annual report - European Commission

ANNUAL REPORT on Migration and International Protection Statistics

Annual Report 2009 on Migration and International Protection Statistics in the Netherlands

Date Status

October 2011 Final

INDIAC- NL EMN NCP | Annual Report 2009 | August 2011

Colophon

Title Subtitle Status Author

Annual Report 2009 on Migration and International Protection Statistics in The Netherlands October 2011 Final mrs. M.H. Belevska Policy Officer [email protected] Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) Implementation Policy Department IND Information and Analysis Centre (INDIAC) Dutch national contact point for the European Migration Network (EMN) Dr. H. Colijnlaan 341 | 2283 XL Rijswijk | The Netherlands P.O. Box 5800 | 2280 HV Rijswijk | The Netherlands

Page 3 of 66


Executive Summary

This Annual Statistical Report contains the most important statistics on migration, international protection, and the prevention of illegal entry and illegal stay in the Netherlands in 2009. It provides information on recent trends and important differences with previous years. Since 2008, the Member States have been obliged to provide statistics to Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the European Union, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection. Statistics Netherlands provides Eurostat with all data with regard to legal immigration, emigration, population and the acquisition of Dutch citizenship, illegal immigration, return, border control, and international protection. Immigration According to national statistics, nearly 144,000 persons immigrated in 2008. In 2009, this number was over 146,000 according to national statistics. Measured according to national criteria, there was consequently an increase compared to 2008. According to European statistics, however, this number was over 128,000. The difference is due to the fact that different definitions were used. Approximately 17,000 immigrants left again within the year and consequently do not comply with the definition of the Regulation. Emigration With regard to emigration, it is noteworthy that the declining trend was also visible in 2009. In 2008, the number concerned was over 90,000 persons. In 2009, this number dropped to over 85,000. Legal migration Just as in 2008, family reasons formed the most important purpose for third-country nationals to come to the Netherlands in 2009. In total, 23,078 residence permits were granted for this reason for stay. Compared to 2008, there was a slight decrease of 3%. Just as in 2008, the largest groups were formed by third-country nationals with Turkish nationality (14%) and Moroccan nationality (9%). Labour migration formed the second important reason for third-country nationals to come to the Netherlands. In 2009, Indians formed the largest group of third-country nationals who obtained residence permits for reasons of labour. The Chinese ranked second. Study was the third important reason for third-country nationals to come to the Netherlands. Migration for study purposes showed an upward trend. In 2008, the largest group of third-country nationals that obtained residence permits for study purposes was formed by Chinese students. Illegal immigration and return In total, 7,565 persons were placed in detention. This number remained approximately the same as in 2008 (7,505). The three largest groups were formed

Page 5 of 66

by Somalis (850), Iraqis (535), and Moroccans (520) respectively.1 What is noteworthy is the decrease in the number of Chinese that were placed in detention from 605 in 2008 to 255 in 2009, as well as the increase in the number of Somalis from 295 in 2008 to 850 in 2009. This decrease in the number of Chinese is, in all likelihood, caused by a decision of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State in 2008. This Division judged that - in respect of Chinese without travel documents - there was no longer a prospect of expulsion. In 2009, 8,980 third-country nationals left the Netherlands demonstrably. This is slightly less than the year before (9,350). In this context it should be pointed out as well that – according to national definitions – the number of third-country nationals that left demonstrably is higher (10,400).2 Applications for international protection asylum In 2009, more asylum applications were submitted than in 2008. In total, 14,880 new asylum applications were submitted. Just as in previous years, more than half the number of asylum seekers came from Somalia and Iraq. In particular the number of applications submitted by Somalis increased in 2009. The policy of protection for asylum seekers from Central- en South-Somalia was abolished on 19 May 2009. However the number of asylum seekers from Somalia did not decrease until the last quarter of 2009. The number of asylum applications submitted by unaccompanied minors also increased compared to the year before. In total, 1,040 applications were submitted; this is 314 more than in 2008. In the majority of cases, the applications were submitted by boys (83%) and most of them originated from Somalia (355) and Afghanistan (320).

1

Third-country nationals are persons who are not nationals of the Union within the meaning of Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection.

2

Rapportage Vreemdelingenketen: periode juli-december 2009 (Report of the organisations cooperating in the immigration process: period July-December 2009), to be consulted on www.rijksoverheid.nl Page 6 of 66


Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY—5 Contents—7 List of Abbreviations—9 1

Introduction—11

2

Methodology—13

3

Legal Immigration and Integration—17 3.1 International Migration, Usually Resident Population, and Acquisition of Citizenship—17 3.1.1 International Migration Flows—17 3.1.2 Usual Residence—18 3.1.3 Acquisition of Citizenship—19 3.2 Residence Permits and Residence of Third-Country Nationals—20

4

Illegal Immigration and Return—25 4.1 Prevention of Illegal Entry and Stay -Apprehensions—26 4.2 Returns—27

5

Border Control—31 5.1 Prevention of Illegal Entry and l Stay: Refusals—31 5.2 Relationship between refusals, apprehensions and returns—32

6

Asylum: International Protection—33 6.1 Applications for International Protection—33 6.2 Decisions on International Protection—34 6.2.1 General Developments—35 6.2.2 Refugee Status—37 6.2.3 Subsidiary Protection Status (Article 3 ECHR)—38 6.2.4 Humanitarian Status—39 6.3 Dublin Transfers—39 6.4 Unaccompanied Minors—40

ANNEX - TABLES—43 BIBLIOGRAPHY—65

Page 7 of 66


List of Abbreviations

COA DJI DT&V EFTA EC EMN EU Eurostat ECHR GBA IND INDIAC IOM KMar NCP

Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers Custodial Institutions Agency Repatriation and Departure Service European Free Trade Association European Community European Migration Network European Union Statistical Office of the European Union European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Municipal Personal Records Database Immigration and Naturalisation Service IND, Information and Analysis Centre International Organisation for Migration Royal Netherlands Marechaussee National Contact Point

Page 9 of 66

Page 10 of 66


1

Introduction

This Annual Report on Migration and International Protection Statistics 2009 contains the most important statistics on migration, international protection, and the prevention of illegal entry and illegal stay in the Netherlands in 2009. This Annual Statistical Report presents developments and differences with previous years and explains them where possible. This report is a product of the Dutch National Contact Point (NCP) for the European Migration Network (EMN), which is located under the Information and Analysis Centre (INDIAC) of the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND). The EMN is an initiative of the European Commission and finds its legal basis in the Council Decision 2008/381/EC of 14 May 2008. The objective of the EMN is to meet the information needs in the area of migration and asylum. In order to support policymaking in the European Union in these areas, the EMN provides up-to-date, objective, reliable, and comparable information. The EMN also has the task to provide information on these subjects to the general public. The EMN National Contact Points contribute to achieving this objective, among other things, by drawing up Annual Statistical Reports. The present report is the seventh edition of the Annual Report on Migration and International Protection Statistics (formerly called Annual Statistical Report on Asylum and Migration). The European Commission compiles the results of the various country analyses into a comparative European report. Just like the report for 2008, the report for 2009 has been drawn up in accordance with the Migration Statistics Regulation3 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulation’). This report presents the statistics for 2009. The reason that it was not issued until 2011 is that the statistics on international migration, population, and the acquisition of the Dutch citizenship are only available after 12 months. Since 2008, all Member States of the European Union are obliged to provide statistics on migration and international protection to Eurostat in accordance with the Regulation. This ensures that each Member State provides data in a uniform manner in accordance with a predefined format. Also in 2009, the countries of origin (countries outside the EU27, EFTA4 and the prospective Member States) were classified on the basis of their levels of development. This classification is made on the basis of the Human Development Index developed by the United Nations. Countries are classified as high, medium or low human development countries. Criteria that affect this classification are life expectancy, literacy, access to education and gross national product per capita.5 The structure of this report is derived from the specifications that have been developed jointly by the European Commission and the NCPs. All countries describe their national situation in the same manner. This facilitates comparison among the reports of the different countries.

3

This is Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection.

4

EFTA stands for European Free Trade Association of which Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland are members. 5

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/hdi/ Page 11 of 66

Chapter 2 explains the methodology followed in the present report. Chapter 3 focuses on legal migration and integration. This chapter provides, among other things, information on how many people in total immigrated into the Netherlands in 2009. In addition, this chapter provides a description of how many regular residence permits were issued to third-country nationals. Where possible, a comparison with statistics from 2008 is made in this context. Closer examination has revealed that some statistics included in the report for 2008 have changed. In this chapter, the corrected statistics for 2008 are compared with figures for 2009. Chapter 4 provides a description on the developments with regard to illegal immigration to the Netherlands in 2009. In addition, data on the return of thirdcountry nationals are discussed. Chapter 5 deals with border control. In this chapter, information is given on how many third-country nationals were apprehended and how many third-country nationals were refused entry to Dutch territory. Chapter 6, in conclusion, provides a description of all developments in the area of international protection: the number of asylum applications and the number of decisions, relevant trends and policy developments and so forth. The report contains a large number of tables, which can be found in the Annex.

Page 12 of 66

2

Methodology

The data for this report were collected by the European Migration Network of the European Commission. All data originate from the database of Eurostat, located in Luxembourg, and were collected in the period from February up to and including June 2011. The data in this report are primarily about third-country nationals.6 Just as in last year’s report, the data on EU nationals can be found in Chapter 3, which discusses the developments in the area of total immigration and emigration, composition of the population, and the acquisition of Dutch citizenship. In addition, information from various relevant Dutch public publications was used for the purpose of this report. Information was also collected through the Internet. The tables used were selected in accordance with the specifications developed by the European Commission and the various NCPs, as already set out in the Introduction. In the Netherlands, several actors serve as suppliers of data on international protection, migration, and return. The most important are the following: • Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND); • Statistics Netherlands; • Municipal Personal Records Database (GBA); • Repatriation and Departure Service (DT&V); • Royal Netherlands Marechaussee (KMar); and • International Organisation for Migration (IOM). The figures collected for the purpose of this report were provided to Eurostat by Statistics Netherlands. Statistics from Statistics Netherlands Statistics Netherlands compiles statistics on population growth on the basis of information from the GBAs of all Dutch municipalities. The figures on immigration and emigration relate to persons who are registered in or have been deregistered from the GBA. The registration criterion is fulfilled if the expected period of residence in the Netherlands in the six months following the settlement is at least four months. Asylum seekers are classified as immigrants as soon as they have been granted a residence permit or after six months of legal residence in the Netherlands. With regard to emigration it applies that the expected period of residence abroad in the year following the departure is at least eight months.7 The period of four months applied by Statistics Netherlands deviates from the definition of the Regulation. Article 2(b) of the Regulation defines ‘immigration’ as “the action by which a person establishes his or her usual residence in the territory of a Member State for a period that is, or is expected to be, of at least 12 months, having previously been usually resident in another Member State of a third country.”

