ANNUAL REPORT - European Commission · Rapportage Vreemdelingenketen: periode juli-december 2009 (Report of the organisations cooperating in the immigration process: period July-December

ANNUALREPORT on Migration and International

Protection Statistics

Annual Report 2009 on Migration

and International Protection Statistics

in the Netherlands

Date October 2011

Status Final

INDIAC- NL EMN NCP | Annual Report 2009 | August 2011

Page 3 of 66

Colophon

Title Annual Report 2009 on Migration and International

Protection Statistics in The Netherlands

Subtitle October 2011

Status Final

Author mrs. M.H. Belevska

Policy Officer

[email protected]

Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations

Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND)

Implementation Policy Department

IND Information and Analysis Centre (INDIAC)

Dutch national contact point for the European Migration

Network (EMN)

Dr. H. Colijnlaan 341 | 2283 XL Rijswijk | The Netherlands

P.O. Box 5800 | 2280 HV Rijswijk | The Netherlands


Page 5 of 66

Executive Summary

This Annual Statistical Report contains the most important statistics on migration,

international protection, and the prevention of illegal entry and illegal stay in the

Netherlands in 2009. It provides information on recent trends and important

differences with previous years.

Since 2008, the Member States have been obliged to provide statistics to Eurostat,

the Statistical Office of the European Union, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No

862/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on

Community statistics on migration and international protection.

Statistics Netherlands provides Eurostat with all data with regard to legal

immigration, emigration, population and the acquisition of Dutch citizenship, illegal

immigration, return, border control, and international protection.

Immigration

According to national statistics, nearly 144,000 persons immigrated in 2008. In

2009, this number was over 146,000 according to national statistics. Measured

according to national criteria, there was consequently an increase compared to

2008. According to European statistics, however, this number was over 128,000.

The difference is due to the fact that different definitions were used. Approximately

17,000 immigrants left again within the year and consequently do not comply with

the definition of the Regulation.

Emigration

With regard to emigration, it is noteworthy that the declining trend was also visible

in 2009. In 2008, the number concerned was over 90,000 persons. In 2009, this

number dropped to over 85,000.

Legal migration

Just as in 2008, family reasons formed the most important purpose for third-country

nationals to come to the Netherlands in 2009. In total, 23,078 residence permits

were granted for this reason for stay. Compared to 2008, there was a slight

decrease of 3%. Just as in 2008, the largest groups were formed by third-country

nationals with Turkish nationality (14%) and Moroccan nationality (9%).

Labour migration formed the second important reason for third-country nationals to

come to the Netherlands. In 2009, Indians formed the largest group of third-country

nationals who obtained residence permits for reasons of labour. The Chinese ranked

second.

Study was the third important reason for third-country nationals to come to the

Netherlands. Migration for study purposes showed an upward trend. In 2008, the

largest group of third-country nationals that obtained residence permits for study

purposes was formed by Chinese students.

Illegal immigration and return

In total, 7,565 persons were placed in detention. This number remained

approximately the same as in 2008 (7,505). The three largest groups were formed

Page 6 of 66

by Somalis (850), Iraqis (535), and Moroccans (520) respectively.1 What is

noteworthy is the decrease in the number of Chinese that were placed in detention

from 605 in 2008 to 255 in 2009, as well as the increase in the number of Somalis

from 295 in 2008 to 850 in 2009. This decrease in the number of Chinese is, in all

likelihood, caused by a decision of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the

Council of State in 2008. This Division judged that - in respect of Chinese without

travel documents - there was no longer a prospect of expulsion. In 2009, 8,980

third-country nationals left the Netherlands demonstrably. This is slightly less than

the year before (9,350). In this context it should be pointed out as well that –

according to national definitions – the number of third-country nationals that left

demonstrably is higher (10,400).2

Applications for international protection asylum

In 2009, more asylum applications were submitted than in 2008. In total, 14,880

new asylum applications were submitted. Just as in previous years, more than half

the number of asylum seekers came from Somalia and Iraq. In particular the

number of applications submitted by Somalis increased in 2009. The policy of

protection for asylum seekers from Central- en South-Somalia was abolished on 19

May 2009. However the number of asylum seekers from Somalia did not decrease

until the last quarter of 2009.

