[... means when I changed the text slightly for better understanding]
{{ two personal notes that i put in at the end}}
FOUR WEEKS IN IMMGIRATION MADNESS
Saturday Sept 6, 2014
My friend F is landing at Schiphol airport, a bit before 7am in the morning and is taken out of the cue of waiting people by police to the office of the Marechaussee (Dutch Military police) where he is interrogated about his reasons to come to the Netherlands.
F. is a black gay man with a U.S. Nationality. I've met him 2013 and the beginning of 2014 when I stayed with him in Sidney for a period of 3 months each time.
F. had been on the “signalling list” with the indication “defying surveillance”. This meant that he was not allowed to visit the Schengen countries. Since May 2012 he was off that list again, and had visited me once for 89 days without further problems.
F came on Sept 2014 with a flight from Sidney to Abu Dhabi to Amsterdam, and I was to pick him up at 7am from the airport. He came to visit me and to celebrate that we'd met 10 years ago. He has a return-ticket. After having waited for him for a while, I am called to the information desk from where I am brought to the Marechaussee. I am asked if F. is a friend of mine. I say yes. Then it is asked if this was more than 'just friends' to which I reply why he wants to know that. He is the one asking the questions here, I have to answer. I say that we are indeed in a relationship. [The official of the] Marechaussee asks what F. is doing, and I say he is writing a book of poetry. He [the officer] asks what I do and I say that I am a truckdriver. He is asking whether I wish to be F.'s “Guaranteer” since F. has not enough money with him, I say yes, but it turns out that I don't earn enough for this, ca. 1400 euro per month, [they say] it has to be 1800 euro. And F. had been on the 'signalling-list' and had overstayed his visa by almost a year, which was really way too long, says the Marechaussee. I try to explain to him that this is just another story, based on stamps in the passport, but that those stamps are not always given when leaving Europe.
The Marechaussee says that my story is not the same with what he [F.] said and that he has lied too much, and that therefore he [the officer] has to have a talk with his boss, if he gets permission to allow F. into the country. Marechaussee is leaving, a bit later a boss comes to talk with another Marechaussee, giving me a bad eye while they are discussing. I'm nervous, a bit angry, am probably giving a rather bad impression. Boss leaves, after 5 minutes the Marechaussee [officer] comes back with a negative decision, F. is denied entry into the Netherlands. The Marechaussee [officer] brings me into the reception hall. I declare that I will consult a lawyer.
I am in contact with a lawyer and at noon have a talk with him. He talks about a rapid-procedure against the Dutch government. F. knows by now that I am in contact with a lawyer and refuses to leave Saturday noon time back to Sidney. He says he wants to proceed against the denial of entry.
Saturday 6 to Tuesday 9 September 2014:
F. is left on his own until Tuesday 12.00noon, the so-called Lounge-procedure. When he says he wants to eat the response he gets is: Well, then you should have money on you yourself. For these three days he gets no food and nothing to drink. With the cash that he does hvae, ca. 80 euro, he tries to get som food but this only works when he has his flight-ticket scanned. His passport, his Australian visa-papers have been taken away from him. So 3 days without food. He can, after all, manage to get himself a sandwich via the ticket of someone else, who he pays in cash. And water from the toilets.
Tuesday September 9, 2014:
After one more attempt to deport F. by airplane, this time his name is called out and he is asked to the airplane before leving. At 12.00 noon he is taken to the office of the Marechaussee and finally brought over to Detention Center Schiphol.
There he gets a cell of his own, a bed, and, finally, some food. He is fairly exhausted. During the 3 days in Schiphol he has slept very little.
Wednesday September 10, 2014
F. gets by a bit.
Thursdy September 11, 2014
I am visiting F. [notice that physical contact is forbidden by the guidelines of the Detention Center, except during greeting and leaving] I leave him some money, so that he can buy telephone credits to call me. And a pullover, he's freezing. It turns out that he gets a summary proceeding against the State, Monday September 15th, 2014 at the court in Haarlem.
Friday September 12, 2014
While I am on the phone with him at 8.00am in the morning F is taken outside the Detention Center. I am concerned, send an sms / text message to the lawyer that they couldn't deport F. already. The lawyer answers back that this could not be, probably one more interview with the Office of Return and Leaving, standard procedure. At 9.00am I get a call from F. that he is again at Schiphol and that they want to put him on an airplane. When he says that there will be a court sitting on Monday, the Marechaussee says they know of nothing of the case and that they are just following orders. He knows how to reach the lawyer. The flight had to be announced with the lawyer in advance, and this what is happening now is outside the regular office hours. This is something the lawyer has never experienced before. At the advice of the lawyer F. is asking for asylum (around 9.30am) , and the flight is cancelled and he is taken back to the detention center, this time a different section, because he has asked for asylum.