In accordance with Article 2 of the Regulation, persons are considered immigrants if they have been registered in the GBA for a year or more. This differs from the way in

6

Third-country nationals are persons who are not nationals of the Union within the meaning of Article 17(1) of

Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection. 7

Press release from Statistics Netherlands (POLITIEBUREAU 10-2006), Crisis remt migratie en verhuizingen (Crisis

acts as a brake on migration and relocations). Derived from www.cbs.nl on 8 July 2011. Page 13 of 66

which Statistics Netherlands maintains the national statistics. As stated above in this chapter, Statistics Netherlands classifies asylum seekers as immigrants as soon as they have been granted a residence permit or after six months of legal residence in the Netherlands. This means that – due to the use of different definitions – the national data of Statistics Netherlands on the total immigration to the Netherlands in 2009 deviate from the statistics as provided to Eurostat. It is difficult to make a comparison with previous years, because this method of counting in accordance with Article 2 of the Regulation was not used for the first time until 2009. As an approximation for the definition used in the Regulation, Statistics Netherlands calculated on an ex-post basis for 2009 how many immigrants stayed in the Netherlands for at least 12 months. This appears to be approximately 90% of the immigrants. As a result of this, the figure provided to Eurostat is approximately 10% lower than the figure published by Statistics Netherlands in accordance with national definitions. The emigration figures included in Eurostat are exclusive of the balance of administrative corrections. In the Netherlands, a case of unreported migration is registered as an administrative correction, in the form of a registration or a deregistration. A deregistration occurs when a municipality has established that a person is no longer included in its population because the address is unknown or the person cannot be reached anymore and has probably left the country. Once a person has been removed administratively, he or she can, in principle, only be registered in the population register again by administrative registration (entry with unknown country of origin) or immigration (entry with known country of origin). If, at a person’s request, a municipality decides to register him or her in the register without the fact that it concerns a birth, immigration, or settlement from another Dutch municipality, this will be an administrative registration. In the Netherlands, the balance of the administrative corrections (registrations minus deregistrations) consequently relates to persons who have been deregistered administratively without having been registered administratively again. In migration statistics, this balance is regarded as unreported emigration and as such added to registered emigration. Statistics from the IND The IND collects data in the area of international protection and residence permits for regular purposes. Just as last year, it is not possible to provide all figures with regard to decisions on asylum applications in accordance with the specifications set. The number of residence permits that have been withdrawn cannot be broken down into the status of the residence permits withdrawn. Specifications requesting the distinction between first instance asylum decisions and final decisions have also been introduced this year. The term ‘first instance decision’ is taken to mean the decision that is made by the IND. The term ‘final decision’ is taken to mean the decision made on an objection and/or an appeal. The KMar and the Seaport Police collect data with regard to persons who have been refused entry to the Netherlands. They fulfil an important role in the area of border control. Figures on persons illegally resident in the Netherlands are collected, among others, by the IND, but also by the Aliens Police. The following caveat applies in this context. The IND does not register these persons until they have been placed in detention and have appealed this decision. Page 14 of 66

Until 1 January 2007, the data on persons who departed voluntarily or who were removed forcibly from the Netherlands were collected by the IND. Since 1 January 2007, many duties associated with the return of persons illegally resident in the Netherlands have been transferred to DT&V. Since the aforementioned date, the data have been collected by the central government by means of a database called ‘Management Information Across the Cooperating Organisations’ (Ketenbrede Management Informatie, KMI), in which data from DT&V, KMar, and the IOM are gathered. It is important to note that – in the present report – the data on persons illegally resident in the Netherlands and the data on the return of persons illegally resident in the Netherlands deviate from the national data. As stated above, this is due to the application of different definitions. In accordance with national criteria, for instance, approximately 10,400 third-country nationals departed demonstrably from the Netherlands in 20098, whereas in accordance with European criteria, 8,980 thirdcountry nationals departed demonstrably. This difference is, among other things, due to the fact that third-country nationals who have been transferred to another EU Member State do not fall under this category according to the European definition. With regard to Dublin transfers as well, the national figures deviate from the European figures. At the European level, for instance, only one claim per claimant is counted. A request for a review of a claim does consequently not result in a new claim, whereas this is the case at the national level. Where the items in an enumeration have been put in round figures, for instance in a table, it may occur that the round figures do not add up to the sum, which may also have been rounded off. In order to stay as closely to the original figures as possible, the enumeration has not been corrected. For the same reasons, the percentages were calculated using the relevant original figures.

8

Rapportage Vreemdelingenketen 2009 (Report of the organisations cooperating in the immigration process 2009),

press release, derived from www.rijksoverheid.nl. Page 15 of 66

Page 16 of 66

3

Legal Immigration and Integration

This chapter provides an overview of a number of demographic developments that are directly related to international migration. Sub-section 3.1.1. describes the developments in the area of immigration and emigration. In sub-section 3.1.2., attention is paid to the third-country nationals residing in the Netherlands. Subsection 3.1.3., in conclusion, provides an overview of the developments and trends with regard to the acquisition of Dutch citizenship by third-country nationals. 3.1

International Migration, Usually Resident Population, and

Acquisition of Citizenship An explanation about the method used to maintain statistics on immigration at the national and European level is already given in the previous chapter. With regard to emigration it applies that the expected period of residence abroad in the year following the departure is at least eight months.9 3.1.1

International Migration Flows In the first decade of this century, the Dutch population increased faster than that of the European Union as a whole. The number of residents in the Netherlands increased from 15.9 million to 16.6 million residents in the past ten years, an increase of 4.5% The population growth in the Netherlands is primarily the result of a natural increase: in ten years, more than half a million more people were born than died.10 As last year’s report showed, immigration nearly reached a record level in 2008 with 143,516 persons. This calculation was, however, not based on the definition of the Regulation. This means that this number was the sum of all immigrants that had come to the Netherlands in 2008, including those who were registered in the GBA for less than a year. In accordance with the national definition, even more people immigrated in 2009, namely 146,378. The number of immigrants in accordance with Article 2 of the Regulation is, however, lower, namely 128,813. As explained in the Introduction, as an approximation for the definition used in the Regulation, Statistics Netherlands calculated on an ex-post basis for 2009 how many immigrants stayed in the Netherlands for at least 12 months. This appears to be approximately 90% of the immigrants. As a result of this, the figure provided to Eurostat is approximately 10% lower than the figure published by Statistics Netherlands in accordance with national definitions. Despite the differences in the definitions applied, the following developments have been observed. With regard to immigration by country of citizenship, the Chinese formed the largest group of third-country nationals who came to the Netherlands in 2009, just as in 2008. Turkey and the United States of America ranked second and third, respectively (see Table 3).

9

Press release from Statistics Netherlands (POLITIEBUREAU 10-2006), Crisis remt migratie en verhuizingen (Crisis

acts as a brake on migration and relocations). Derived from www.cbs.nl on 8 July 2011. 10

Garssen, J., Wobma, E., (CBS) (Web Magazine, 6 July 2011). Bijdrage migratie aan bevolkingsgroei relatief gering

(Contribution of migration to population growth relatively small). Derived from www.cbs.nl on 8 July 2011. Page 17 of 66

National sources show that the economic crisis that began in 2008 and continued in 2009 had an influence on the immigration flow from countries where primarily labour migrants originate from. Compared to 2008, fewer immigrants originated, for instance, from the United States of America, India, and Japan.11 In 2009, emigration showed a downward trend. In 2008, 90,067 emigrated from the Netherlands. In 2009, the number was 85,357; an absolute decrease of 4,710 people. The emigration figures Eurostat recorded for the Netherlands are exclusive of the balance of administrative corrections, whereas Statistics Netherlands usually publishes the emigration figures inclusive of the corrections. 3.1.2

Usual Residence In this sub-section, attention is paid to the usually resident population by country of citizenship, by country of prior residence, and by country of birth. On 31 December 2009, the Netherlands had 16,574,989 residents (see Tables 13 and 15). Just as in 2008, the Turks and the Moroccans formed the two largest groups of third-country nationals: 90,837 Turks and 66,568 Moroccans. This concerns a breakdown into country by citizenship. Compared to the previous year, a decrease is observed, when there were 92,698 Turks and 70,801 Moroccans. The figures below show the usually resident population by country of citizenship and by country of birth. Compared to 2008, there are no changes (see Tables 13 and 15).

Figure 1: Usual residents by third-country of citizenship on 1 January 2010

Turkey 18% Other ThirdCountry Nationals 49%

Morocco 13%

China 4% Unknown nationality 16%

11

Nicolaas, H., Wobma, E., and Ooijevaar, J., 2010, Demografie van (niet-westerse) allochtonen in Nederland

(Demography of Western and non-Western migrants in the Netherlands), pp. 22-24. Derived from www.cbs.nl on 8 July 2011. Page 18 of 66

Figure 2: Usual residents by non-EU country of birth and other countries of birth on 1 January 2010

Indonesia 10%

Dutch Antilles 6% Other Third CountryNationals 44%

Morocco 12%

Surinam 14%

3.1.3

Turkey 14%

Acquisition of Citizenship This sub-section provides a description of the developments and trends with regard to third-country nationals who acquired Dutch citizenship in 2009. In 2009, a total of 29,754 third-country nationals acquired Dutch citizenship. This number is slightly higher than a year before, when it concerned 28,229 persons. The percentage of women who acquired Dutch citizenship by naturalisation is considerably higher than the percentage of men (see Table 16). The percentage of women of the total of non-Dutch usual residents, excluding EU nationals, however, was also slightly higher than the percentage of men.12 There is no clear explanation for this observation. Just as in 2008, the proportion of persons of which the former country of citizenship is unknown is very high. 13 This number is inclusive of stateless persons. Moroccans (5,508) and Turks (4,167) still form the two largest groups of which the former country of citizenship is known. Surinam ranks third (1,142), just as in 2008. It is noteworthy that in the top 10 of countries, 8 countries also occurred in the top 10 of 2008, namely Morocco, Turkey, Surinam, Iraq, Afghanistan, China, Ghana, and Russia. In 2008, Iran and the Ukraine had also been listed in the top 10. In 2009, these positions were taken by Thailand and Egypt (see Table 17).

12

Immigration and Naturalisation Service, Information and Analysis Centre (hereinafter INDIAC), Trendrapportage

Naturalisatie VI: 2005-2009 (2010b) (Trend Report on Naturalisation VI: 2005-2009 (2010b), p. 31). 13

The reason for this is explained on page 15 in the EMN report (2010) The Netherlands Annual Report on Migration

and International Protection Statistics 1 January 2008-31 December 2008. It primarily concerns former asylum seekers who were unable to submit sufficient documents to prove their original nationality. The former asylum seekers were not required to submit a valid passport to be permitted entry. Page 19 of 66

Figure 3: Acquisition of Dutch citizenship by third-country nationals

Unknown nationality 25%

Other Third Country-Nationals 32%

Afghanistan 2% Iraq 2% Surinam 4%

Morocco 20%

Turkey 15%

3.2 Residence Permits and Residence of Third-Country Nationals The Netherlands has two types of applications for residence permits. The first type of application concerns applications for admission to the Netherlands in the context of international protection, referred to as asylum applications. The second type of application concerns applications for regular purposes of stay, such as family formation, family reunification, labour, and study. Applications are submitted to and processed by the IND. In this chapter, the emphasis will be on applications for regular purposes of stay. It is important to note in advance that some figures stated in the report for 2008 have been corrected after its publication. Where comparisons are made with the figures for 2008, the changed figures will be used and not the figures mentioned in last year’s report.

