Talk of illegal immigrants, asylum-seekers and refugees in the local media since 2002 has usually been couched in emotional, impressionistic rhetoric, often starting by the misleading confusion of all three categories as “refugees”, given that human news stories often tend to be intrinsically sensational.

This general profile here is from original sources regarding asylum appellants in Malta during 2006. It is a follow-up to my graphically illustrated findings for 2005 carried as a centre page spread in The Sunday Times entitled “Malta’s changing immigration and asylum discourse” (29 January 2006, pp. 46-47). It is an empirical reflection of the concern with “freedom” on one hand and “security” on the other in the EU’s ongoing “Challenge” project of which I am a research partner, which in 2005 held a conference in Malta comparing situations on the Southern and the Eastern borders of the Union; and largely based on data archived at the Refugee Appeals Board.

In addition to an analytical, illustrated breakdown by category compiled for appellants mainly during the calendar year 2006, this review seeks to offer some comparisons of the prevailing situation as this has been shifting and changing during the past two years or so, as illegal arrivals by boat continued apace, at the same time that many applied and then appealed after their tourist visas had expired.

The situation is somewhat less static than it seems, although Libya remains the main conduit for human trafficking. Changes continue into 2007, prompting new investigative categories in the case of appellants having a criminal background and, more recently, for those who specifically state that they choose to come to Malta or left their own country in order to do so, giving reasons for that. The very appearance of such a category, however small, is noteworthy. From the reasons given, it would seem that their intentions are motivated to a greater or lesser extent by the following five factors: the existence of democracy and human rights in Malta; Malta’s membership of the EU and therefore an obligation to help them; the ready provision of board and lodging as well as other forms of material assistance; the government’s policy generally not to send back failed asylum seekers (for example from West Africa) or an inability to do so; and the fact that appellants allegedly have “no one left” (relatives, friends, etc) in their own country of origin, thus implying that they however now have contacts on the island of Malta.

For the first time, therefore, a breakdown is given here of the “reasons for requesting asylum” in Malta; this will be further elucidated in due course. I only had this additional field of systematic inquiry introduced in dossier analyses towards the end of 2006; so the figures covered here, in so far as this new category is concerned, for the time being relate only to the period from November 2006 to May 2007. Other figures and percentages relate to total numbers of cases which the Refugee Appeals Board adjudicated from 1 January to 31 December 2006. These comprise: the real or alleged country of origin; the country of last departure and the length of stay there (months, years, etc); formal education if any; gender; legal or illegal entry; religion; age group; and, as already mentioned, the reasons given for claiming asylum. In the past two years it was only in a few cases that recommendations made in the first instance were overturned and refugee status granted; the rest were manifestly unfounded or otherwise ineligible as Convention refugees.

Rising number of appeals

The total number of appeals received during 2006 from asylum-seekers who had been turned down at first instance or who – the majority of applicants – had been granted a temporary humanitarian protection, was 732. In accordance with the general trend since 2001/2, the number of appellants has been generally on the rise.

This is mainly because NGO assistance, facilitating recourse to both applications and appeals, has steadily consolidated, with fill-in-the-blank forms being made available to anyone who could benefit from the prospect of asylum. Equally, however, appeals over the last two years, particularly ones that may be adjudicated, have increased considerably thanks to an improvement in the provision by the Justice and Home Affairs Ministry of free legal aid by a specialised pool, in accordance with recommendations which had been made by the Refugee Appeals Board. As the law grants appellants the right to legal aid, the Board felt that it was unjust to adjudicate anyone who had asked for legal aid without him or her having received it. This situation how now improved so that not only has the number of appeals increased but the backlog in their adjudication has greatly decreased, sometimes it being reduced to nil, or decisions taken within a few weeks or less.

The profile of the Malta appeals caseload becomes clearer below from the evidence and analyses about the various categories researched, and should help the public understand why the vast majority of such appeals were judged to be ineligible for refugee status at law. In spite of a number of open hearings in which the Refugee Commission’s decisions were fully re-scrutinised, it was rarely possible to reverse judgments; saddest of all was one such case where an appellant turned up for the open hearing with his lawyer (and his young, pregnant Maltese partner, who was actually married to another Muslim from another country) but, soon after his rejection, it transpired from the court columns in the press that he had been criminally charged with a serious offence, by which time however he had eloped. During 2007 there were four reversals of recommendation at appellate stage concerning two persons from a West African country and two from a North African one; these were granted refuge status.

The countries of origin

During 2006, the country or alleged countries of origin were the following, in descending numerical order:

Sudan: 182 (24.86%); Eritrea: 108 (14.75%); Ethiopia: 91 (12.43%); Niger: 69 (9.43%); Ivory Coast: 64 (8.74%); Nigeria: 41 (5.60%); Togo: 33 (4.51%); Somalia: 30 (4.10%); Liberia: 18 (2.46%); Ghana: 17 (2.32%); Palestine: 14 (1.91%); Iraq: 9 (1.23%); Sierra Leone: 9 (1.23%); Chad: 8 (1.09%); Burkina Faso: 8 (1.09%); Algeria: 7 (0.96%); Mali: 5 (0.68%); Syria: 4 (0.55%); Turkey: 3 (0.41%). Others: Benin, Cameroon, India, Libya, Morocco, Senegal, Tunisia, Democratic Republic of Congo (2), Guinea Bissau, Zimbabwe: 2%.

In percentage terms, this situation shows a notable increase in those from or claiming to be from the Sudan (up from 10% to nearly 25%) because of or in relation to the Darfur conflict; as well a big jump from 4-5% for Eritrea and Ethiopia, especially the former, where a relentless war-like dictatorship holds sway, increasingly bent, according to reliable BBC reports and interviews, on also Muslimising the country’s large Christian population (several of whom have sought refuge in neighbouring Ethiopia, where Christians are not persecuted).

Ivory Coast has decreased from 11%, but Nigeria has gone up from 3%, while Togo was hardly a consideration at all until now. Somalis or alleged Somalis decreased markedly, down from 20%; Liberia also decreased from 3%, partly perhaps because the political situation improved following the end of internal fighting accompanied by democratisation and elections. Inexplicably, but mostly for economic reasons and the European quest, Ghanaians became a factor, whereas before they were not, although Ghana remains a reasonably safe, democratic country. Here it may be noted that not a single Ghanaian arriving illegally (and generally undocumented) in Malta, usually from Libya by boat, has been repatriated.

Palestinians declined from 8% to less than 2%, as did Iraqis, down from 3%. Turks, mainly claiming Kurdish nationality, declined markedly from 7%, although it is not known that failed Turkish asylum-seekers have been repatriated on the regular direct Air Malta route to Istanbul in recent years. Noteworthy caseloads which figured somewhat in 2005 but ceased to do so in 2006 include mainly South Asians (Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis) and nationals from the Democratic Republic of Congo (down drastically from 12%), possibly as a result of peace-keeping initiatives there.

With the exception of one-offs (Kyrgyzstan, Serbia, Senegal, Tunisia), the nationality profile of illegal immigrants seeking asylum in Malta has remained characterised by sub-Saharan Africans, mainly from East, Central and West Africa, traveling more or less by the same means via the same land-and-sea routes. What is less clear is the percentage of those arriving by air, who arrange to stay on expired visas or otherwise, most of whom would be from Arab countries, the Balkans, the Caucuses, South Asia or the Far East, including China, and only very occasionally from, say, Nigeria. Most of these do not seem to apply for asylum preferring other integration alternatives through networking, work permits, inter-marriage, etc.

Part II will be published

on Wednesday