The number of asylum applications submitted by unaccompanied minors also

increased compared to the year before. In total, 1,040 applications were submitted;

this is 314 more than in 2008. In the majority of cases, the applications were

submitted by boys (83%) and most of them originated from Somalia (355) and

Afghanistan (320).

1Third-country nationals are persons who are not nationals of the Union within the meaning of

Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 on Community statistics on migration and

international protection. 2 Rapportage Vreemdelingenketen: periode juli-december 2009 (Report of the organisations

cooperating in the immigration process: period July-December 2009), to be consulted on

www.rijksoverheid.nl


Page 7 of 66

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY—5

Contents—7

List of Abbreviations—9

1 Introduction—11

2 Methodology—13

3 Legal Immigration and Integration—17 3.1 International Migration, Usually Resident Population, and Acquisition of

Citizenship—17 3.1.1 International Migration Flows—17 3.1.2 Usual Residence—18 3.1.3 Acquisition of Citizenship—19

3.2 Residence Permits and Residence of Third-Country Nationals—20

4 Illegal Immigration and Return—25 4.1 Prevention of Illegal Entry and Stay -Apprehensions—26 4.2 Returns—27

5 Border Control—31 5.1 Prevention of Illegal Entry and l Stay: Refusals—31 5.2 Relationship between refusals, apprehensions and returns—32

6 Asylum: International Protection—33 6.1 Applications for International Protection—33 6.2 Decisions on International Protection—34 6.2.1 General Developments—35 6.2.2 Refugee Status—37 6.2.3 Subsidiary Protection Status (Article 3 ECHR)—38 6.2.4 Humanitarian Status—39

6.3 Dublin Transfers—39 6.4 Unaccompanied Minors—40

ANNEX - TABLES—43

BIBLIOGRAPHY—65


Page 9 of 66

List of Abbreviations

COA Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers

DJI Custodial Institutions Agency

DT&V Repatriation and Departure Service

EFTA European Free Trade Association

EC European Community

EMN European Migration Network

EU European Union

Eurostat Statistical Office of the European Union

ECHR European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms

GBA Municipal Personal Records Database

IND Immigration and Naturalisation Service

INDIAC IND, Information and Analysis Centre

IOM International Organisation for Migration

KMar Royal Netherlands Marechaussee

NCP National Contact Point

Page 10 of 66


Page 11 of 66

1 Introduction

This Annual Report on Migration and International Protection Statistics 2009

contains the most important statistics on migration, international protection, and the

prevention of illegal entry and illegal stay in the Netherlands in 2009. This Annual

Statistical Report presents developments and differences with previous years and

explains them where possible. This report is a product of the Dutch National Contact

Point (NCP) for the European Migration Network (EMN), which is located under the

Information and Analysis Centre (INDIAC) of the Immigration and Naturalisation

Service (IND).

The EMN is an initiative of the European Commission and finds its legal basis in the

Council Decision 2008/381/EC of 14 May 2008. The objective of the EMN is to meet

the information needs in the area of migration and asylum. In order to support

policymaking in the European Union in these areas, the EMN provides up-to-date,

objective, reliable, and comparable information. The EMN also has the task to

provide information on these subjects to the general public.

The EMN National Contact Points contribute to achieving this objective, among other

things, by drawing up Annual Statistical Reports. The present report is the seventh

edition of the Annual Report on Migration and International Protection Statistics

(formerly called Annual Statistical Report on Asylum and Migration). The European

Commission compiles the results of the various country analyses into a comparative

European report.

Just like the report for 2008, the report for 2009 has been drawn up in accordance

with the Migration Statistics Regulation3 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulation’).

This report presents the statistics for 2009. The reason that it was not issued until

2011 is that the statistics on international migration, population, and the acquisition

of the Dutch citizenship are only available after 12 months.

Since 2008, all Member States of the European Union are obliged to provide

statistics on migration and international protection to Eurostat in accordance with

the Regulation. This ensures that each Member State provides data in a uniform

manner in accordance with a predefined format.

Also in 2009, the countries of origin (countries outside the EU27, EFTA4 and the

prospective Member States) were classified on the basis of their levels of

development. This classification is made on the basis of the Human Development

Index developed by the United Nations. Countries are classified as high, medium or

low human development countries. Criteria that affect this classification are life

expectancy, literacy, access to education and gross national product per capita.5

The structure of this report is derived from the specifications that have been

developed jointly by the European Commission and the NCPs. All countries describe

their national situation in the same manner. This facilitates comparison among the

reports of the different countries.