Figure 4: Residence permits issued in 2009, by reason for stay

Other 23% Family Reasons 41%

Labour 18% Study 18%

Page 20 of 66

Family reasons Just as in 2008, family reasons were the most important reason to issue regular residence permits in 2009. In the entire year, a total of 23,078 residence permits were issued for that reason for stay (see Table 18). In 2008, a total of 24,092 residence permits were granted. That is 1,014 fewer permits than the previous year, or 4%.

Figure 5: Residence permits issued to third-country nationals for family reasons

Turkey 14% Morocco 9% United States of America 6% Other 60% China 5%

India 6%

In 2009, the largest group of third-country nationals who obtained residence permits for family reasons was formed by Turks (3,174). Moroccans ranked second (2,036). The top 5 furthermore included the United States of America (1,485), India (1,365), and China (1,072) (see Table 18). The reason that the positions 1 and 2 are taken up by Turks (14%) and Moroccans (9%) may be explained in the first place by the fact that persons of Turkish or Moroccan origin constitute the largest groups of non-Dutch usual residents. In 2009, 378,330 persons of Turkish origin and 341,528 persons of Moroccan origin lived in the Netherlands.14 Since 2005, a downward trend has been observed in the number of applications for family reasons by Turkish and Moroccan persons. In particular the number of applications from Moroccan persons has considerably decreased. Among Turkish citizens, the decrease is less strong. The decrease in the number of applications from Turks and Moroccans may have several possible explanations. On 15 March 2006, the Civic Integration Abroad Act entered into force. The purpose of this Act is to ensure that people speak Dutch at a basic level before they come to the Netherlands and to introduce them to Dutch society. On the basis of this Act, the third-country national who wants to come to the Netherlands to live with his or her partner must take a civic integration examination. This new admission requirement,

14

http://statline.cbs.nl Page 21 of 66

together with the income requirement, may deter people from submitting an application.15 Another possible reason may be the increase in the fee to be paid for an application. Since 2005, the amount of the fee has been linked to the processing costs. Since 2005, an amount of EUR 830 must be paid for an application for family reasons. In comparison, in 2002, this amount had been set at EUR 258.16 Another development that may have contributed to the decrease in the number of family applications is the increased use of Community Law for family life by Turks and Moroccans. With regard to admission requirements, Community Law is more flexible than national aliens policy.17 In the top 3 of countries, the group of Indians who want to come to the Netherlands for family reasons is clearly present. This is a group of persons who are family members of highly skilled migrants who reside in the Netherlands on the basis of the Highly Skilled Migrants Scheme that was introduced in 2004. But with regard to this group as well, a slight decrease in the number of applications has been observed. This is possibly due to the economic crisis that began in 2008. If fewer highly skilled migrants come to the Netherlands, this also affects the number of family members who want to come to the Netherlands to live with the highly skilled migrant.18 Labour Migration Labour migration comes second after immigration for family reasons as an important reason to come to the Netherlands. In 2009, 10,433 applications were granted for this reason. This is a decrease of 10% compared to 2008, when the number was 11,613. In 2009, the largest group of third-country nationals who obtained residence permits for reasons of labour was formed by Indians. It concerned 1,791 persons. Compared to 2008, this is a decrease of 468 applications, or 21%. Most Indians made use of the Highly Skilled Migrants Scheme. An increase in the number of applications for reasons of labour granted was seen among the Chinese (1,727). In 2008, the Chinese had submitted 387 fewer applications, or an increase of 29%. This increase in the number of Chinese immigrants who came to the Netherlands for reasons of labour may have several possible causes. An increasing number of enterprises in the Chinese hotel and catering industry are looking for cheap labour from China. In addition, this increase may be ascribed to the fact that increasingly more enterprises are coming to the Netherlands. Together with these enterprises, Chinese employees come to the Netherlands as well.19 In 2008, the United States of

15

Internationale gezinsvorming begrensd? (International family formation subject to restrictions?) An evaluation of

the raised income and age requirements with regard to the migration of foreign partners to the Netherlands, p. 138, Research and Documentation Centre (WODC), IND (INDIAC), 2009. 16 17

Source: IND. Schreijenberg, A., Klaver, J.F.I., Soethout, J. E., Lodder, G.G., and Vleugel, M.J. (2009) Gemeenschapsrecht en

gezinsmigratie – Het gebruik van gemeenschapsrecht door gezinsmigranten uit derde landen (Community Law and Family Migration – The use of Community Law by family migrants from third countries). Amsterdam/The Hague: Research and Documentation Centre (WODC); Regioplan Policy Research; Institute for Immigration Law; Leiden University; INDIAC 18

INDIAC, 2010, Trendrapportage regulier 2010, Reguliere migratie naar Nederland in beeld (Trend Report on

Regular Residence 2010, An Overview of Regular Migration to the Netherlands), (2010a) p. 31. 19

INDIAC (2010a), p. 41 Page 22 of 66

America ranked second on this list, with a total of 1,387 migrants. In 2009, there were 267 fewer migrants, a decrease of 19%. Study Migration Since 2007, there has been an upward trend in migration to the Netherlands for reasons of study. This trend continued in 2009. A total of 9,944 applications were granted, 1,094 more than in 2008, an increase of 12%. Just as in 2008, the Chinese students formed the largest group of migrants with a total of 2,264, an increase of 414 migrants, or 22%. The fact that so many Chinese come to the Netherlands to study has several causes. The Chinese government encourages young people to study abroad, so that they may return to China with the knowledge gained. In addition, the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science is actively promoting the Netherlands in China as a destination to undertake one’s study. The Netherlands is a popular destination for Chinese students due to the English-language study programmes and the high level of education. In addition, the Netherlands may also be attractive to this group of migrants because they are given the opportunity to try and find a suitable job in the Netherlands in the year following graduation.20 In 2009 as well, the American students ranked second with regard to the number of migrants for reasons of study. With regard to this group as well, an increase was observed compared to 2008. In 2008, 1,086 applications were granted and in 2009, this number was 1,285, an increase of 18%. This increase is difficult to explain. It is clear, however, that an increasing number of Americans go abroad to undertake a study.21

20 21

INDIAC (2010a), p. 52 INDIAC (2010a), p. 54 Page 23 of 66

Page 24 of 66

4

Illegal Immigration and Return

The Netherlands has a restrictive admission policy. The Dutch Aliens Act sets out who is legally present in the Netherlands and who is not. In addition to persons with Dutch citizenship, persons with a residence permit or a visa may also stay in the Netherlands. Citizens of a number of countries furthermore have the right to stay in the Netherlands for a specific period of time without a visa. This also applies to persons who wish to rely on a residence permit for international protection. As stated above in section 3.2, persons may submit an application for a residence permit to the IND. A person who is not or is no longer a legal resident in the Netherlands is obliged to leave the Netherlands. If this does not happen, he or she may be forced to return. The Netherlands performs border controls on the Schengen external borders 22 to check whether the persons concerned, their means of transport, and the items in their possession may either enter or leave the Netherlands. These border controls are performed by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee (KMar). The Seaport Police of the Rotterdam-Rijnmond Regional Police Force performs these border controls in the Rotterdam port area. Anyone who is refused entry to the Netherlands or anyone who no longer has the right to residence is obliged to leave the Netherlands. The illegally resident thirdcountry national is personally responsible for his or her own departure. The government encourages third-country nationals who are not permitted to stay in the Netherlands to leave the country independently and provides assistance if necessary. Illegally resident third-country nationals who do not leave the Netherlands may be removed. For this purpose, it is, for instance, possible to request the court to order detention. The cooperation of the country of origin is sometimes also required. This is the case if the third-country national does not have valid travel documents and the country where he or she states to come from must provide a travel document or a replacement travel document. In the Netherlands, the Repatriation and Departure Service (DT&V) is responsible for the independent and forced departure of third-country nationals who are not permitted to stay in the Netherlands. The DT&V is an implementing body of the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations.23 The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) may also provide assistance if third-country nationals wish to return. The Dutch government supports the activities of the IOM. The DT&V targets two groups:

22 23

This concerns sea borders and airport borders. http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/vragen-en-antwoorden/hoe-is-het-terugkeerbeleid-voor-

vreemdelingen-in-nederland-geregeld.html, see also: www.dienstterugkeerenvertrek.nl. Page 25 of 66

•

•

Illegally resident third-country nationals who have been apprehended in the context of aliens supervision, mobile or otherwise, and third-country nationals who have been refused entry in the context of border control; and Asylum seekers who have exhausted all legal remedies and who must leave the Netherlands.

The DT&V adopts a personalised multi-disciplinary approach to the departure process. The DT&V cooperates with other government organisations that have a duty in the departure process, including the IND, the KMar, the Aliens Police, the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers, the DJI, and other organisations such as the IOM.

4.1 Prevention of Illegal Entry and Stay -Apprehensions The statistics used for this report as a measure for illegally resident third-country nationals relate to the number of third-country nationals placed in detention. Dutch law provides that a third-country national who is not or no longer legally present in the Netherlands may be placed in detention.24

Figure 6: Third-country nationals found to be illegally present in the Netherlands in 2009

Somalia 11% Iraq 7% Morocco 7% Turkey 5% Other 70%

In 2008, a total of 7,505 third-country nationals were placed in detention. In 2009, this number increased slightly to 7,565. Somalis (850), Iraqis (535), and Moroccans (520) are at the top of the list of persons placed in detention most often. There are two noticeable developments compared to 2008. The first development is related to the Chinese. In 2008, a total of 605 Chinese were placed in detention. In 2009, this number was 255. An obvious explanation for this decrease of 58% could be the decision of the highest administrative tribunal in the Netherlands which in

24

Section 59 of the Aliens Act 2000 Page 26 of 66

September 2008 held that Chinese without documents could not be kept in detention because forced removal for this group of Chinese appeared to be impossible.25 The possibility of removing an illegally resident third-country national to his or her country of origin is a condition for keeping illegally resident third-country nationals in detention. In other words: there must be a prospect of removal. This decision could explain the smaller number of Chinese in detention. A second development is the larger number of Somalis (850) that were placed in detention. The previous year, it concerned 295 persons. The reason for this increase could be the abolition of the policy of protection for certain categories of asylum seekers on 19 May 2009.26 The large number may also be related to the fact that Somalia is the country of origin that occurs most among the persons who come to the Netherlands for international protection. 4.2 Returns Return has high priority within Dutch aliens policy. Everything possible is being done to realise the actual departure of persons who are not permitted or no longer permitted to stay in the Netherlands. The government committed itself in 2009 to improve the possibilities to ensure the return of third-country nationals and it made commitments to this end in the following five areas:27 • To cooperate in the area of return with countries of origin; • To cooperate with local authorities and civil society organisations in the area of return; • To adopt a more effective approach to the individual third-country national to induce him or her to departure; • To create possibilities for the cooperating organisations concerned to effectively work on the return of the third-country nationals; • To take measures against criminal third-country nationals. The Dutch government encourages independent departure. The Dutch government is cooperating with other national and international organisations in various projects.28 The obligation for a person to leave the Netherlands ensues directly from the law. In 2009, the Netherlands did not have a separate return decision or expulsion order.29 In the Netherlands, the decision made on the applications for residence permits has multiple consequences. The decision rejecting a residence permit also includes the obligation for the third-country nationals to leave the Netherlands. The figures relating to applications for residence permits that have been rejected are provided by the IND. Where reference is made to third-country nationals who have received a notice ordering them to leave the Netherlands in this report, this refers to third-

25

Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, 5 September 2008, no 200805982/1. The prosepct of

removing Chinese to China again has arisen anew, also for Chinese who do not have any travel documents. 26

Decision of the State Secretary for Justice of 2 July 2009, no 2009/16 amending the Aliens Act Implementation

Guidelines 2000, Government Gazette no 11449. 27 28

Parliamentary Papers II 2008/09, 19 637, no 1263 (Letter). The EMN Report (2009b) Gefaciliteerde terugkeer- en herintegratieprogramma’s in Nederland (Facilitated Return

and Reintegration Programmes) includes a list of various facilities for return. 29

This could change in the future as a result of the Directive 2008/115/EC (Return Directive) of the European

Parliament and the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals. This Directive has not yet been implemented in the Netherlands. Page 27 of 66

country nationals who have received a decision rejecting their application for a residence permit.

