(b) Dependent (b) Dependent AI &CCL & CORMSA LHR & STAR & RLAC RLAC & SCCT SCCT Definition should include informal care giving relationships such as where there is no formal adoption of a child by the asylum seeker or refugee but they are the primary care giver of such a child or children. Should include children above the age of majority and children who are under their guardianship. Adoption procedures either do not exist or are not functioning in war-torn countries that most refugees come from. The definition should align with international law to which South Africa is signatory including: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; General Comment on the Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children Outside their Country of Origin, The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child and the Inter-agency Guiding Principles on Unaccompanied and Separated Children of 2004. A restrictive definition of the term dependent is a violation of the principle of unity of the family, which is one of the binding principles in terms of the UNHCR Convention. RLAC therefore recommend that for the sake of uniformity and the indigent family members and dependents of the main applicant the section read as follows: “dependent in relation to an asylum seeker or a refugee, means any unmarried minor dependent child, including an adopted The Department is of the view that legally adopted children or under legal guardianship are covered by the definition. Furthermore. There is a law in the Republic that regulates issues of majority and care and therefore the Refugees Act should not venture into that. A spouse is an equal partner of and can make an application on his or her own. In cases such divorce he or she can make an application unlike if he or she is classified as a dependent.
1. Definitions 2. Exclusion from Refugee Status 4. STAR Remove provisions excluding asylum seekers from protection by the act and cessation of refugee status in general. The Department disagrees with the suggestion. STAR & MJB & AI Refugees should not face cessation of their status for engaging in any way with their home country's embassy, or for returning to their home country. Cessation should be based on the individual merit of each case. The suggestion for clarification and it is proposed that the words “in anyway” may be substituted for the words “in the prescribed circumstances” to provide clarity on instances where such re- availment may be restricted.
SCRA which is currently overburdened with reviews and taking lengthy periods of time to review RSDOs decisions. The DHA must therefore be cautious about adding more unnecessary administrative burdens like the granting of the right to work/study on the SCRA as this may lead to more pronounced inefficiencies and delayed service delivery. Increasing the administrative burdens without increasing capacity is neither tenable nor practical. Provided that a Refugee Reception Officer acts within closely and clearly defined guidelines, and SCRA retains the power of oversight, the delegation to Refugee Reception Officers of the power to assess what conditions should be imposed in particular cases would not be unlawful. In the Watchenuka judgment, the order was that "The Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs is directed to consider and determine whether the first applicant and her son respectively should be permitted to undertake employment and to study pending the outcome of the first respondents application for asylum, and to cause the appropriate condition to be endorsed upon the permit issued to her in terms of s 22 of the Refugees Act. " INCL LRC Refugees who are Doctors, Engineers, Nurses, Lawyers, Accountants etc, can contribute to a new and developed South Africa and so should not be excluded from being able to find their own employment. The right to work for asylum seekers, upheld in the 2004 Watchenuka case, is also codified by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Convention on Economic & Social Rights the right to dignity can be The view of the Department is that those who have particular skills may apply for appropriate temporary residence visas in terms of the Immigration Act, 2002.
9C(c) GBA The Standing Committee must monitor and supervise all decisions taken by the refugee status determination officers (not “may”). The comment is noted and will be considered 9E CGE On pain of “summary” dismissal and/or “disciplinary measures”, the Department may impose a “vetting investigation” on the members of the Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs and the Refugee Appeals Authority. The vetting is to be conducted in accordance with section 2A of the National Strategic Intelligence Act, which, according to this Act, includes the “use of a polygraph to determine the reliability of information gathered during the investigation”. The Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs is meant to be an independent body. The Refugee Appeal Board is a specialist administrative court. Section 12 (3) of the current Refugees Act reads that the Appeal Board must function without any bias and must be independent. The use of a polygraph is radically inconsistent with international standards when it comes to See previous related comments.
18. Asylum Seeker Visa 22(5)(c) 22(6) CGE CCR & CORMSA The person who has expressed his/her intention to seek asylum has the to remain physically present in South Africa, the renewal of the visa cannot be discretionary. Such an extension is mandatory given South Africa’s regional and international law obligations until such a time as a final decision rejecting the application for asylum has been made. RLAC are concerned by the withdrawal of the asylum seeker visa by the Director General. This provision endangers the protection of bona fide asylum seekers in that an application may be erroneously rejected by the RSDOs, and before such a person may exercise the recourses available, the Director General may decide to withdraw the visa. We therefore strongly recommend that another paragraph, paragraph (e), be introduced to read as follows: “Provided that the asylum seeker has been afforded an opportunity to exercise the right to either appeal or review the rejection as applicable, within the prescribed timeframe, and that having been afforded such an opportunity the asylum seeker has either failed to exercise the right, or having exercised the right, the Director General is convinced that there are no grounds for rendering protection (or the applicant does not meet the criteria).” Section 22(5)(c) in its current form may infringe the rights of the asylum seeker set out in terms of Section 33 of the Bill of Rights. As indicated the Watchenuka judgment has not made provision for a blanket condition, which is what the Bill proposes that each case must be assessed individually. The Department has carefully studied the judgment as has also explained this amendment in the Memo on the Objects of the Bill. The UNHCR has not submitted any comments to the Portfolio Committee and commenters cannot be a mouthpiece of the UNHCR and declare that it is unable to provide aid to asylum seekers. The department proposes to amend section 22(8)(b) to add the words “or any other charitable organisation or person” after the word “UNHCR”.