3 This is Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 on Community statistics on migration and international

protection. 4 EFTA stands for European Free Trade Association of which Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and

Switzerland are members. 5 http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/hdi/

Page 12 of 66

Chapter 2 explains the methodology followed in the present report.

Chapter 3 focuses on legal migration and integration. This chapter provides, among

other things, information on how many people in total immigrated into the

Netherlands in 2009. In addition, this chapter provides a description of how many

regular residence permits were issued to third-country nationals. Where possible, a

comparison with statistics from 2008 is made in this context. Closer examination has

revealed that some statistics included in the report for 2008 have changed. In this

chapter, the corrected statistics for 2008 are compared with figures for 2009.

Chapter 4 provides a description on the developments with regard to illegal

immigration to the Netherlands in 2009. In addition, data on the return of third-

country nationals are discussed.

Chapter 5 deals with border control. In this chapter, information is given on how

many third-country nationals were apprehended and how many third-country

nationals were refused entry to Dutch territory.

Chapter 6, in conclusion, provides a description of all developments in the area of

international protection: the number of asylum applications and the number of

decisions, relevant trends and policy developments and so forth.

The report contains a large number of tables, which can be found in the Annex.

Page 13 of 66

2 Methodology

The data for this report were collected by the European Migration Network of the

European Commission. All data originate from the database of Eurostat, located in

Luxembourg, and were collected in the period from February up to and including June

2011. The data in this report are primarily about third-country nationals.6 Just as in

last year’s report, the data on EU nationals can be found in Chapter 3, which

discusses the developments in the area of total immigration and emigration,

composition of the population, and the acquisition of Dutch citizenship.

In addition, information from various relevant Dutch public publications was used for

the purpose of this report. Information was also collected through the Internet. The

tables used were selected in accordance with the specifications developed by the

European Commission and the various NCPs, as already set out in the Introduction.

In the Netherlands, several actors serve as suppliers of data on international

protection, migration, and return. The most important are the following:

• Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND);

• Statistics Netherlands;

• Municipal Personal Records Database (GBA);

• Repatriation and Departure Service (DT&V);

• Royal Netherlands Marechaussee (KMar); and

• International Organisation for Migration (IOM).

The figures collected for the purpose of this report were provided to Eurostat by

Statistics Netherlands.

Statistics from Statistics Netherlands

Statistics Netherlands compiles statistics on population growth on the basis of

information from the GBAs of all Dutch municipalities. The figures on immigration and

emigration relate to persons who are registered in or have been deregistered from

the GBA. The registration criterion is fulfilled if the expected period of residence in

the Netherlands in the six months following the settlement is at least four months.

Asylum seekers are classified as immigrants as soon as they have been granted a

residence permit or after six months of legal residence in the Netherlands. With

regard to emigration it applies that the expected period of residence abroad in the

year following the departure is at least eight months.7

The period of four months applied by Statistics Netherlands deviates from the

definition of the Regulation. Article 2(b) of the Regulation defines ‘immigration’ as

“the action by which a person establishes his or her usual residence in the territory of

a Member State for a period that is, or is expected to be, of at least 12 months,

having previously been usually resident in another Member State of a third country.”

In accordance with Article 2 of the Regulation, persons are considered immigrants if

they have been registered in the GBA for a year or more. This differs from the way in

6 Third-country nationals are persons who are not nationals of the Union within the meaning of Article 17(1) of

Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection. 7 Press release from Statistics Netherlands (POLITIEBUREAU 10-2006), Crisis remt migratie en verhuizingen (Crisis

acts as a brake on migration and relocations). Derived from www.cbs.nl on 8 July 2011.

Page 14 of 66

which Statistics Netherlands maintains the national statistics. As stated above in this

chapter, Statistics Netherlands classifies asylum seekers as immigrants as soon as

they have been granted a residence permit or after six months of legal residence in

the Netherlands.