30

Figure 7: Total number of notices to leave the Netherlands in 2009

Other 29%

Total 49%

Afghanistan 2% Morocco 4% Somalia 4%

Iraq 6%

Turkey 6%

In 2009, 8,980 third-country nationals left the Netherlands demonstrably. That is slightly less than the year before (9,350). In this context it should be pointed out as well that – according to national definitions – the number of third-country nationals that left demonstrably is higher (10,400).31 A total of 35,574 third-country nationals received a notice to leave the Netherlands. Just as in 2008, the largest group of third-country nationals who received a notice to leave the Netherlands was formed by Turks (4,095). The Turks were also the largest group of third-country nationals who returned demonstrably (935). Iraqis ranked second. A total of 3 915 Iraqis received a notice to leave the Netherlands; 685 Iraqis left demonstrably. Somalia ranked third in the list of third-country nationals who received a notice to leave the Netherlands (2,730); 395 Somalis left demonstrably. Other countries that occurred in both lists, the list of notices and the list of demonstrable return, were Morocco (2,570 notices vs 380 departures), China (1,350 notices vs 475 departures), Surinam (1,180 notices vs 410 departures), and Nigeria (1,130 notices vs 435 departures). Afghanistan, Ghana, and Iran were in the top 10 of countries of third-country nationals who received notices, but not in the top 10 of countries who actually returned. The opposite is true for Brazil, the Ukraine, and Indonesia. These countries occurred in the top 10 of countries to which third-country

30

Dienst Terugkeer en Vertrek hanteert een andere definitie voor de term aanzegging. De Vreemdelingenpolitie geeft

bijvoorbeeld ook aanzeggingen aan vreemdelingen die niet rechtmatig in Nederland verblijven. Te denken valt aan vreemdelingen die zich nooit tot de IND hebben gewend en dus nooit een procedure hebben gevoerd. Maar ook vreemdelingen die met een visum naar Nederland zijn gekomen maar niet (tijdig) teruggekeerd zijn, de zogenaamde “overstayers”, kunnen een aanzegging van de Vreemdelingenpolitie krijgen. 31

Rapportage Vreemdelingenketen: periode juli-december 2009 (Report of the organisations cooperating in the

immigration process: period July-December 2009), to be consulted on www.rijksoverheid.nl. Page 28 of 66

nationals actually returned, but they do not occur in the top 10 of countries of thirdcountry nationals who received a notice to leave the Netherlands.

Page 29 of 66

Page 30 of 66

5

Border Control

Persons who wish to come to the Netherlands from a country outside the Schengen territory must do so via a personal security check at a border crossing point. This border control is performed by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee (KMar) or – in the Rotterdam port area – by the Seaport Police of the Rotterdam-Rijnmond Regional Police Force. If a person is refused entry, he or she is obliged to return immediately to the country where he or she departed from, to the country of origin, or to another country where his or her admission is granted. 5.1 Prevention of Illegal Entry and l Stay: Refusals In 2009, a total of 2,500 persons were refused entry to the Netherlands. Just as in 2008, the majority of the refusals took place at the airport, namely 2,445. 60 persons were refused entry at a seaport. In 950 cases, the persons concerned did not have visas or valid visas or did not have residence permits or valid residence permits. In 675 cases, the persons concerned appeared not to be able to give reasons for their stay. In 460 cases, the persons concerned were refused entry because they were considered to pose a danger to public order in the Netherlands. In 160 cases, the persons concerned were refused entry because they did not have valid travel documents (see Table 25).

Figure 8: Third-country nationals refused entry at the external borders in 2009

Surinam 11%

Nigeria 10%

Brasil 8%

Other 59%

China 6% Turkey 6%

Page 31 of 66

5.2 Relationship between refusals, apprehensions and returns In theory, a relationship could be assumed between the number of third-country nationals that were refused entry, the number of third-country nationals found to be illegally present, and the number of third-country nationals that returned. What is noteworthy is the fact that the number of third-country nationals that actually returned is lower than the number of notices to leave the Netherlands. It may be concluded from this that most third-country nationals fail to comply with their legal obligation to leave the Netherlands after having received a decision rejecting their application. This complicates the task of the Dutch authorities to supervise and combat illegality. In general, it is difficult to find an explanation for this conclusion. Different explanations are conceivable. It cannot be concluded from the figures on the number of third-country nationals that actually returned whether each of them received a notice in 2009. It could be the case that some third-country nationals received a notice to leave the Netherlands years ago. Some third-country nationals may have left independently without their departures having been registered, either to unknown destinations or to their countries of origin or to other countries. Other third-country nationals may have chosen to initiate proceedings against the rejection of their application. In some cases, they are allowed to await the outcome of these proceedings in the Netherlands. Another group of third-country nationals may prefer to submit a new application for a residence permit. In that case, they are legally present in the Netherlands awaiting the decision of the IND. Somalia is the most important country with regard to the number of apprehensions of illegally resident third-country nationals in the Netherlands (see Table 22). This ranking is, however, not recognised in the category of third-country nationals who actually returned (see Table 24). Somalia ranks seven in that category. The return of third-country nationals, whether forced or voluntarily, to the country of origin, mainly occurs among Turks. In general, it may be argued that the return to some countries is more difficult than to other countries. Many persons are undocumented and this complicates and delays the return.

Page 32 of 66

6

Asylum: International Protection

This chapter focuses on the most important developments in the area of international protection in the Netherlands in 2009. A comparison will be made with the figures for 2008. Where possible, noteworthy statistical shifts will be related to policy developments. 6.1 Applications for International Protection In 2009, more asylum applications were submitted than in the previous year. In 2009, the number increased by 11% to 14,880 new asylum applications (see Table 32). Compared to 2008, the number of applications increased less strongly. In that year, the increase was 88%.32 Just as in previous years, more than half the number of asylum seekers came from Somalia (5890) and Iraq (1990) (see Table 33). Both in 2007 and in 2008, Iraq ranked first on the list of countries where most asylum seekers came from, while Somalia ranked second. In 2009, it was the other way around. The large decrease in the number of applications submitted by persons originating from Iraq is probably related to the abolition of the policy of categorical protection for persons from Central Iraq on 12 September 2008.33 It concerns a decrease of 60%. But on the other hand, the number of first asylum applications submitted by Somalis increased for the third subsequent year. In 2009, the number increased by 53%, from 3,840 in 2008 to 5,890 in 2009. The security situation in Somalia has been poor for years. For this reason, the policy of categorical protection for persons applied to Central and South Somalia. 34 The increase may be ascribed to this policy, which was abolished on 19 May 2009.35 The abolition of this policy did not immediately result in a decrease in the number of applications. The number of asylum seekers from Somalia did not start to decrease until the last quarter of 2009.36 An increase in the number of asylum applications is also observed for persons who originate from Afghanistan. For the second subsequent year, the number increased. Compared to 2008, the increase is substantial. In 2008, 396 applications were submitted, but in 2009, this number had increased to 1,280. In the absolute sense, there was an increase of 885 applications. This increase may be caused by the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan. The number of asylum applications submitted by Afghan persons increased in nearly all European countries.37

32

EMN (2010) The Netherlands Annual Report on Migration and International Protection Statistics 1 January 2008-31

December 2008, p. 17. 33 34 35

Parliamentary Papers II 2008/09, 19 637, no 1220 (Letter). For more information, see Chapter 6, section 6.2. Decision of the State Secretary for Justice of 2 July 2009, no. 2009/16 amending the Aliens Act Implementation

Guidelines 2000, Government Gazette no. 11449. 36

Sprangers, A. and Nicolaas, H., 2010, Stijging aantal asielzoekers in Nederland iets groter dan in EU (Increase in

number of asylum seekers in the Netherlands larger than in EU), pp. 25-27. Derived from www.cbs.nl on 9 March 2011. 37

Parliamentary Papers II 2009/2010, 19 637, no 1346. Page 33 of 66

Noteworthy in this top 10 of countries is the presence of Georgia ranking sixth. In total, 410 applications were submitted by persons originating from Georgia. The reason for this is unclear. The Dutch government received signals that it might be connected with the possibility of a financial contribution upon return to one’s country of origin.38 Since August 2006, it has been possible to distinguish new applications from repeated applications. As stated above, a total of 14,880 new applications were submitted. In addition, 1,260 subsequent asylum applications were submitted. 6.2 Decisions on International Protection This section describes the developments with regard to the number of decisions on applications for international protection. An overview will be given of the rejected and granted applications, with a comparison being made with the numbers in the previous reference period. It also applies to 2009 that not all the decisions made relate to the applications submitted in this year. Not all applications are processed in the same calendar year in which they are submitted.

Figure 9: First instance decisions on applications for international protection

9320

8245 Granted Rejected

In 2009, a total of 17,565 decisions were made on applications for international protection. Out of this number, 8,245 applications were granted and 9,320 applications were rejected (see Table 40). An overview of the general developments in national asylum policy in 2009 is given below. This will be followed by a discussion of the decisions granting a refugee status. Next, the decisions granting a subsidiary protection status will be discussed. Finally, attention will be paid to the decisions granting a humanitarian status.

38

Parliamentary Papers II 2009/2010, 19 637, no 1346. Page 34 of 66

Figure 10: Positive decisions in 2009 by status

Refugee Status 8%

Humanitarian Status 52%

6.2.1

Subsidiary Protection Status 40%

General Developments In national asylum policy, population groups may be designated as a risk group and as a vulnerable minority group. In addition, the government has the possibility to implement the policy of protection for a certain category of asylum seekers. Risk Groups A group may be designated as a risk group if it turns out that persons belonging to this group in the country of origin are being prosecuted. It is not necessary that it concerns systematic prosecution. Incidents may also constitute an indication that it concerns a risk group. The fact that a person belongs to a specific risk group does not automatically mean that he or she will be granted a residence permit on the basis of the Convention on Refugees. This person will be required to demonstrate that he or she has had problems or expects to encounter problems if he or she were to return. The fact that he or she belongs to a risk group means that even small problems may be sufficiently compelling to grant a residence permit on the basis of the Convention on Refugees. In 2009, the following groups were designated as risk groups in the context of national asylum policy: •

Afghanistan o persons from areas where they belong to an ethnic minority; o persons from an area where they belong to a religious minority; o homosexuals.