During the entire first week it is tried to convince the IND [Dutch Immigration and Naturalization Service] that the two reasons for denying F. entry to the Netherlands are no longer valid. The first reason given is unclarity about why he comes. The second reason is not enough money.
- A number of “Love emails” through the years
- The decidions of the IND from May 2012 to take F. off the 'signalling list'
- A photo of my bank account balance of that day, around 3800 euro (I don't have internet banking)
tickets of mine from the beginning of 2013 and the beginning of 2014 which prove that I have visited Australia.
- The return ticket of F. from the fall of 2012 which indicates that he stayed 89 days, after having been taken of the 'signalling list'
- A number of recent invoices to me, which prove that I have an income.
- A written excerpt form the Dutch Chamber of Commerce and declarations that I am a lawfully operating One-Man business
- A couple of photos of us together through the years, and a short declaration about the history of our relationship
- A declaration signed by the Lawyer's office and myself, that I am willing to guarantee for F.
Bank statements of F.'s account in the U.S. showing that he receives an annuity of ca. 1000 US$ per month.
The IND sees no reason to change the decision of denying entrance.
During the meeting: my most recent bank statement of Sept 5, 2014 (balance ca 1600 euro) and 3800 euro cash and proof that they come from my bank account.
Monday September 15, 2014
The court procedure starts 11.20am in Haarlem, about detention and denial of entry.
The judge (Mr. N.O.P. Roché) asks the IND a couple of times if the given evidence of financial means are really insufficient. IND insists they are. Cash is no proof, could have been borrowed. The reason for coming to the Netherlands is not clear, the financial situation is insuffiecient, simply not enough. The judge seems shocked to learn that F. had been on the signalling list, even though this has been years ago by now. IND adds the possible danger of F. settling in the NL.due to having a relation / partnership here. {{ NOTE: confirmed by other sources: according to E.U. Laws F. would have the right to settle anywhere within the E.U. based on the E.U. nationality of his partner }}
IND claims that F. seemingly does not come for a short stay, because he has asked for asylum.
This is brushed aside by the judge.
However the judge asks me to give an official declaration of Guarantee (normally only necessary for foreigners that need a visa) and a declaration of my taxes of 2013, whereupon I say that I don't have those yet. {{ NOTE: as a US citizen F does not need a visa to come here for a short term stay as a tourist }}
I am asked about my financial status: I am a self-employed person, without personnel.
It turns out during the hearing that the order for arrest on Sept 6 has not been signed yet.
The IND is asked to as yet bring up a signed version. The lawyer says that the material that we have brought together must be enough to suspend the denial of entry. The Judge will make a final decision in a week from now.
Tuesday September 16, 2014
I am signing an official Declaration that I am willing to Guarantee for F. and this is sent to the IND and the court.
Friday September 19, 2014
A request is sent to the lawyer if he agrees that F. will not get a medical check-up, so that he can be brought to an Asylum Seekers Center. The lawyer does not give this permission. At noon, F. gets his medical check (much too late!) and at 3pm a first interview with the IND about his request for Asylum. In this interview, the identity of the person asking for asylum is established, and the way how he got to the Netherlands.
Saturday 20 September 2014
The lawyer visits F. and suggests to inform the IND that we are thinking to retract the request for asylum. F refuses to do so, because then they can deport him again immediately. I am visiting him in the AZC to celebrate that we've known each other now for 10 years. Sunday there will be the second interview with the IND about his request for asylum.
Sunday 21 september, 2014
Second interview with the IND about the request for asylum. This one is for examining the reasons for his request. F. declares that he only wanted to visit his friend, and that, after confirming with the Lawyer, this was the only way to prevent him being deported on September 12,.
Monday 22 September 2014
Negative decision by the Court. Still unclarity about the reason for F.'s coming, and not enough evidence that there would be enough money, all; of this while F. has an American allowance of ca. 1000 US$ and I am willing to be held accountable for the remaining amount of money.
We are going into appeal against this decision.