This means that – due to the use of different definitions – the national data of

Statistics Netherlands on the total immigration to the Netherlands in 2009 deviate

from the statistics as provided to Eurostat. It is difficult to make a comparison with

previous years, because this method of counting in accordance with Article 2 of the

Regulation was not used for the first time until 2009. As an approximation for the

definition used in the Regulation, Statistics Netherlands calculated on an ex-post

basis for 2009 how many immigrants stayed in the Netherlands for at least 12

months. This appears to be approximately 90% of the immigrants. As a result of this,

the figure provided to Eurostat is approximately 10% lower than the figure published

by Statistics Netherlands in accordance with national definitions.

The emigration figures included in Eurostat are exclusive of the balance of

administrative corrections.

In the Netherlands, a case of unreported migration is registered as an administrative

correction, in the form of a registration or a deregistration. A deregistration occurs

when a municipality has established that a person is no longer included in its

population because the address is unknown or the person cannot be reached

anymore and has probably left the country. Once a person has been removed

administratively, he or she can, in principle, only be registered in the population

register again by administrative registration (entry with unknown country of origin)

or immigration (entry with known country of origin). If, at a person’s request, a

municipality decides to register him or her in the register without the fact that it

concerns a birth, immigration, or settlement from another Dutch municipality, this

will be an administrative registration. In the Netherlands, the balance of the

administrative corrections (registrations minus deregistrations) consequently relates

to persons who have been deregistered administratively without having been

registered administratively again. In migration statistics, this balance is regarded as

unreported emigration and as such added to registered emigration.

Statistics from the IND

The IND collects data in the area of international protection and residence permits for

regular purposes. Just as last year, it is not possible to provide all figures with regard

to decisions on asylum applications in accordance with the specifications set. The

number of residence permits that have been withdrawn cannot be broken down into

the status of the residence permits withdrawn. Specifications requesting the

distinction between first instance asylum decisions and final decisions have also been

introduced this year. The term ‘first instance decision’ is taken to mean the decision

that is made by the IND. The term ‘final decision’ is taken to mean the decision made

on an objection and/or an appeal.

The KMar and the Seaport Police collect data with regard to persons who have been

refused entry to the Netherlands. They fulfil an important role in the area of border

control.

Figures on persons illegally resident in the Netherlands are collected, among others,

by the IND, but also by the Aliens Police. The following caveat applies in this context.

The IND does not register these persons until they have been placed in detention and

have appealed this decision.

Page 15 of 66

Until 1 January 2007, the data on persons who departed voluntarily or who were

removed forcibly from the Netherlands were collected by the IND. Since 1 January

2007, many duties associated with the return of persons illegally resident in the

Netherlands have been transferred to DT&V. Since the aforementioned date, the data

have been collected by the central government by means of a database called

‘Management Information Across the Cooperating Organisations’ (Ketenbrede

Management Informatie, KMI), in which data from DT&V, KMar, and the IOM are

gathered. It is important to note that – in the present report – the data on persons

illegally resident in the Netherlands and the data on the return of persons illegally

resident in the Netherlands deviate from the national data. As stated above, this is

due to the application of different definitions. In accordance with national criteria, for

instance, approximately 10,400 third-country nationals departed demonstrably from

the Netherlands in 20098, whereas in accordance with European criteria, 8,980 third-

country nationals departed demonstrably. This difference is, among other things, due

to the fact that third-country nationals who have been transferred to another EU

Member State do not fall under this category according to the European definition.

With regard to Dublin transfers as well, the national figures deviate from the

European figures. At the European level, for instance, only one claim per claimant is

counted. A request for a review of a claim does consequently not result in a new

claim, whereas this is the case at the national level.

Where the items in an enumeration have been put in round figures, for instance in a

table, it may occur that the round figures do not add up to the sum, which may also

have been rounded off. In order to stay as closely to the original figures as possible,

the enumeration has not been corrected. For the same reasons, the percentages

were calculated using the relevant original figures.

8 Rapportage Vreemdelingenketen 2009 (Report of the organisations cooperating in the immigration process 2009),

press release, derived from www.rijksoverheid.nl.

Page 16 of 66

Page 17 of 66

3 Legal Immigration and Integration

This chapter provides an overview of a number of demographic developments that

are directly related to international migration. Sub-section 3.1.1. describes the

developments in the area of immigration and emigration. In sub-section 3.1.2.,

attention is paid to the third-country nationals residing in the Netherlands. Sub-

section 3.1.3., in conclusion, provides an overview of the developments and trends

with regard to the acquisition of Dutch citizenship by third-country nationals.