•

Somalia o persons belonging to the population group of Reer Hamar.

•

Iraq o

Homosexuals. Page 35 of 66

Vulnerable Minority Groups If a person does not qualify for a residence permit on the basis of the Convention on Refugees, he or she may qualify for a residence permit on the basis of subsidiary protection. This form of protection has been harmonised with the EU. What is 39

precisely meant by this protection is defined in the Qualification directive. This form of protection corresponds largely with the protection envisaged by Article 3 ECHR. If a group is systematically exposed to inhuman treatment in a country of origin, this group may be designated as a vulnerable minority group. For a population group to be designated as a vulnerable minority group, the following aspects are important: • To what extent it is a matter of arbitrary violence or arbitrary violation of human rights; • The position of the population group in the country of origin; and • The degree in which the persons of this group can rely on effective protection against threatening violence or violation of human rights or the degree in which these persons are in the position to withdraw from this by taking up residence elsewhere.

40

Unlike persons who belong to a risk group, persons who belong to a vulnerable minority group are not required to adduce personal facts and circumstances on the basis of which it may be concluded that they may be subjected to inhuman treatment upon return. The mere fact of belonging to such a group is sufficient to be granted a subsidiary protection status. The following groups were designated as vulnerable minority groups in 2009: •

Afghanistan: o ethnic minorities o religious minorities o single women

•

Democratic Republic of the Congo: o Tutsi

•

Iraq: o o o o o o

Christians Mandaeans Yezidi Palestinians Jews Shabak and Kaka’i

•

Sudan: o Non-Arab population groups from Darfur

•

Somalia: o Reer Hamar

39

Directive No 2004/83/EC of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the minimum standards for the qualification and status

of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted. 40

Parliamentary Papers II 2009/10, 29,344, no 72 (Letter). Page 36 of 66

Policy of Protection for Certain Categories of Asylum Seekers In exceptional circumstances, the government may implement a policy of protection for certain categories of asylum seekers from a specific country, a specific region, or a specific population group. Reasons for such a policy of categorical protection may be that the security and human rights situation in a specific area or for a specific group is a matter of great concern and return is not justifiable. In order to determine if such protection must be provided, the government also includes the policies adopted in this context by other European countries in its considerations. In 2009, the policy of categorical protection applied to persons originating from Ivory Coast. Until 19 May 2009, this policy also applied to persons originating from Somalia, with the exception of the regions of Puntland, Somaliland, Sool, and Sanaag.41 6.2.2

Refugee Status For the second subsequent year, there was an increase in the number of applications granted on the basis of the Convention on Refugees. In 2007, there were 485 positive decisions, in 2008, this number rose to 515, and in 2009, there were 695 positive decisions (see Table 41). This increase of 180 more positive decisions, or 35% more than in 2008, may be ascribed to the higher number of applications submitted in 2009. Iraq is again the country with the highest number of Convention refugees; 200 persons were admitted on the basis of the Convention on Refugees (see Table 40). The group of persons originating from Iraq constitutes 29% of the total number of refugees admitted in 2009. Somalia ranked second, an increase from 35 in 2008 to 95 in 2009. Just as is the case in Iraq, the security situation in Somalia has also been a matter of concern for years. Another increase was observed among Iranian persons who qualified for a residence permit on the basis of the Convention on Refugees. In 2008, 45 persons had qualified, but in 2009, this number doubled to 90. China was also listed in the top 10 of countries and ranked fourth with 55 applications granted, 5 more than in 2008. Afghanistan ranked fifth with 20 acknowledged refugees, 15 more than in 2008 (see Table 40).

41

For the reasons for ending the policy of protection for Somalia, see the EMN report (2009a): Annual Policy Report

2009, Ontwikkelingen in het Nederlandse migratie- en asielbeleid 1 januari 2009-31 december 2009 (Annual Policy Report 2009, Developments in Dutch Migration and Asylum Policy 1 January 2009-31 December 2009), p. 23 Page 37 of 66

Figure 11: Positive decisions in 2009, by gender

5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

Subsidairy Protection Humanitarian Status Status

Total

Refugee Status

Male

4380

500

1575

2305

Female

3860

195

1695

1970

In 2009 as well, the proportion of men versus women remained the same, in the sense that more men were granted a refugee status than women (see Table 41). This proportion may also be associated with the higher number of asylum applications submitted by men. The Tables 30 and 32 show that out of the 16,140 asylum applications submitted in 2009, 10,680 had been submitted by men and 5,445 by women. The same applies, however, also to the other categories of positive decisions. 6.2.3

Subsidiary Protection Status (Article 3 ECHR) Compared to 2008, the number of residence permits granted on the basis of subsidiary protection increased. In 2008, the total number of persons who qualified for this ground was 1,610. In 2009, this number increased to 3,270, a doubling of the number in 2008. A possible explanation for this increase may also be that more applications were submitted than in the previous year. Just as in 2008, the Somalis and the Iraqis constituted the largest groups of persons to whom such a protection status was granted (see Table 40). In 2009, Somalia ranked first on the list (1,155). Iraq ranked second, with 985. The two countries together made up 65% of the total number of residence permits granted. It is an increase compared to the previous year, when the subsidiary protection status was granted to 470 Iraqis and 335 Somalis. This increase may partly be explained by the abolition of the policy of categorical protection for Iraqis originating from Central Iraq in 2008. If it was established that a person originated from Central Iraq and that he or she did not qualify for an asylum residence permit on individual grounds, a residence permit was granted on the basis of this policy. These permits fall under the humanitarian status. As a result of the abolition of the policy of categorical protection, many of these applications were reassessed in 2009. The applications were reassessed on the basis of circumstances relating to the third-country nationals in person and on the basis of the security situation in Iraq at the time the decision was made. In part of the cases, this may have resulted in granting the subsidiary protection status. As already stated in section 6.1, the number of Somali asylum seekers that came to the Netherlands in 2009 was considerably higher than in the previous year. This may Page 38 of 66

partially be the explanation for the higher number of residence permits granted on the basis of subsidiary protection. It also applies to Somali asylum seekers that in mid 2009, the policy of categorical protection for Somalis was abolished. This means that applications submitted after the abolition were assessed on individual grounds. 6.2.4

Humanitarian Status Humanitarian residence permits also cover the residence permits granted on the basis of categorical protection. With regard to this type of permit as well, an increase in the number of permits could be observed compared to 2008. In total, 4,280 persons were granted a humanitarian status in 2009, compared to 3,550 in 2008. This number relates to the total number of humanitarian residence permits, consequently including the permits granted on the basis of categorical protection. Also in 2009, the major part of this group was formed by Somali asylum seekers (2,595, or 58% of the total number of permits granted on this ground). In 2008, this number was still 1,115. This doubling of the number may be explained again by a large number of Somali asylum seekers that came to the Netherlands in 2008 (see Table 40).

6.3

Dublin Transfers The Dublin Regulation42 regulates which Member State in the EU is responsible for the substantive examination of an asylum application. Another purpose of the Dublin Regulation is that the asylum application of a person is processed by one EU country only. This is to prevent people from submitting subsequent applications within the EU. The Member State where the asylum application is submitted must examine whether another Member State is possibly responsible for processing the application submitted. If another EU country is responsible for the asylum application on the basis of the provisions in the Dublin Regulation, this Member State may submit a request for transfer to this other country (the ‘Dublin claim’). If this request is honoured, the responsibility of that other country to examine the substance of an asylum application is hereby confirmed. This means that the person concerned will be transferred to the responsible Member State. The Dublin Regulation distinguishes between taking charge of and taking back the asylum seeker concerned. It is a matter of ‘taking charge’ if the asylum application has submitted an asylum application in a Member State for the first time, but this Member State is of the opinion that another Member State is responsible for processing this application. In that case, a request to take charge of the applicant is submitted. It is a matter of ‘taking back’ if an asylum seeker has withdrawn the application during the processing procedure and subsequently submits an asylum application again in another Member State. In that case, the second Member State will submit a request for the applicant to be taken back. The request to take back the applicant may also be submitted if the asylum seeker whose asylum application has been rejected subsequently leaves for another Member State and submits an asylum application again there. The second Member State may subsequently request the first Member State to take back the applicant.

42

The official name of this Regulation is: Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the

criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national. Page 39 of 66

In general, it may be concluded that the Netherlands submits more requests to other Member States than it receives. In 2009, the Netherlands submitted 3,730 requests to other Member States and it received 942 requests. What is furthermore noteworthy is the fact that the percentage of outgoing requests that were granted is fairly high. In 2009, a total of 3,402 requests were granted. The total number of incoming requests that were granted was 501 in 2009. The following caveat applies to these figures. With regard to both the incoming and outgoing requests that were granted, the requests were not necessarily always submitted in 2009. It is, for instance, possible that a request that had been submitted at the end of 2008 was not granted until 2009. Most requests to take charge of an applicant were submitted by Sweden (49), Germany (36), Belgium (30), Norway (28), and France (15). Most requests to take an applicant back were submitted by Germany (143), Belgium (131), France (125), Norway (79), and the United Kingdom (65). Most requests to take charge of an applicant submitted by the Netherlands were directed to Greece (799) and Italy (296). Most requests to take an applicant back submitted by the Netherlands were directed to Italy (752), France (239), Belgium (269), and Greece (130), (see Tables 26 up to and including 29). 6.4

Unaccompanied Minors Also the number of unaccompanied minors increased compared to the previous year. In 2008, 725 applications were submitted by unaccompanied minors. In 2009, this number increased slightly to 1,040. The proportion of boys versus girls remained the same, though. Also in 2009, the largest group was formed by the boys (83%). With 355 applications, Somalia was again the most important country of origin in 2009. In 2008, there were fewer applications, namely 200. Another noteworthy trend is the increase in the number of Afghan unaccompanied minors that came to the Netherlands. In 2008, 95 applications were submitted by unaccompanied minors. In 2009, this number increased to 320, an increase of 225 applications. This increase is difficult to explain. An obvious explanation is the poor security situation and the position of young men in Afghanistan. Child trafficking occurs on a large scale in Afghanistan.43 Another noteworthy development is the decrease in the number of applications submitted by Iraqi unaccompanied minors. In 2009, 65 applications were submitted, 120 applications less than in the previous year. This may also have been caused by the abolition of the policy of categorical protection for Central Iraq (see Tables 34 and 35).

43

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Country Report on Afghanistan, July 2010, pp. 87-88 Page 40 of 66

Figure 12: Asylum applications from unaccompanied minors

355

320 215

Somalia

Afghanistan

65

45

40

Iraq

Guinea

Eritrea

Others

Totaal 1040

Page 41 of 66

Page 42 of 66

Annex - Tables

Table 1: Total Migration, the Netherlands, 2002-2009

Overall Immigration Overall Emigration

2002 2003 121 250 104 514 66 728 68 885

2004 94 019 75 049

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 92 297 101 150 116 819 143 516 128 813 83 399 91 028 91 287 90 067 85 357

Remark on Table 1: The immigration figures up to and including 2008 are in accordance with the national definition and those of 2009 are in accordance with the Regulation. In 2009, the number of immigrants in accordance with the national definition was 144,000. The emigration figures are exclusive of the balance of the administrative corrections and in accordance with the national definition.

