– The Mustafa case must be seen in a new light – VG

SV believes the cases are similar and will demand at the Storting that Justice Minister Monica Mæland (H) take responsibility and follow the orders of the European Court.

– The government must wake up. There are very strong arguments here that the Mustafa case should be seen in a new light, SV leader Audun Lysbakken tells VG.

SV believes that Mustafa Hasan’s case is contrary to the principle that consideration should be given to the best interests of children, when they have been in Norway for a long time.

On behalf of the party, SV representative Karin Andersen sent a formal written question to Mæland, who must respond within six working days.

The decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (UNE) earlier this fall that Mustafa Hasan will be returned to Jordan after 13 years in Norway has created a storm.

The case of Abbas and Fozia Butt also attracted a lot of attention at the time.

I have to stay despite the lies

The siblings were young when they arrived in Norway in 1989. A few years later, their mother took them back to Pakistan so they could go to school.

For three or four years, the mother traveled back and forth to Norway to renew her residence permit. He gave incorrect information that the family lived in Norway.

– After the family obtained permanent residence, the authorities discovered that the mother had lied, the Butt brothers’ lawyer, Arild Humlen, tells VG.

He says his mother was sent back to Pakistan a few years later, while the children, who were in their teens, were allowed to live with an uncle and go to school in Norway.

The Board of Immigration Appeals (UNE) wanted to deport Abbas and Fozia Butt when they came of age. UNE lost twice in district court, but won in appeal court.

Victory in Strasbourg

– In the return decision, UNE emphasized immigration regulatory considerations – that it is illegal and will have consequences to provide incorrect information, says Humlen.

He appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which in 2012 gave all its support to the brothers after eleven years of fighting against the State.

– The EMD concluded that immigration regulatory considerations could not have been as important when Norwegian authorities allowed the brothers to stay in Norway, Humlen says.

The court ruled that the state, by not implementing the return decision, had in fact made it easier for the children to be more connected to Norway.

The Strasbourg EMD unanimously concluded that the expulsion of the brothers after 17 years in Norway would constitute a violation of their human rights.

– A new legal situation arises

The Borgarting Court of Appeals considered the Butt ruling, when the court in 2017 ruled that the Board of Immigration Appeals decision to return the Hasan family is valid.

– Since then, the mother and siblings have left Norway, while Mustafa was granted temporary residence for three years. This is where the parallels to the Butt case can be drawn, Humlen says.

He believes that a new legal situation arises when the mother, who has lied, is returned to her country of origin and her children can remain in Norway.

– Immigration regulatory considerations are addressed when the person who violated the law has been sent home and received their “punishment,” in quotation marks, says Humlen.

– He thought they had learned their lesson.

Humlen believes that the state in Mustafa’s case has incurred a “positive obligation” to allow the 18-year-old to remain in Norway and calls the exit order “obviously unreasonable.”

– I thought they had learned their lesson and understood that the state acquires an independent responsibility if they allow children to stay in Norway, says the lawyer for the Butt brothers.

The decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Butt case is binding for subsequent cases of the same nature.

– It has been fulfilled throughout Europe, except Norway, says Arild Humlen.

The Justice Ministry informs VG that they have received a written question from SV about the case and says that they will not comment on it in the media until they have responded to SV’s representative Karin Andersen at the Storting.

UNE: They weighed different considerations

The Board of Immigration Appeals maintains that immigration regulatory considerations and strong human considerations were weighed when the Hasan case was heard in 2016.

Subsequently, the Borgarting Court of Appeal unanimously determined that the return decision was valid. This ruling is final, says UNE in its statement.

– UNE sees quite a few cases where asylum seekers, including families with children, claim to be from a different country than they actually are, UNE writes.

The UNE will not make exceptions in individual cases.

Postponed exit period

SV has proposed to halt all return cases involving asylum-seeking children in the long term until the practice of the Board of Immigration Appeals has been reviewed.

– If political initiatives in this case end in rule changes, UNE decision makers will, of course, follow the new rules, UNE writes.

The 18-year-old Jordanian has had his exit deadline extended to December 28. Your attorney has filed a lawsuit against the state.

If Hasan’s case is brought back to court, UNE will evaluate the content of the summons notice and see if it indicates that the case is being evaluated differently than before.

– Then it is also considered whether there should be the opportunity to continue being in Norway while the case is processed at UNE or in the courts, UNE writes in its statement.