3.1 International Migration, Usually Resident Population, and

Acquisition of Citizenship

An explanation about the method used to maintain statistics on immigration at the

national and European level is already given in the previous chapter. With regard to

emigration it applies that the expected period of residence abroad in the year

following the departure is at least eight months.9

3.1.1 International Migration Flows

In the first decade of this century, the Dutch population increased faster than that of

the European Union as a whole. The number of residents in the Netherlands

increased from 15.9 million to 16.6 million residents in the past ten years, an

increase of 4.5% The population growth in the Netherlands is primarily the result of a

natural increase: in ten years, more than half a million more people were born than

died.10

As last year’s report showed, immigration nearly reached a record level in 2008 with

143,516 persons. This calculation was, however, not based on the definition of the

Regulation. This means that this number was the sum of all immigrants that had

come to the Netherlands in 2008, including those who were registered in the GBA for

less than a year. In accordance with the national definition, even more people

immigrated in 2009, namely 146,378. The number of immigrants in accordance with

Article 2 of the Regulation is, however, lower, namely 128,813.

As explained in the Introduction, as an approximation for the definition used in the

Regulation, Statistics Netherlands calculated on an ex-post basis for 2009 how many

immigrants stayed in the Netherlands for at least 12 months. This appears to be

approximately 90% of the immigrants. As a result of this, the figure provided to

Eurostat is approximately 10% lower than the figure published by Statistics

Netherlands in accordance with national definitions.

Despite the differences in the definitions applied, the following developments have

been observed. With regard to immigration by country of citizenship, the Chinese

formed the largest group of third-country nationals who came to the Netherlands in

2009, just as in 2008. Turkey and the United States of America ranked second and

third, respectively (see Table 3).

9 Press release from Statistics Netherlands (POLITIEBUREAU 10-2006), Crisis remt migratie en verhuizingen (Crisis

acts as a brake on migration and relocations). Derived from www.cbs.nl on 8 July 2011. 10 Garssen, J., Wobma, E., (CBS) (Web Magazine, 6 July 2011). Bijdrage migratie aan bevolkingsgroei relatief gering

(Contribution of migration to population growth relatively small). Derived from www.cbs.nl on 8 July 2011.

Page 18 of 66

National sources show that the economic crisis that began in 2008 and continued in

2009 had an influence on the immigration flow from countries where primarily labour

migrants originate from. Compared to 2008, fewer immigrants originated, for

instance, from the United States of America, India, and Japan.11

In 2009, emigration showed a downward trend. In 2008, 90,067 emigrated from the

Netherlands. In 2009, the number was 85,357; an absolute decrease of 4,710

people. The emigration figures Eurostat recorded for the Netherlands are exclusive of

the balance of administrative corrections, whereas Statistics Netherlands usually

publishes the emigration figures inclusive of the corrections.

3.1.2 Usual Residence

In this sub-section, attention is paid to the usually resident population by country of

citizenship, by country of prior residence, and by country of birth.

On 31 December 2009, the Netherlands had 16,574,989 residents (see Tables 13 and

15). Just as in 2008, the Turks and the Moroccans formed the two largest groups of

third-country nationals: 90,837 Turks and 66,568 Moroccans. This concerns a

breakdown into country by citizenship. Compared to the previous year, a decrease is

observed, when there were 92,698 Turks and 70,801 Moroccans. The figures below

show the usually resident population by country of citizenship and by country of

birth. Compared to 2008, there are no changes (see Tables 13 and 15).

Figure 1: Usual residents by third-country of citizenship on 1 January 2010

Morocco

13%

Turkey

18%

Other Third-

Country Nationals

49%

China

4%Unknown

nationality

16%

11 Nicolaas, H., Wobma, E., and Ooijevaar, J., 2010, Demografie van (niet-westerse) allochtonen in Nederland

(Demography of Western and non-Western migrants in the Netherlands), pp. 22-24. Derived from www.cbs.nl on 8

July 2011.