Table 2: Immigration by country of citizenship, age group and sex Age Country

Total

Total Declaring country EU27-countries except declaring country Extra EU-27 : Non EU27-countries nor declaring country European Free Trade Association Candidate countries in 2007 (3 countries) Countries other than EU-27, EFTA and Candidate countries Highly developed countries Medium developed countries Less developed countries Stateless Others Unknown

0-19

20-34

Sex

35-64

65 Males

Females

128 813

26 015

68 084

32 666

2 048

67 086

61 727

36 929

10 871

12 220

12 440

1 398

19 899

17 030

47 312

6 252

29 401

11 398

261 :

24 518 :

22 794 :

34 577

5 727

21 533

7 039

278

16 482

18 095

636

85

417

129

5

307

329

3 253

414

2 268

534

37

1 834

1 419

30 688

5 228

18 848

6 376

236

14 341

16 347

9 799

1 625

5 743

2 341

90

4 455

5 344

18 158

2 853

11 786

3 408

111

8 492

9 666

2 731

750

1 319

627

35

1 394

1 337

127

70

34

21

2

65

62

29

0

25

2

2

12

17

9 995

3 165

4 930

1 789

111

6 187

3 808

Remark on Table 2: The subdivision of ‘high, medium, and low development countries’ only applies to countries different from the EU Member States, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, and prospective Member States. This also applies to Tables 4, 6, 12, 14, and 16.

Page 43 of 66

Table 3: Top 10 countries immigration by citizenship Top 10 countries

Total

1. China (including Hong Kong)

3 822

2. Turkey

3 049

3. United States

2 718

4. India

2 699

5. Morocco

1 478

6. Surinam

1 014

7. Brazil

988

8. Indonesia

975

9. Japan 10. Ghana

933 865

Table 4: Immigration by country of birth, age group and sex Age Total Total Declaring country EU27-countries except declaring country Extra EU-27 European Free Trade Association Candidate countries in 2007 (3 countries)

0-19

20-34

Sex

35-64

65+

Males

Females

128 813

26 015

68 084

32 666

2 048

67 086

61 727

24 856

6 393

8 408

8 960

1 095

13 412

11 444

45 795

7 316

27 855

10 346

:

278 :

23 630 :

22 165 :

749

165

444

41 100

6

357

392

3 624

510

2 293

11 227

55

2 099

1 525

Countries other than EU-27, EFTA and Candidate countries

53 789

11 631

29 084

- 9 576

614

27 588

26 201

Highly developed countries

17 639

3 937

9 517

- 1 001

182

8 336

9 303

Medium developed countries

24 155

4 338

13 557

- 12 979

309

12 073

12 082

Less developed countries

11 995

3 356

6 010

- 2 951

123

7 179

4 816

91

37

41

12

1

47

44

Others

Table 5: Top 10 countries immigration by country of birth Top 10 countries 1. Somalia

Total 4 530


4 416

3. Turkey

3 604

4. Iraq

3 311

5. United States

3 006

6. India

2 839

7. Russia

2 564

8. Morocco

2 097

9. Surinam

1 947

10. Brazil

1 296

Page 44 of 66

Table 6: Immigration by country of previos residence, age group and sex Age Total Total European Union (27 countries) Extra EU-27 : European Free Trade Association Candidate countries in 2007 (3 countries) Countries other than EU27, EFTA and Candidate countries Highly developed countries Medium developed countries

0-19

20-34

Sex

35-64

65+

128 813

26 015

68 084

32 666

65 800

10 580

36 169

17 933

Males 2 048 1 118

:

Females

67 086

61 727

34 684 :

31 116 :

1 506

294

743

41 432

30

765

741

4 164

804

2 497

14 227

69

2 340

1 824

57 343

14 337

28 675

9 855

831

29 297

28 046

22 814

5 727

10 612

3 981

363

11 318

11 496

24 688

5 510

13 330

12 148

358

12 097

12 591

9 841

3 100

4 733

1 442

110

5 882

3 959

253

212

25

15

1

128

125

Less developed countries Others

Table 7: Top 10 countries immigration by country of previous residence Total

Top 10 countries 1. Caribbean

6 332

2. United States

5 053


4 611

4. Turkey

3 907

5. Somali

3 638

6. Iraq

2 745

7. India

2 697

8. Surinam

1 924

9. Morocco

1 690

10. Australia

1 597

Table 8: Emigration by citizenship, age group and sex Age Total

0-19

20-34

Sex

35-64

65+

Males

Females

Total

85 357

17 200

36 442

28 905

2 810

45 327

40 030

Declaring country

49 885

12 436

17 286

18 104

2 059

26 959

22 926

EU27-countries except declaring country

20 343

2 405

11 288

6 199

451

10 760

9 583

Non EU27-countries nor declaring country

14 736

2 235

7 700

4 508

293

7 379

7 357

34

30

2

2

0

19

15

2

0

1

1

0

1

1

393

124

168

94

7

229

164

Stateless Others Unknown

Page 45 of 66

Table 9: Top 10 countries emigration by citizenship top 10 countries

Total

1. United States

1 972

2. India

1 809

3. Japan

1 300


1 093

5. Turkey

1 009

6. Indonesia

639

7. Australia

542

8. Canada

436

9. Brazil

381

10. Philippines

365

Table 10: Emigration by country of next usual residence, age group and sex Age Total Total European Union (27 countries) Non EU27-countries nor declaring country

0-19

20-34

Sex

35-64

65+

Males

17 200

36 442

28 905

2 810

45 327

40 030

47 107

8 553

20 744

16 166

1 644

25 265

21 842

38 250

8 647

15 698

12 739

1 166

20 062

18 188

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

35

8

11

15

1

18

17

European Free Trade Association Others

Table 11: Top 10 countries by country of next usual residence Top 10 countries 1. United States

Total 4 471

2. Former Netherlands Antilles

4 062

3. Turkey

2 287

4. Australia

1 977

5. India

1 862


1 745

7. Switzerland

1 427

8. Canada

1 312

9. Japan

1 217

10. Surinam

1 119

Page 46 of 66

Females

85 357

Table 12: Usual Residence by country of citizenship, age group and sex, 1 January 2010 Age Total

0-19

20-34

Sex

35-64

65+

Males

Females

Total

16 574 989 3 928 334

3 011 823

7 096 504

2 538 328

8 203 476

8 371 513

Declaring country

15 839 792

2 738 931

6 800 992

2 497 788

7 838 251

8 001 541

EU27-countries except declaring county Extra EU-27

310 930

112 383

139 544

20 963

155 821

155 109

62 443

128 666

132 140

18 009

160 449

180 809

4 496

418

1 570

2 147

361

1 983

2 513

93 065

19 387

29 258

37 054

7 366

46 141

46 924

243 697

42 638

97 838

92 939

10 282

112 325

131 372

56 682

8 082

21 401

24 853

2 346

25 058

31 624

165 858

28 794

68 689

60 818

7 557

75 991

89 867

21 157

5 762

7 748

7 268

379

11 276

9 881

954

183

752

171

1 239

821

177

27

107

39

4

74

103

83 009

25 770

31 843

23 828

1 568

48 955

34 054

341 258

European Free Trade Association

Candidate countries in 2007 (3 countries) Countries other than EU-27, EFTA and Candidate countries Highly developed countries Medium developed countries Less developed countries Stateless

2 060

Others Unknown

3 802 081

38 040

Table 13: Top 10 countries usual residence by citizenship, 1 January 2010 Top 10 countries

Total

1. Turkey

90 837

2. Morocoo

66 568


19 758

4. United States

14 631

5. Indonesia

11 645

6. India

8 744

7. Surinam

6 737

8. Thailand

5 986

9. Ghana

5 407

10. Japan

5 407

Page 47 of 66

Table 14: Usual residence by country of birth, age group and sex, 1 January 2010 Age Total

0-19

20-34

Sex

35-64

65+

Males

Females

Total

16 574 989

3 928 334

3 011 823

7 096 504

2 538 328

8 203 476

8 371 513

Declaring country

14 742 479

3 758 263

2 515 153

6 127 378

2 341 685

7 322 212

7 420 267

EU27-countries except declaring country Extra EU-27 European Free Trade Association

428 147

49 399

127 550

195 487

55 711

196 094

232 053

1 404 363

120 672

369 120

773 639

140 932

685 170

719 193

9 282

1 708

2 512

4 157

905

3 936

5 346

Candidate countriesin 2007 (3 countries) Contries other than EU-27, EFTA and Candidate countries

196 983

7 013

48 666

124 782

16 522

101 796

95 187

1 198 098

111 951

317 942

644 700

123 505

579 438

618 660

Highly developed countries

292 396

37 175

91 308

150 087

13 826

135 823

156 573

Medium developed countries

771 144

50 568

174 134

439 859

106 583

366 816

404 328

Less developed countries

134 558

24 208

52 500

54 754

3 096

76 799

57 759

949

236

311

344

58

453

496

Others

Table 15: Top 10 countries usual residence by country of birth, 1 January 2010 Top 10 countries

Total

1. Turkey

196 699

2. Surinam

186 818

3. Morocco

167 416

4. Indonesia

140 657

5. Former Netherlands Antilles

86 087


52 765

7. Serbia

51 727

8. Iraq

40 936

9. Russia

35 522

10. Afghanistan

31 072

Page 48 of 66

Table 16: Acquisition of citizenship by country of former citizenship, age group and sex Age Total Total European Union (27 countries) Non EU27-countries nor declaring country European Free Trade Association

Candidate countries in 2007 (3 countries) Countries other than EU27, EFTA and Candidate countries Highly developed countries Medium developed countries Less developed countries Stateless Others Unknown

0-19

20-34

Sex

35-64

65+

Males

Females

29 754

8 935

10 176

9 613

1 030

12 989

16 765

1 881

487

554

743

97

695

1 186

20 844

5 662

7 676

6 677

833

8 563

12 281

16

4

3

9

0

9

7

4 282

1 164

1 527

1 254

337

1 915

2 367

16 546

4 494

6 142

5 414

496

6 639

9 907

2 088

428

717

912

31

623

1 465

12 101

3 227

4 632

3 810

432

4 920

7 181

2 357

839

793

692

33

1 096

1 261

158

114

19

24

1

89

69

12

0

7

5

0

4

8

7 029

2 786

1 950

2 193

100

3 731

3 298

Table 17: Top 10 countries acquisition of citizenship by country of former citizenship Top 10 countries

Total

1. Morocco

5 508

2. Turkey

4 167

3. Surinam

1 142

4. Iraq

674

5. Afghanistan

596


559

7. Ghana

411

8. Russia

400

9. Thailand

383

10. Egypt

337

Page 49 of 66

Table 18: First Residence permits by reason and citizenship

Total Total first permits by reason

Family reasons

Education reasons

Remunerated activiteis

Other reasons

56 489

23 078

9 944

10 433

13 034

1. China

5 604

1 072

2 264

1 727

541

2. Turkey

4 567

3 174

655

515

223

3. United States

4 035

1 485

1 285

1 120

145

4. Somalia

3 975

60

0

0

3 915

5. India

3 577

1 365

378

1 791

43

6. Morocco

2 291

2 036

57

55

143

7. Iraq

2 248

223

9

2

2 014

8. Indonesia

1 293

448

541

270

34

9. Surinam

1 283

1 043

141

48

51

10. Japan

1 238

635

119

470

14

Top 10 countries

Table 19: All vallid permits by reason, length of validity and citizenship on 31 December 2009

