December 6, 2012 | smh
Ben Doherty and Bianca Hall
Deported, and in danger?
Sri
Lankans sent packing by immigration officials say they are now in peril back in
homeland.
ASYLUM
seekers forcibly deported from Australia say the government ignored their
claims of persecution, granted them only one brief interview in detention and
knowingly sent them back to danger in Sri Lanka.
The
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says their forcible deportation,
and subsequent imprisonment, raises "troubling concerns" with
Australia's asylum processes.
Fairfax
Media met with members of the latest group of 50 men expelled from Australia -
38 Tamils and 12 Sinhalese who were deported last Friday - after they were
bailed from Negombo court on Sri Lanka's west coast.
Returned
Sri Lankans in Negombo. Photo:
Ben Doherty
It
comes as the Australian government agreed in the High Court on Wednesday to
reconsider the refugee claims of 56 Tamil men due to be deported this week.
Advertisement
The
men had previously been ''screened out'' of the refugee process but launched a
legal bid to have their claims heard.
In
Negombo, Megaraj Suresh, a returned Tamil man from Batticaloa, said he had been
harassed and beaten by Sri Lankan "government people" because he
campaigned for the opposition Tamil National Alliance party. He has previously
been jailed for his political activism but said Australia did not listen to his
claim.
"I
had only one interview to determine my case, they had already decided to send
us back," he said.
"They
didn't do proper research, they didn't care about my circumstance, or even look
at my documents, they were not honest in their assessment."
A
spokesman for the UNHCR in Canberra said the agency was troubled by the way
Australia was processing people's claims.
''In
principal, UNHCR has no objection to the return of people found clearly not to
need international protection,'' he said.
''However,
the first step must be a fair and accurate process to assess any protection
claims that are raised.
''The
current procedures raise troubling questions as to both fairness and accuracy,
which we have raised with the Australian government.''
An
immigration department spokesman would not respond to specific questions about
screening processes, saying: ''The department does not discuss specifics of its
discussions with clients.''
But
he said: ''The removal of these people was consistent with Australia's
non-refoulement obligations [not to return people to danger]. Since
May
2012 there has been an increasing number of people outlining that their reasons
for coming to Australia were based on economic concerns. The process and then
removal of people who make economic claims or who otherwise make unfounded
claims for protection is consistent with Australia's obligations.''
Mr
Suresh said he feared for his life and for his family.
''The
criminal investigation department has my details now, the number of my house
where I live, my phone number, everything,'' he said.
''I
have great fear for my life. I don't know what I will do.
''I
needed Australia to help me but they just sent me back to danger. Now I wait
for when the white van will come for me.''
Men
in unmarked white vans are notorious in Sri Lanka for snatching people, usually
opponents of the government, from the street or their homes.
Rajesh,
who gave only one name, said he fled Sri Lanka because of a dispute over a
house with government-allied paramilitary troops. ''I spoke honestly … about my
safety situation but they didn't want to accept my answers,'' he said.
Australian
Tamil Congress spokesman Bala Vigneswaran said one of the men marked for return
had contacted him to say he told Australian authorities he feared for his life
if he returned to Sri Lanka.
Officials
talked to the man ''for only five minutes'', Mr Vigneswaran said the asylum
seeker told him. The man tried to tell an official he was a refugee but Mr
Vigneswaran said she replied: ''No I am not here to hear all those stories, you
are going.'' He said the man ''kneeled down and begged and cried and they said,
'Please leave now', and he came back [from the screening interview] after only
three minutes''.
Leading
refugee lawyer David Manne said: ''If Australia were to summarily expel someone
without due process who had expressed fears of being persecuted that would
amount to a flagrant violation and a flagrant rejection of our obligations
under the Refugee Convention.
''The
concern here is not that all of these people are refugees - they may or may not
be - the concern is that we don't know because they have been denied basic due
process.''
The
Sri Lankan government denies allegations that anyone faces mistreatment. But
the Australian government has acknowledged persecution continues to exist in
Sri Lanka, three years since the end of the war.
At
a UN human rights meeting in Geneva last month, Australia told Sri Lanka to
''reduce and eliminate all cases of abuse, torture or mistreatment by police
and security forces … [and] all cases of abductions and disappearances''.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/asylum-officials-ignore-claims-20121205-2avx6.html
