Meeting with IOM

15 June 2016

This is a report of the meeting on 15 June 2016 between Australian NGO and community representatives with the International Organization for Migration (IOM).

The representatives from Australian NGOs and the community were Louise Olliff, representing the Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA), and Carmen Lazar, representing the Assyrian Australian Association (AAA). They met with the IOM representatives, Mohammed Abdiker (Director, Department of Operations and Emergencies) and Michael Gray (Chief, Resettlement and Movement Management Division).

Resettlement administration and (government) regulation

Concerns were raised by AAA about the short timeframe (14 days) given to complete paperwork and security clearances for people granted resettlement in Lebanon. AAA noted a lack of IOM support with this process, as well as instances of IOM and Lebanese security requesting large amounts of money for processing.

In response, IOM explained that part of the reasons for these issues fall to exit permission, a process which varies in different countries. The two governments involved (in this case, Australia and Lebanon) govern this process, and IOM has little leverage to change the exit permission process.

As an example, in Lebanon the exit process is not set out in clear regulations. If someone is documented, it is a more straightforward bureaucratic process. For those undocumented (for example, where a person’s visa has expired, or they have entered Lebanon without a visa), the process is more complicated and also expensive. It was believed that for persons within this latter category, the Lebanese GSD (department governing this process) charged about $900.

Different approaches to exit permission and resettlement was also discussed in the Canadian context. IOM suggested that the Canadian government used diplomatic dialogue to negotiate the exit permission process for the 25,000 Syrians they resettled. This waiver or modification of the standard exit permission process for Syrians departing Lebanon for Canada will expire at the end of this year, and it is likely things will slow down for Canadian resettlement as a result.

Agents

Concerns were raised regarding ‘agents’, or persons claiming to represent IOM in diaspora communities. In response, it was suggested that not all agents were necessarily ‘evil’ in their intentions and some have been known to provide useful services. However, IOM welcomed the message being spread to diaspora communities that any persons claiming to represent the organisation and requesting money should provide a receipt for any money that is handed over. AAA noted that they would convey this message through Assyrian networks, with IOM to provide additional material on agents and what to do if someone has been defrauded of money.

Assisted Voluntary Returns

There was a discussion on the return of persons to Iraq in ISIS liberated areas, and the role of IOM in supporting and monitoring these returns. In response IOM reported that, as on June 15, there are no organised returns to these areas in Iraq. However, the organisation noted that there are and have been spontaneous returns, where IOM has been involved with interagency convoys assessing the situation when populations do organically return. It was noted that the situation is quite fluid.

RCOA raised concern about the “voluntariness” of returns from Australia, particularly those persons returned from detention environments. IOM conveyed the complexity of voluntary returns to insecure areas, which is a topic of much discussion and debate within the organisation. As an example, they noted Somalis in Yemen turning up at IOM offices saying they wish to return to Somalia, and many Iraqis in Europe (Germany) also asking to return to Iraq in the context of desperate situations in Europe. Although acknowledging that this is a difficult area to work in, as many people are making decisions in highly insecure contexts, IOM explained that they try to respect people’s wishes whilst dealing with “messy realities” and states threatening to forcibly deport people (for example, European states). They would rather see dignified returns.

Field office locations

In discussion, RCOA raised concerns from diaspora communities about issues arising in field office locations, particularly those within the Asia Pacific region such as Malaysia and Indonesia. They questioned how issues, such as those raised by the AAA regarding government regulation of exit permission, could be conveyed and discussed with IOM in the future.

RCOA also provided specific information about the concerns raised by communities with links in Indonesia about the lack of access to IOM, lack of engagement on programming, and resulting problems (for example,only some have access to IOM support, people surrender themselves to detention to access IOM accommodation, tensions created by those with IOM support getting a high stipend by local terms). In response, IOM suggested trying to organise a meeting with its Asia division.

Follow-up items:

IOM suggested that advocacy could be done with the Australian Government, to see whether they could influence the process of exiting Lebanon through diplomatic dialogue with Lebanese Government. It was noted that Australia, as a State, was more likely to have the necessary standing and leverage over Lebanese government to influence Lebanon than the IOM.

IOM welcomed the message being spread to diaspora communities that any persons claiming to represent the organisation and requesting money should provide a receipt for any money that is handed over. AAA noted that they would convey this message through Assyrian networks, with IOM to provide additional material on agents and what to do if someone has been defrauded of money.

RCOA to follow-up possibility of meeting with IOM Asia division (Bangkok) to discuss issues in Malaysia and Indonesia.

1