[ad_1]
PROTESTS: – The Mustafa case is an example of breach of the law, believe the authors of the post. Photo: Xueqi Pang
In the case of Mustafa Hasan, it is difficult for VG, in our opinion, to reproduce incorrect information about the Mustafa case in a leadership position.
This is a chronicle. The chronicle expresses the attitude of the writer. You can submit articles and discussion posts to VG here.
ØYVIND TRYDAL,
JULIA LYSGAARD SHIRAZI,
ELLEN HØVIK, support group for Mustafa Hasan
VG writes: “In the unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal of 2017, there is no room for doubt. Mustafa Hasan has no right to stay. The decision that you should leave Norway is confirmed. “We believe this to be incorrect as the prosecution of the case can be discussed.
The UNE says Mustafa Hasan should be expelled because his mother “lied”, “gave incorrect information about his identity” and that “serious violations” were committed. The mother said she was Palestinian and showed her Palestinian passport when she arrived in Norway. That’s right. He was born and raised in Nablus, Palestine, and his children also have a Palestinian passport. The mother says that she is forcibly married to a man in Jordan and that she also has citizenship there.
When she fled from her husband and arrived in Norway, she did not declare that she also had Jordanian citizenship because she had left her husband. She and the children were granted a residence permit on the grounds that the mother had “I hide his Jordanian citizenship.” However, he has not given a false identity or shown false passports.
also read
VG LEADER: Mustafa and Norwegian law
According to Immigration Law §38, important immigration regulations must be taken into account if “the child’s parents have actively opposed the clarification of their own identity.” Less important is “that the child’s parents have not been able to prove their own identity.” But nevertheless; the law says “Yes, the stronger the child’s bond, the more it takes to emphasize immigration regulatory considerations.”
When the complaint was filed, Mustafa had just turned 17. UNE has taken three times longer to treat this case than in an average case, a total of 437 days. The mean treatment time is 122 days.
That Mustafa was 18 years old before receiving a response to the complaint is not his fault. It also remains in the care of children and the best interests of children will continue to be emphasized even if they have reached the age of majority, up to 23 years, in accordance with the Norwegian child welfare law.
UNE assures VG and NRK that “Mustafa Hasan’s case has been processed in the district court and in the appeals court, where UNE was confirmed.” This is misleading information. Mustafa’s situation was seen as a family unit with his mother and little sister, and the court assumed that they had a large family in Jordan who would take care of them. The decision was based on assumptions and it has been shown that he does not vote.
also read
That is why Mustafa should be allowed to stay
Mustafa’s case alone, after the mother was expelled from the country, has yet to be examined in court. The case has been evaluated by the UNE and also resolved by a single committee president, because he considered that there was no basis for doubt. This despite the fact that Mustafa is probably the child who has not stayed in Norway the longest. The UNE will ensure that the legal security of vulnerable whistleblowers is protected. It does not appear to have been fixed in this case. The case should have been handled by a three-person court, or a four-person grand court, two of whom were appointed by organizations working with refugees.
This government amended Immigration Law §38, §8-5 in 2014 so that the best interests of children and the “connection to the kingdom through prolonged residence” have special weight before immigration regulatory considerations when the children had been in the country for more than three years, and the longer residence should mean more for the decision. That’s what this case is about. UNE has ignored this.
The VG leader notes that “in difficult cases, it is extremely important that UNE, on behalf of the Norwegian state, adhere to some basic principles.” We fully agree with that. The rule of law and equal treatment are very basic. Therefore, it is important that factual errors are addressed.
VG should be honored to raise the Mustafa case which is interesting because it is perceived as very unfair. Let VG in the leadership position then become a pitch, the newspaper did not dress well. This case is an example of non-compliance with the law. People sympathize with Mustafa Hasan. This is because the case violates the sense of justice and the guidelines of the law have not been followed. Legal certainty must also apply in asylum cases.
