Eyasu won the extradition case – now he’s being sued by the government

BERGEN (VG) The Immigration Board (UNE) believed that the constitution had been violated when the Norwegian authorities wanted to deport Eyasu Tewelde Tsegay from Norway. For the first time, the state is now contesting the UNE decision.

On March 14 and 15, Seke is scheduled to appear as a defendant in Oslo District Court. The background is his alleged actions in his home country of Eritrea nearly ten years ago.

Prosecutor Bjørn Vagle will prosecute the case for Tsegay. Wagle says the case is unique.

– Wagle tells VG that this is the first time a case like this has been brought before a Norwegian court.

On November 1, 2018, A New rule in immigration law.

It states that a foreigner who is denied refugee status because of a serious crime can be deported.

The Board of Immigration has implemented this provision, thus providing a basis for deportation – even in cases where criminal offenses were committed before the change in law took effect.

In August last year, the Norwegian Immigration Service dealt with the Eritrean case. Jurors.

A majority of the grand jury, four to three, determined that Segue’s ouster was unconstitutional. Thus the decision to extradite was annulled.

This is the first time that a grand jury, the highest body of Norwegian asylum administration, has ruled that the constitution has been violated in a deportation case.

Before Christmas, the government sued the Eritrean expatriate in order to overturn the grand jury’s decision. That too has happened for the first time.

The State contends that the majority of the Tribunal relied on the misapplication of statute and that deportation does not contravene the constitutional provision that a statute cannot be given retroactive effect.

– So the public prosecutor writes in the summons that this decision should be annulled as invalid.

UNE had already completed 44 such cases before deciding to take two cases to the grand jury.

According to UNE, in 39 cases previous decisions were confirmed and 5 previous refusals were overturned.

UNE writes on the website “They will wait to implement any alternative demands from them until the legal question of relationship with Article 97 of the Constitution is clarified”.

Eyasu Tewelde Tsegay came from Eritrea and sought protection in Norway in 2014.

In the asylum interview, he explained that he feared being imprisoned when he returned to Eritrea because he had left the country when he was forced to. national service, Among other things, it is responsible for protecting and guarding the country’s borders.

He also said that he would be responsible for the repatriation of persons who abscond while on duty.

In 2016, the UDI decided that he was ineligible for refugee status because of his actions in his home country while serving in national service, including treating prisoners.

According to the summons, he himself said in the asylum interview that he had shot people trying to cross the border illegally and had tied people up. UDI believed that this treatment should be considered torture and inhumane treatment.

He was therefore not granted asylum, but protected from returning to Eritrea. He was granted a temporary residence permit for a period of six months, which was renewed eight times.

In November 2019, the UDI decided to deport Tsegay based on new legal provisions to exclude him from the right to refugee status. The UDI believed he had committed a serious non-political crime before arriving in Norway.

The decision was appealed to the Board of Immigration, which upheld the decision to deport.

In 2001-2007 lawyer Björn Vagle was the head of the immigration board. He says the quality of work done before the change in the law in 2018 will be central to the inquiry.

– Whether a court concludes that the Constitution’s provision on retroactivity has been violated depends on whether the legislature considered the new statute in light of the constitutional prohibition on preparatory work. As the majority in Grand Jury pointed out, if this is not satisfactorily assessed, it will take less time for a court to establish that this is an unlawful retroactive effect.

– What do you think about the conditions underlying the deportation decision being the information provided by the Eritrean at the asylum interview?

– Perhaps it should be. On the other hand, my client and many others with him will experience this as a paradox. One may think that what is unfavorable to the foreigner is used against him, while information favorable to the foreigner may not always be used to the foreigner’s advantage. Honesty doesn’t pay off in any way.

According to UNE, UNE now has 20 backlog cases “on hold”. The hearing of these cases is currently adjourned till June 21 this year, but the processing time may be extended further.

VG asked what UNE thought of the grand jury’s decision, and a majority on the jury believed the change in the law in 2018 was not sufficiently weighed against the Constitution’s provision for retroactivity.

– The results in the larger group are UNE’s own results with UNE’s evaluations and results. UNE as an organization cannot have a different opinion on one or the other of the two cases dealt with by our own large committee. Those sitting on the grand jury have the right and duty to think and evaluate on behalf of UNE, communications director Bjorn Lister writes in an email to VG.

He pointed out that the ministry’s right to ask the court to review the UNE decision has existed for years.

– It is a deliberate legislated part of the organization. The ministry has not exercised that option in the past but they are doing it now and we are taking note of it. Bjorn Lister explains that the formalities are that UNE is not a party to that court case.

The Ministry of Justice and Emergency Preparedness told VG that it would not comment on a case going to court.

– Board of Immigration is an independent body. The Ministry cannot instruct or review the UNE. However, the Immigration Act allows the Ministry of Immigration to have the courts review the decision taken by the UNE. By law, the person to whom the decision applies is prosecuted, but the state covers the costs by providing free proceedings. We are not aware that this access to legal action has been used before, writes senior communications consultant Merete Romestrand.