Page 19 of 66

Figure 2: Usual residents by non-EU country of birth and other countries of

birth on 1 January 2010

Other Third Country-Nationals

44%

Turkey14%

Surinam14%

Morocco12%

Indonesia10%

Dutch Antilles6%

3.1.3 Acquisition of Citizenship

This sub-section provides a description of the developments and trends with regard

to third-country nationals who acquired Dutch citizenship in 2009.

In 2009, a total of 29,754 third-country nationals acquired Dutch citizenship. This

number is slightly higher than a year before, when it concerned 28,229 persons.

The percentage of women who acquired Dutch citizenship by naturalisation is

considerably higher than the percentage of men (see Table 16). The percentage of

women of the total of non-Dutch usual residents, excluding EU nationals, however,

was also slightly higher than the percentage of men.12 There is no clear explanation

for this observation.

Just as in 2008, the proportion of persons of which the former country of citizenship

is unknown is very high. 13 This number is inclusive of stateless persons. Moroccans

(5,508) and Turks (4,167) still form the two largest groups of which the former

country of citizenship is known. Surinam ranks third (1,142), just as in 2008. It is

noteworthy that in the top 10 of countries, 8 countries also occurred in the top 10 of

2008, namely Morocco, Turkey, Surinam, Iraq, Afghanistan, China, Ghana, and

Russia. In 2008, Iran and the Ukraine had also been listed in the top 10. In 2009,

these positions were taken by Thailand and Egypt (see Table 17).

12 Immigration and Naturalisation Service, Information and Analysis Centre (hereinafter INDIAC), Trendrapportage

Naturalisatie VI: 2005-2009 (2010b) (Trend Report on Naturalisation VI: 2005-2009 (2010b), p. 31). 13 The reason for this is explained on page 15 in the EMN report (2010) The Netherlands Annual Report on Migration

and International Protection Statistics 1 January 2008-31 December 2008. It primarily concerns former asylum

seekers who were unable to submit sufficient documents to prove their original nationality. The former asylum seekers

were not required to submit a valid passport to be permitted entry.

Page 20 of 66

Figure 3: Acquisition of Dutch citizenship by third-country nationals

Morocco

20%

Other Third

Country-Nationals

32%

Surinam

4%Turkey

15%

Unknown

nationality

25%

Iraq

2%

Afghanistan

2%

3.2 Residence Permits and Residence of Third-Country Nationals

The Netherlands has two types of applications for residence permits. The first type of

application concerns applications for admission to the Netherlands in the context of

international protection, referred to as asylum applications. The second type of

application concerns applications for regular purposes of stay, such as family

formation, family reunification, labour, and study. Applications are submitted to and

processed by the IND. In this chapter, the emphasis will be on applications for

regular purposes of stay. It is important to note in advance that some figures stated

in the report for 2008 have been corrected after its publication. Where comparisons

are made with the figures for 2008, the changed figures will be used and not the

figures mentioned in last year’s report.

Figure 4: Residence permits issued in 2009, by reason for stay

Labour

18%

Other

23%

Study

18%

Family Reasons

41%

Page 21 of 66

Family reasons

Just as in 2008, family reasons were the most important reason to issue regular

residence permits in 2009. In the entire year, a total of 23,078 residence permits

were issued for that reason for stay (see Table 18). In 2008, a total of 24,092

residence permits were granted. That is 1,014 fewer permits than the previous year,

or 4%.

Figure 5: Residence permits issued to third-country nationals for family

reasons

Turkey

14%

Other

60%

United States of

America

6%

India

6%China

5%

Morocco

9%

In 2009, the largest group of third-country nationals who obtained residence permits

for family reasons was formed by Turks (3,174). Moroccans ranked second (2,036).

The top 5 furthermore included the United States of America (1,485), India (1,365),

and China (1,072) (see Table 18).

The reason that the positions 1 and 2 are taken up by Turks (14%) and Moroccans

(9%) may be explained in the first place by the fact that persons of Turkish or

Moroccan origin constitute the largest groups of non-Dutch usual residents. In 2009,

378,330 persons of Turkish origin and 341,528 persons of Moroccan origin lived in

the Netherlands.14

Since 2005, a downward trend has been observed in the number of applications for

family reasons by Turkish and Moroccan persons. In particular the number of

applications from Moroccan persons has considerably decreased. Among Turkish

citizens, the decrease is less strong. The decrease in the number of applications from

Turks and Moroccans may have several possible explanations.

