion, apostasy or sexual preference.
Also read
Drugs, violence and theft: it's no fun for anyone in Ter Apel anymore
IND employees see testing someone's “personal experience” as an almost impossible task. Also because the assessment criteria, for example for sexual orientation, are public. As a result, “it is possible for applicants to come up with a story that meets all the elements.” As a result, IND employees cannot properly distinguish between fictional asylum stories and real ones. As a result, such applications 'are rarely rejected'.
#IND #official #stuck #laws #rules #instructions