Tuesday, 23 September, 2014
The lawyer advises to now withdraw the request for asylum. There could be a deal with KLM if F. does this now. F. refuses because otherwise he would be up for deportation again. The request for asylum is still his only guarantee that he will not be put on a plane. His trust in Immgiration is not so high anymore, after what happened Friday September 12,
Wednesday, 24 September , 2014
The lawyer says that in case of a negative result for the asylum there is the chance that F. may stay in the NL and with me for 28 days, the period for going into appeal of the decision and to collect extra evidence and documents.
In the evening comes the negative decision (for now) (the intention for it)
It was expected that an request for asylum would be answered in the negative, since it was an emergency move to prevent illegal deportation before the court hearing.
The negative decision claims that F. has to leave the [Netherlands] immediately and is forbidden to enter the country (and in consequence all Schengen countries) for two years. The reason given is that his reason for coming still seems to be unclear, and there could be the danger of him settling here. Also, it is claimed that F. had no financial means and no settled place to stay and be registered. (All of this is not true) F. had abused the asylum procedure.
Thursday, 25 September
The lawyer is writing a Declaration of Perspective (a reaction to the preliminary decision about the request for asylum)
F. withdraws his request for asylum.
It is tried if F. could be put on a plane heading back to Australia the same night. He's totally had it by now, and just wants to leave. When the lawyer asks if IND are willing to let him go, they refuse. The lawyer states that this is against international law, but the IND doesn't care.
It is tried to change the original return-ticket into a flight for Friday morning, 11.20am. Then it turns out that the IND already used F.'s personal log-in code one time, to change the return-ticket for Friday 12 September, the day it was tried illegally to put F. out of the country. In order to convince te IND that F. would not stay longer than 3 months (his ticket was for 85 days) this information had at first been sent to IND. The flight of 12 September had been cancelled, because of the request for asylum. Still, it is possible to change the ticket with F.'s personal log-in code for Friday morning 26 September. In the evening DT&V [The Dutch Service for Returning and Departure] if it will be possible to put F. on that flight. The answer is negative, and the reservation is cancelled. F. gets to hear that he probably will be sent back to Sidney by Saturday.
In the evening it turns out that the IND insists on denying entry of the country and demands an immediate leaving. The lawyer things they have not even read his Declaration of Perspective. The lawyer says that we will still appeal against this decision.
Friday 26 September,
DT&V tells that the flight for Saturday will not be possible, and that it will most probably be Tuesday 30 September before F. will be put on a flight to Sidney.
ENGLISH TRANSLATION
[... means when I changed the text slightly for better understanding]
{{ two personal notes that i put in at the end}}
FOUR WEEKS IN IMMGIRATION MADNESS
Saturday Sept 6, 2014
My friend F is landing at Schiphol airport, a bit before 7am in the morning and is taken out of the cue of waiting people by police to the office of the Marechaussee (Dutch Military police) where he is interrogated about his reasons to come to the Netherlands.
F. is a black gay man with a U.S. Nationality. I've met him 2013 and the beginning of 2014 when I stayed with him in Sidney for a period of 3 months each time.
F. had been on the “signalling list” with the indication “defying surveillance”. This meant that he was not allowed to visit the Schengen countries. Since May 2012 he was off that list again, and had visited me once for 89 days without further problems.
F came on Sept 2014 with a flight from Sidney to Abu Dhabi to Amsterdam, and I was to pick him up at 7am from the airport. He came to visit me and to celebrate that we'd met 10 years ago. He has a return-ticket. After having waited for him for a while, I am called to the information desk from where I am brought to the Marechaussee. I am asked if F. is a friend of mine. I say yes. Then it is asked if this was more than 'just friends' to which I reply why he wants to know that. He is the one asking the questions here, I have to answer. I say that we are indeed in a relationship. [The official of the] Marechaussee asks what F. is doing, and I say he is writing a book of poetry. He [the officer] asks what I do and I say that I am a truckdriver. He is asking whether I wish to be F.'s “Guaranteer” since F. has not enough money with him, I say yes, but it turns out that I don't earn enough for this, ca. 1400 euro per month, [they say] it has to be 1800 euro. And F. had been on the 'signalling-list' and had overstayed his visa by almost a year, which was really way too long, says the Marechaussee. I try to explain to him that this is just another story, based on stamps in the passport, but that those stamps are not always given when leaving Europe.
The Marechaussee says that my story is not the same with what he [F.] said and that he has lied too much, and that therefore he [the officer] has to have a talk with his boss, if he gets permission to allow F. into the country. Marechaussee is leaving, a bit later a boss comes to talk with another Marechaussee, giving me a bad eye while they are discussing. I'm nervous, a bit angry, am probably giving a rather bad impression. Boss leaves, after 5 minutes the Marechaussee [officer] comes back with a negative decision, F. is denied entry into the Netherlands. The Marechaussee [officer] brings me into the reception hall. I declare that I will consult a lawyer.
