A Statement of Objection to Forced Repatriation
13th January 2015
On the 18th of December 2015, the Ministry of Justice forcibly repatriated a number of people. Thiswas done using a chartered aircraft. According to press releases and press conferences conducted by
the Ministry of Justice, 32 people were deported in total. There were 26 Sri Lankans (25 men andone woman) and six Vietnamese people (all men). The youngest deportee was 25, and the oldest was64. There were 31 men and one woman aboard the plane. The total cost of the operation was \40million.
The deportees included a Sri Lankan refugee, A-san, whom RAFIQ had been supporting.
We strongly oppose the detention and forced repatriation of refugees.
1.

Sudden Re-Detention of Refugees, without Attempts to Persuade them to Repatriate
Voluntarily
A-san was provisionally released from an immigration detention centre in 2008. Since hisrelease, he had presented himself every month without fail to renew his provisional release.
When he presented himself in November last year, there was no indication that he would be
returned to his country of origin.
When A-san went to renew his provisional release on the 17th of December 2014, however, he
was suddenly re-detained. This re-detention took place despite the fact that there was no risk ofA-san absconding.
On the same day, A-san was taken to Tokyo, and on the following day he was deported on board
a chartered aircraft.
No one attempted to persuade A-san to repatriate voluntarily, and the reason for his re-detention
has not been made clear. He was deported without even being given a moment to think about
what was happening.
Didn't he need a reason for his re-detention? Shouldn't attempts have been made to persuade him
to return to his country voluntarily?

2.

Detention and Deportation of Refugees without Guarantors Being Informed
A-san's guarantor is a RAFIQ member.
On the 17th, we heard that A-san had been re-detained. On the 18th, we went with A-san'sguarantor to the Osaka Immigration Bureau to meet A-san and confirm what had happened. (We
did not find out until later that A-san had already been deported at this point.) Until we went tothe Immigration Bureau, A-san's guarantor had not been contacted at all.
A refugee's guarantor is the person who ensures there is no risk of them absconding. They should
be informed of the facts and the reasons for a refugee's re-detention.

3.

Re-Detention and Deportation of Refugees
A-san is a member of a minority group in Sri Lanka. He came to Japan and applied for asylum.
His older brother has been granted asylum in Canada. A-san's application for asylum in Japan
had been denied, however, and as such he was preparing to take his case to court. TheImmigration Bureau had been informed of this. Nevertheless, he ended up being deported to hishome country, where he had been persecuted.
Presenting refugees with written deportation orders and detaining them in immigration detention
centres violates article 33 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (thenon-refoulment principle), which forbids repatriation. Such actions have been repeatedly
condemned by international human rights organisations. The state must uphold thenon-refoulment principle while refugees are present in Japan. In other words, it must makeefforts not to deport refugees.
Furthermore, the Refugee-Recognition Act allows refugees the right to take their case to court
within six months of their applications being declined. This right is being taken away from them.

4.

Repatriation to Unstable Home Countries
Presidential elections were due to take place in Sri Lanka on the 8th of January 2015. Ever since
the elections were announced in December 2014, the situation in the country has been unstable.
According to Human Rights Watch, "this will be an election exposed to violence andoppression".
The refugees were deported on the 18th of December, shortly before these elections.
Deporting refugees to unstable countries in this manner is dangerous. Depending on the resultsof the election and the country’s situation after the election, it is likely that these refugees havebeen deported to a country where they have a "well founded fear of persecution".
For the reasons given above, we strongly object to the forced repatriation of these Sri Lankan
refugees.
RAFIQ (A Network that Works with Refugees who Live in Japan)