Total

From 3 to 5 months

From 6 to 11 months 12 months or over

Total

433 088

69 890

363 198

Family reasons

156 438

35 101

121 337

Education reasons

16 629

0

16 629

Remunerated activities

24 164

9 557

14 607

Other reasons

235 857

25 232

210 625

Top 10 countries 1. Turkey

88 635

8 248

80 387

2. Morocco

71 587

6 786

64 801

3. United States

18 049

3 908

14 141

4. China

21 032

3 608

17 424

5. Iraq

11 754

1 917

9 837 5 735

6. Somalia 7. Indonesia 8. India

9 476

3 741

10 222

1 494

8 728

9 456

3 447

6 009

9. Afghanistan

7 707

1 825

5 882

10. Surinam

7 209

1 361

5 848

Page 50 of 66

Table 20: Long-term residents by citizenship on 31.December 2009 Total

19 351

Stateless

3

Unknown

255 Top 10 countries

1. Turkey

8 069

2. Morocco

2 459

3. Indonesia

1 073

4. China

901

5. Thailand

800

6. United States

684

7. Russia

348

8. India

320

9. Ghana

309

10. Japan

275

Table 21: Third country nationals found to be illegaly present, by age group and sex Age Total Total

0-13

14-17

Sex 18-34

35+

Males

Females

7 565

25

325

4 875

2 340

6 590

Stateless

55

0

0

25

30

45

975 5

Unknown

410

5

20

250

135

365

50

Table 22: Top 10 countries of citizenship of third country nationals found to be illegaly present Top 10 countries 1. Somalia 2. Iraq 3. Morocco 4. Turkey 5. Afghanistan 6. Nigeria 7. China (including Hong Kong) 8. Algeria 9. India 10. Surinam

Total 850 535 520 360 350 275 255 250 225 210

Page 51 of 66

Table 23: Third country nationals ordered to leave, top 10 countries Third country nationals ordered to leave Total

35 574

Stateless

220

Unknown

1 315

Top 10 countries

Total

1. Turkey

4 095

2. Iraq

3 915

3. Somalia

2 730

4. Morocco

2 570

5. Afghanistan 6. China (including Hong Kong)

1 375 1 350

7. Surinam

1 180

8. Nigeria

1 130

9. Ghana

970

10. Iran

790

Table 24: Third country nationals returned following an order toe leave, top 10 countries Third country nationals returned following an order to leave Total

8 980

Stateless

35

Unknown

130

Top 10 countries

Total

1. Turkey

935

2. Iraq

685

3. Brazil 4.China (including Hong Kong)

535 475

5. Nigeria

435

6. Surinam

410

7. Somalia

395

8. Morocco

380

9. Ukraine

270

10. Indonesia

190

Page 52 of 66

Table 25: Third country nationals refused entry at the external borders, top 10 countries Type of border

Ground for refusal

Total

Total

Refused at the land border

Refused at the sea border

Refused at the air border

2 500

60

2 445

160

5

160

45

5

45

950

15

940

No valid travel document(s) False travel document No valid visa or residence permit False visa or residence permit

10

0

10

675

5

670

Person already stayed 3 months in a 6-months period

35

0

35

No sufficient means of subsistence

80

0

75

An alert has been issued

80

25

55

460

5

455

1. Surinam

265

0

265

2. Nigeria

245

0

245

3. Brazil

180

0

180


155

0

155

5. Turkey

140

5

135

6. Philippines

130

15

115

7. Nicaragua

115

0

115

8. Russian Federation

75

5

70

9. India

75

0

75

10. Paraguay

65

0

65

Purpose and conditions of stay not justified

Person considered to be a public threat Top 10 countries

Table 26: Incoming requests-Dublin transfers by reason for request and decision taken Incoming requests Reason for request Total number of requests Total number of taking charge requests Taking charge requests: Family reasons (Art.6, Art.7, Art.8, Art.14) Taking charge requests: Documentation and entry reasons (Art.9, Art.10, Art.11, Art.12) Taking charge requests: Humanitarian reasons (Art.15) Total number of taking back requests Taking back requests: Withdrawal of application during Dublin procedure (Art. 4.5) Taking back requests: Under examination - no permission to stay (Art.16.1c) Taking back requests: Withdrawal - new application (Art.16.1.d) Taking back requests: Rejection - no permission to stay (art.16.1.e) Total EURODAC Taking charge requests based on EURODAC

Total

Accepted

Refused

Transfered

942

501

317

323

221

92

66

42

14

0

9

0

200

92

52

42

7

0

5

0

721

409

251

281

6

70

2

44

503

115

197

77

1

2

0

1

211

222

52

159

619

426

220 :

5

7

3 :

Taking back requests based on EURODAC Total number of pending requests at the end of reference period

614

419

217 :

76 :

:

:

Total number of requests for information

931 :

:

:

Number of answers to requests for information

908 :

:

Page 53 of 66

Table 27: Outgoing requests-Dublin transfers by reason for request and decision taken Outgoing requests by reason and decision taken Reason for request Total Accepted Refused Transfered Total number of requests 3730 3402 247 1458 Total number of taking charge requests 1349 1303 110 231 Taking charge requests: Family reasons (Art.6, Art.7, Art.8, Art.14) 19 14 8 7 Taking charge requests: Documentation and entry reasons (Art.9, Art.10, Art.11, Art.12) 1324 1288 101 221 Taking charge requests: Humanitarian reasons (Art.15)

6

1

1

3

Total number of taking back requests Taking back requests: Withdrawal of application during Dublin procedure (Art. 4.5) Taking back requests: Under examination - no permission to stay (Art.16.1c) Taking back requests: Withdrawal - new application (Art.16.1.d) Taking back requests: Rejection - no permission to stay (art.16.1.e)

2381

2099

137

1227

2

18

1

17

2021

1413

117

672

1

7

0

6

357

661

19

532

Total EURODAC

2876

2942

Taking charge requests based on EURODAC

83 :

860

969

7 :

Taking back requests based on EURODAC Total number of pending requests at the end of reference period

2016

1973

76 :

363 :

:

:


1128 :

:

:

Number of answers to requests for information

1107 :

:

:

Page 54 of 66

Table 28: Total Incoming requests by Member State requesting and reason for request Taking charge requests: Family reasons (Art.6, Art.7, Art.8, Art.14)

Taking charge requests: Documentation and Taking charge entry reasons requests: (Art.9, Art.10, Humanitarian Art.11, Art.12) reasons (Art.15)

Taking back requests: Withdrawal of application during Dublin procedure (Art. 4.5)

Taking back requests: Under examination - no permission to stay (Art.16.1c)

Taking back requests: Withdrawal new application (Art.16.1.d)

Taking back requests: Rejection - no permission to stay (art.16.1.e)

Taking charge requests based on EURODAC

Taking back requests based on EURODAC


Belgium

0

29

1

0

63

0

68

0

96

111

Bulgaria

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

Czech Republic

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

Denmark Germany (including former GDR from 1991)

0

2

0

0

4

0

5

0

5

8

3

33

0

0

85

0

58

0

123

91

Estonia

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

Ireland

0

0

0

0

6

0

3

0

7

15

Greece

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Spain

3

2

0

0

1

0

4

0

3

3

France

1

14

0

5

109

0

11

5

110

41

Italy

0

0

0

0

11

0

2

0

12

7

Cyprus

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Latvia

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Lithuania

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Luxembourg

0

8

0

0

2

0

0

0

2

3

Hungary

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

2

1

Malta

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Netherlands

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Austria

0

9

1

0

3

0

2

0

4

77

Poland

0

0

0

0

3

0

1

0

0

4

Portugal

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

Romania

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

2

0

Slovenia

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Slovakia

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

3

4

Finland

0

9

0

1

15

0

6

0

21

31

Sweden

0

48

1

0

28

0

17

0

38

163

United Kingdom

5

5

1

0

65

0

0

0

57

11

Iceland

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

2

1

Norway

1

25

2

0

73

0

6

0

76

96

1

12

0

0

27

1

25

0

50

257

14

200

7

6

503

1

211

5

614

931

Switzerland Total

Page 55 of 66

Table 29: Total Outgoing requests by Member State requesting and reason for request

Taking charge requests: Family reasons (Art.6, Art.7, Art.8, Art.14)

Taking charge requests: Documentation and entry reasons (Art.9, Art.10, Art.11, Art.12)

Taking back requests: Withdrawal of application during Dublin procedure (Art. 4.5)

Taking charge requests: Humanitarian reasons (Art.15)

Taking back requests: Under examination - no permission to stay (Art.16.1c)

Taking back requests: Withdrawal - new application (Art.16.1.d)

Taking back requests: Rejection - Taking charge Taking back no permission to requests based requests based stay (art.16.1.e) on EURODAC on EURODAC


Belgium

0

5

0

0

183

0

86

0

211

Bulgaria

0

6

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

265 2

Czech Republic

1

17

0

0

21

0

9

0

24

20

Denmark Germany (including former GDR from 1991)

1

0

1

0

8

0

0

0

7

22

2

19

0

0

114

0

75

1

132

169

Estonia

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Ireland

2

2

0

0

4

0

1

0

4

4

Greece

4

793

2

0

125

0

5

573

94

45

Spain

0

13

0

0

79

0

7

3

76

39

France

1

87

0

0

186

0

53

64

181

163

Italy

0

296

0

0

734

0

18

214

682

91

Cyprus

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

3

1

Latvia

0

2

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

3

Lithuania

0

2

0

0

4

1

0

0

5

2

Luxembourg

0

0

0

0

10

0

3

0

13

4

Hungary

0

6

0

0

66

0

2

2

65

5

Malta

0

13

0

0

161

0

3

1

149

4

Netherlands

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Austria

0

5

1

0

55

0

17

0

61

45

Poland

1

12

0

0

71

0

2

0

73

13

Portugal

0

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

Romania

0

2

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

3

Slovenia

0

3

0

0

3

0

0

0

3

3

Slovakia

0

7

0

0

16

0

1

1

16

2

Finland

0

3

0

0

3

0

1

0

4

9

Sweden

0

9

0

0

81

0

36

0

106

69

United Kingdom

6

7

2

2

29

0

11

1

31

67

Iceland

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Norway

0

0

0

0

47

0

18

0

60

30

0

8

0

0

15

0

9

0

15

42

19

1 324

6

2

2 021

1

357

860

2 016

1 128

Switzerland Total

Page 56 of 66

Table 30: Asylum applicants by age group and sex Age Total

Total

0-14

14-17

18-34

Sex 35-64

65+

Unknown

Males

Females

Unknown

16 140

3 110

1 720

8 710

2 475

120

5

10 680

5 445

15

Stateless

100

30

0

50

20

0

0

60

40

0

Unknown

605

425

30

90

50

0

5

350

255

0

Table 31: Asylum applicants: top 10 countries of citizenship Top 10 countries

Total

1. Somalia

6 025

2. Iraq

2 165

3. Afghanistan

1 400

4.Iran

585

5.Eritrea

485

6. Georgia

425

7. Armenia 8. China (including Hong Kong)

370 340

9. Guinea

265

10. Mongolia

245

Table 32: New asylum applicants by age group and sex Age Total

Total

0-14

15-17

Sex

18-34

35-64

65+

Males

Females

Unknown

14 880

2 915

1 685

7 985

2 185

110

9 775

5 095

15

Stateless

90

25

0

45

15

0

55

35

0

Unknown

505

350

30

75

45

0

285

220

0

Page 57 of 66

Table 33: New asylum applicants: top 10 countries of citizenship Top 10 countries