I am in contact with a lawyer and at noon have a talk with him. He talks about a rapid-procedure against the Dutch government. F. knows by now that I am in contact with a lawyer and refuses to leave Saturday noon time back to Sidney. He says he wants to proceed against the denial of entry.
Saturday 6 to Tuesday 9 September 2014:
F. is left on his own until Tuesday 12.00noon, the so-called Lounge-procedure. When he says he wants to eat the response he gets is: Well, then you should have money on you yourself. For these three days he gets no food and nothing to drink. With the cash that he does hvae, ca. 80 euro, he tries to get som food but this only works when he has his flight-ticket scanned. His passport, his Australian visa-papers have been taken away from him. So 3 days without food. He can, after all, manage to get himself a sandwich via the ticket of someone else, who he pays in cash. And water from the toilets.
Tuesday September 9, 2014:
After one more attempt to deport F. by airplane, this time his name is called out and he is asked to the airplane before leving. At 12.00 noon he is taken to the office of the Marechaussee and finally brought over to Detention Center Schiphol.
There he gets a cell of his own, a bed, and, finally, some food. He is fairly exhausted. During the 3 days in Schiphol he has slept very little.
Wednesday September 10, 2014
F. gets by a bit.
Thursdy September 11, 2014
I am visiting F. [notice that physical contact is forbidden by the guidelines of the Detention Center, except during greeting and leaving] I leave him some money, so that he can buy telephone credits to call me. And a pullover, he's freezing. It turns out that he gets a summary proceeding against the State, Monday September 15th, 2014 at the court in Haarlem.
Friday September 12, 2014
While I am on the phone with him at 8.00am in the morning F is taken outside the Detention Center. I am concerned, send an sms / text message to the lawyer that they couldn't deport F. already. The lawyer answers back that this could not be, probably one more interview with the Office of Return and Leaving, standard procedure. At 9.00am I get a call from F. that he is again at Schiphol and that they want to put him on an airplane. When he says that there will be a court sitting on Monday, the Marechaussee says they know of nothing of the case and that they are just following orders. He knows how to reach the lawyer. The flight had to be announced with the lawyer in advance, and this what is happening now is outside the regular office hours. This is something the lawyer has never experienced before. At the advice of the lawyer F. is asking for asylum (around 9.30am) , and the flight is cancelled and he is taken back to the detention center, this time a different section, because he has asked for asylum.
During the entire first week it is tried to convince the IND [Dutch Immigration and Naturalization Service] that the two reasons for denying F. entry to the Netherlands are no longer valid. The first reason given is unclarity about why he comes. The second reason is not enough money.
- A number of “Love emails” through the years
- The decidions of the IND from May 2012 to take F. off the 'signalling list'
- A photo of my bank account balance of that day, around 3800 euro (I don't have internet banking)
tickets of mine from the beginning of 2013 and the beginning of 2014 which prove that I have visited Australia.
- The return ticket of F. from the fall of 2012 which indicates that he stayed 89 days, after having been taken of the 'signalling list'
- A number of recent invoices to me, which prove that I have an income.
- A written excerpt form the Dutch Chamber of Commerce and declarations that I am a lawfully operating One-Man business
- A couple of photos of us together through the years, and a short declaration about the history of our relationship
- A declaration signed by the Lawyer's office and myself, that I am willing to guarantee for F.
Bank statements of F.'s account in the U.S. showing that he receives an annuity of ca. 1000 US$ per month.
The IND sees no reason to change the decision of denying entrance.
During the meeting: my most recent bank statement of Sept 5, 2014 (balance ca 1600 euro) and 3800 euro cash and proof that they come from my bank account.
Monday September 15, 2014
The court procedure starts 11.20am in Haarlem, about detention and denial of entry.
The judge (Mr. N.O.P. Roché) asks the IND a couple of times if the given evidence of financial means are really insufficient. IND insists they are. Cash is no proof, could have been borrowed. The reason for coming to the Netherlands is not clear, the financial situation is insuffiecient, simply not enough. The judge seems shocked to learn that F. had been on the signalling list, even though this has been years ago by now. IND adds the possible danger of F. settling in the NL.due to having a relation / partnership here. {{ NOTE: confirmed by other sources: according to E.U. Laws F. would have the right to settle anywhere within the E.U. based on the E.U. nationality of his partner }}
IND claims that F. seemingly does not come for a short stay, because he has asked for asylum.
This is brushed aside by the judge.
However the judge asks me to give an official declaration of Guarantee (normally only necessary for foreigners that need a visa) and a declaration of my taxes of 2013, whereupon I say that I don't have those yet. {{ NOTE: as a US citizen F does not need a visa to come here for a short term stay as a tourist }}
I am asked about my financial status: I am a self-employed person, without personnel.
It turns out during the hearing that the order for arrest on Sept 6 has not been signed yet.
The IND is asked to as yet bring up a signed version. The lawyer says that the material that we have brought together must be enough to suspend the denial of entry. The Judge will make a final decision in a week from now.
Tuesday September 16, 2014
I am signing an official Declaration that I am willing to Guarantee for F. and this is sent to the IND and the court.
Friday September 19, 2014
A request is sent to the lawyer if he agrees that F. will not get a medical check-up, so that he can be brought to an Asylum Seekers Center. The lawyer does not give this permission. At noon, F. gets his medical check (much too late!) and at 3pm a first interview with the IND about his request for Asylum. In this interview, the identity of the person asking for asylum is established, and the way how he got to the Netherlands.
Saturday 20 September 2014
The lawyer visits F. and suggests to inform the IND that we are thinking to retract the request for asylum. F refuses to do so, because then they can deport him again immediately. I am visiting him in the AZC to celebrate that we've known each other now for 10 years. Sunday there will be the second interview with the IND about his request for asylum.
Sunday 21 september, 2014
Second interview with the IND about the request for asylum. This one is for examining the reasons for his request. F. declares that he only wanted to visit his friend, and that, after confirming with the Lawyer, this was the only way to prevent him being deported on September 12,.
Monday 22 September 2014
Negative decision by the Court. Still unclarity about the reason for F.'s coming, and not enough evidence that there would be enough money, all; of this while F. has an American allowance of ca. 1000 US$ and I am willing to be held accountable for the remaining amount of money.
We are going into appeal against this decision.
Tuesday, 23 September, 2014
The lawyer advises to now withdraw the request for asylum. There could be a deal with KLM if F. does this now. F. refuses because otherwise he would be up for deportation again. The request for asylum is still his only guarantee that he will not be put on a plane. His trust in Immgiration is not so high anymore, after what happened Friday September 12,
Wednesday, 24 September , 2014
The lawyer says that in case of a negative result for the asylum there is the chance that F. may stay in the NL and with me for 28 days, the period for going into appeal of the decision and to collect extra evidence and documents.
In the evening comes the negative decision (for now) (the intention for it)
It was expected that an request for asylum would be answered in the negative, since it was an emergency move to prevent illegal deportation before the court hearing.
The negative decision claims that F. has to leave the [Netherlands] immediately and is forbidden to enter the country (and in consequence all Schengen countries) for two years. The reason given is that his reason for coming still seems to be unclear, and there could be the danger of him settling here. Also, it is claimed that F. had no financial means and no settled place to stay and be registered. (All of this is not true) F. had abused the asylum procedure.
Thursday, 25 September
The lawyer is writing a Declaration of Perspective (a reaction to the preliminary decision about the request for asylum)
F. withdraws his request for asylum.
It is tried if F. could be put on a plane heading back to Australia the same night. He's totally had it by now, and just wants to leave. When the lawyer asks if IND are willing to let him go, they refuse. The lawyer states that this is against international law, but the IND doesn't care.
It is tried to change the original return-ticket into a flight for Friday morning, 11.20am. Then it turns out that the IND already used F.'s personal log-in code one time, to change the return-ticket for Friday 12 September, the day it was tried illegally to put F. out of the country. In order to convince te IND that F. would not stay longer than 3 months (his ticket was for 85 days) this information had at first been sent to IND. The flight of 12 September had been cancelled, because of the request for asylum. Still, it is possible to change the ticket with F.'s personal log-in code for Friday morning 26 September. In the evening DT&V [The Dutch Service for Returning and Departure] if it will be possible to put F. on that flight. The answer is negative, and the reservation is cancelled. F. gets to hear that he probably will be sent back to Sidney by Saturday.
In the evening it turns out that the IND insists on denying entry of the country and demands an immediate leaving. The lawyer things they have not even read his Declaration of Perspective. The lawyer says that we will still appeal against this decision.
Friday 26 September,
DT&V tells that the flight for Saturday will not be possible, and that it will most probably be Tuesday 30 September before F. will be put on a flight to Sidney.