Total

1. Somalia

5 890

2. Iraq

1 990

3. Afghanistan

1 280

4. Iran

500

5. Eritrea

475

6. Georgia 7. Armenia 8. China (including Hong Kong)

410 350 305

9. Guinea

235

10. Mongolia

235

Table 34: Asylum applicants considered to be unaccompanied minors by age and sex Age Total

Total

0-14

15-17

Sex

16-17

Unknown

Males

Females

Unknown

1 040

55

230

660

100

865

175

0

Stateless

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Unknown

20

20

0

15

0

20

5

0

Table 35: Asylum applicants considered to be unaccompanied minors: top 10 countries of citizenship Top 10 countries

Total

1. Somalia

355

2. Afghanistan

320

3. Iraq

65

4. Guinea

45

5. Eritrea

40

6. Iran

20

7. Ivory Coast

10

8. Nigeria

10

9. Sudan

10

10. Sierra Leone

10

Page 58 of 66

Table 36: Persons subject of asylum applications pending at the end of the month by age and sex Age Total

Total

0-14

14-17

18-34

Sex

35-64

65+

Unknown

Mals

Females

Unknown

16 245

1 580

1 255

9 660

3 565

185

0

11 350

4 895

0

Stateless

95

20

5

45

25

0

0

65

30

0

Unknown

360

165

25

100

60

10

0

220

140

0

Table 37: Persons subject of asylum applications pending at the end of the month by age and sex: top 10 countries by citizenship Top 10 countries

Total

1. Iraq

4 895

2. Somalia

3 765

3. Afghanistan

1 605

4. Iran

560

5. Burundi

430

6. Armenia

405

7. Georgia

370

8. Eritrea

335

9. Sri Lanka

275

10. Guinea

265

Table 38: Asylum applications withdrawn by age and sex Age Total

Total

0-14

15-17

18-34

Sex

35-64

65+

Unknown

Males

Females

Unknown

635

55

15

375

180

5

0

505

130

0

Stateless

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

0

0

Unknown

35

15

0

10

5

0

0

25

10

0

Page 59 of 66

Table 39: Asylum applications withdrawn by age and sex: top 10 countries by citizenship Top 10 countries

Total

1. Iraq

220

2. Somalia

60

3. Afghanistan

40

4. Georgia

25

5. Iran

25


15

7. Turkey

15

8. Egypt

15

9. Mongolia

15

10. Guinea

10

Table 40: First instance decisions on applications by citizenship, age and sex, top 10 countries First instance decisions

Total

Total

Total Geneva positive Convention decisions Status

Rejected

Subsidiary protection status

Temporary protection status

Humanitarian status

17 565

9 320

8 245

695

3 270

0

Stateless

100

60

40

5

10

0

4 280 20

Unknown

580

305

275

25

100

0

150

Top 10 countries 1. Somalia

6 015

2 170

3 845

95

1 155

0

2 595

2. Iraq

4 490

2 640

1850

200

985

0

665

3. Afghanistan

995

715

280

20

165

0

95

4. Iran

540

310

230

90

60

0

80

5. Eritrea

420

170

250

20

195

0

35

6. Armenia

320

245

75

10

15

0

50

7. Guinea

315

210

105

5

75

0

25


275

160

115

55

25

0

35

9. Sri Lanka

260

190

70

15

15

0

40

10. Sierra Leone

250

145

105

0

65

0

40

Page 60 of 66

Table 41: First instance decisions on applications by age, sex en granted status First instance decisions Age Total Total Rejected Positive decisions Convention status

0-14

15-17

18-34

Sex

35-64

65+

Unknown

Males

Females Unknown

17 565

3 275

1 375

9 590

3 135

180

10

11 360

6 200

5

9 320

915

590

5 980

1 760

65

5

6 980

2 340

0

8 245

2 360

785

3 610

1 375

115

5

4 380

3 860

5

695

20

25

405

235

15

0

500

195

0


3 270

735

220

1565

670

75

5

1 575

1 695

0

Temporary protection status

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4 280

1 605

540

1 640

470

25

0

2 305

1 970

0

Humanitarian status

Table 42: Final decisions on applications by granted status, top 10 countries of citizenship Final decisions

Total

Total

Rejected

Geneva Convention Status

Positive decisions


Temporary status

Humanitarian status

685

425

260

45

125

0

Stateless

15

10

0

0

0

0

90 0

Unknown

40

25

15

0

5

0

10

150

105

45

10

30

0

5

60

30

30

0

15

0

15 15

Top 10 countries 1. Iraq 2. Somalia 3. Afghanistan

65

30

35

0

20

0

4. Iran

55

30

25

10

10

0

5

5. Burundi

30

20

10

0

5

0

5

6. Sri Lanka

25

15

10

5

5

0

0

7. Armenia

20

15

5

5

0

0

0


15

10

5

0

5

0

0

9. Turkey

15

15

5

0

0

0

0

10. Angola

15

10

5

0

0

0

0

Page 61 of 66

Table 43: Final decisions on applications by age and sex, top 10 countries by citizenship Final decisions Age Total

0-14

15-17

18-34

Sex

35-64

65+

Unknown Males

Females Unknown

Total

685

145

40

350

175

10

0

445

240

0

Rejected

425

65

25

225

110

5

0

290

135

0

Positive decisoins

220

35

15

125

65

5

0

155

105

0

45

0

0

30

15

0

0

35

10

0

125

20

5

60

35

5

0

70

55

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

90

25

10

35

15

0

0

50

40

0

Geneva Convention status Subsidiary protection status Temporary status Humanitarian status

Table 44: Resettled persons by age and sex Age Total

0-14

15-17

18-34

Sex

35-64

65+

Unknown

Males

Females

Unknown

Total

370

115

30

105

90

25

0

165

205

0

Citizens of countries outside the EU-27

370

115

30

105

90

25

0

165

205

0

Stateless

10

5

0

5

0

0

0

10

0

0

Unknown

55

20

5

10

15

5

0

25

30

0

Table 45: Resettled persons, top 10 countries by citizenship Top 10 countries

Total

1. Iraq

90

2. Ethiopia

45

3. Bhutan

40

4. Eritrea

15

5. Somalia

15

6. Rwanda

10

7. Congo, the Democratic Republic of

10

8. Sri Lanka

10

9. Congo

5

10. Sudan

5

Remark on Tables 44 and 45: The data relate to invited refugees.

Page 62 of 66

Table 46: Decisions withdrawing status granted at first instance decision Total Total

770

Stateless

0

Unknown

10 Top 10 countries

1. Iraq

400

2. Somalia

135

3. Burundi

125

4. Afghanistan

25

5. Bosnia and Herzegovina

15

6. Sudan

10

7. Iran

10


5

9. Congo, the Democratic Republic of

5

10.Angola

5

Page 63 of 66

Page 64 of 66

Bibliography

Press release from Statistics Netherlands, Press release10-006 (2010), Crisis remt migratie en verhuizingen (Crisis acts as a brake on migration and relocations). Extracted from http://www.cbs.nl/nl on 8 July 2011. European Migration Network (EMN) (2009a) Annual Policy Report 2009, Ontwikkelingen in het Nederlandse migratie- en asielbeleid 1 januari 2009-31 december 2009 (Annual Policy Report 2009, Developments in Dutch Migration and Asylum Policy 1 January 2009-31 December 2009). Rijswijk: Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND), National Contact Point for the European Migration Network EMN (2009b) Gefaciliteerde terugkeer- en herintegratieprogramma’ s in Nederland (Facilitated Return and Reintegration Programmes in the Netherlands). Rijswijk: (IND), National Contact Point for the European Migration Network. EMN (2010) T

he Netherlands Annual Report on Migration and International Protection .

Statistics 1 January 2008-31 December 2008 Rijswijk: (IND), National Contact Point for the European Migration Network. Garssen, J., Wobma, E., (CBS) 6 juli 2011, Bijdrage migratie aan bevolkingsgroei relatief gering (Contribution of migration to population growth relatively small) Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) (2010a), Trendrapportage Regulier: Reguliere migratie naar Nederland in beeld. (Trend Report on Regular Residence 2010, An Overview of Regular Migration to the Netherlands) Rijswijk: Information and Analysis Centre (INDIAC) IND (2010b), Trendrapportage Naturalisatie VI: Aanvragen en verkrijgen van het Nederlanderschap door naturalisatie en optie (Trend Report on Naturalisation VI: Application and Acquisition of Dutch Citizenship by Naturalisation and Option) Rijswijk: Information and Analysis Centre (INDIAC) Ministry of Foreign Affairs (July 2010), Country Report on Afghanistan Nicolaas, H., Wobma, E., and Ooijevaar, J., 2010, Demografie van (niet-westerse) allochtonen

in Nederland (Demography of Western and non-Western migrants in the Netherlands)

Schreijenberg, A., Klaver, J.F.I., Soethout, J. E., Lodder, G.G., and Vleugel, M.J. (2009) Community Law and Family Migration – The use of Community Law by family migrants from third countries (Gemeenschapsrecht en gezinsmigratie – Het gebruik van gemeenschapsrecht door gezinsmigranten uit derde landen). Amsterdam/The Hague: WODC; Regional Plan Policy Research; Institute of Immigration, Leiden University; IND Information and Analysis Centre (INDIAC). Sprangers, A. and Nicolaas, H., 2010, Stijging aantal asielzoekers in Nederland iets groter dan in EU (Increase in number of asylum seekers in the Netherlands larger than in EU)

Page 65 of 66

United Nations, International Human Development Indicators, derived from http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ Research and Documentation Centre (WODC) and Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND), Information and Analysis Centre (INDIAC), (2009), Internationale gezinsvorming begrensd? Een evaluatie van de verhoging van de inkomens- en leeftijdseis bij migratie van buitenlandse partners naar Nederland (International family formation restricted? An evalutaion of the raised income and age requirement with regard to the migration of foreign partners to the Netherlands)

Page 66 of 66

The EMN was established via Council Decision 2008/381/EC of 14 May 2008 and is financially supported by the European Commission.

The European Migration Network (EMN) has been set up by the Council of the European Union. The EMN collects up-to-date, objective, reliable and where possible comparable information on migration and asylum. The EMN publishes reports on a variety of subjects in the field of asylum and migration. The establishment of the EMN is consistent with the aim of the EU to establish an effective asylum and migration policy. www.emnnetherlands.nl