On 15 March 2006, the Civic Integration Abroad Act entered into force. The purpose

of this Act is to ensure that people speak Dutch at a basic level before they come to

the Netherlands and to introduce them to Dutch society. On the basis of this Act, the

third-country national who wants to come to the Netherlands to live with his or her

partner must take a civic integration examination. This new admission requirement,

14 http://statline.cbs.nl

Page 22 of 66

together with the income requirement, may deter people from submitting an

application.15

Another possible reason may be the increase in the fee to be paid for an application.

Since 2005, the amount of the fee has been linked to the processing costs. Since

2005, an amount of EUR 830 must be paid for an application for family reasons.

In comparison, in 2002, this amount had been set at EUR 258.16

Another development that may have contributed to the decrease in the number of

family applications is the increased use of Community Law for family life by Turks

and Moroccans. With regard to admission requirements, Community Law is more

flexible than national aliens policy.17

In the top 3 of countries, the group of Indians who want to come to the Netherlands

for family reasons is clearly present. This is a group of persons who are family

members of highly skilled migrants who reside in the Netherlands on the basis of the

Highly Skilled Migrants Scheme that was introduced in 2004. But with regard to this

group as well, a slight decrease in the number of applications has been observed.

This is possibly due to the economic crisis that began in 2008. If fewer highly skilled

migrants come to the Netherlands, this also affects the number of family members

who want to come to the Netherlands to live with the highly skilled migrant.18

Labour Migration

Labour migration comes second after immigration for family reasons as an important

reason to come to the Netherlands. In 2009, 10,433 applications were granted for

this reason. This is a decrease of 10% compared to 2008, when the number was

11,613. In 2009, the largest group of third-country nationals who obtained residence

permits for reasons of labour was formed by Indians. It concerned 1,791 persons.

Compared to 2008, this is a decrease of 468 applications, or 21%. Most Indians

made use of the Highly Skilled Migrants Scheme. An increase in the number of

applications for reasons of labour granted was seen among the Chinese (1,727). In

2008, the Chinese had submitted 387 fewer applications, or an increase of 29%.

This increase in the number of Chinese immigrants who came to the Netherlands for

reasons of labour may have several possible causes. An increasing number of

enterprises in the Chinese hotel and catering industry are looking for cheap labour

from China. In addition, this increase may be ascribed to the fact that increasingly

more enterprises are coming to the Netherlands. Together with these enterprises,

Chinese employees come to the Netherlands as well.19 In 2008, the United States of

15 Internationale gezinsvorming begrensd? (International family formation subject to restrictions?) An evaluation of

the raised income and age requirements with regard to the migration of foreign partners to the Netherlands, p. 138,

Research and Documentation Centre (WODC), IND (INDIAC), 2009. 16 Source: IND.

17 Schreijenberg, A., Klaver, J.F.I., Soethout, J. E., Lodder, G.G., and Vleugel, M.J. (2009) Gemeenschapsrecht en

gezinsmigratie – Het gebruik van gemeenschapsrecht door gezinsmigranten uit derde landen (Community Law and

Family Migration – The use of Community Law by family migrants from third countries). Amsterdam/The Hague:

Research and Documentation Centre (WODC); Regioplan Policy Research; Institute for Immigration Law; Leiden

University; INDIAC 18 INDIAC, 2010, Trendrapportage regulier 2010, Reguliere migratie naar Nederland in beeld (Trend Report on

Regular Residence 2010, An Overview of Regular Migration to the Netherlands), (2010a) p. 31. 19 INDIAC (2010a), p. 41

Page 23 of 66

America ranked second on this list, with a total of 1,387 migrants. In 2009, there

were 267 fewer migrants, a decrease of 19%.

Study Migration

Since 2007, there has been an upward trend in migration to the Netherlands for

reasons of study. This trend continued in 2009. A total of 9,944 applications were

granted, 1,094 more than in 2008, an increase of 12%. Just as in 2008, the Chinese

students formed the largest group of migrants with a total of 2,264, an increase of

414 migrants, or 22%. The fact that so many Chinese come to the Netherlands to

study has several causes. The Chinese government encourages young people to

study abroad, so that they may return to China with the knowledge gained. In

addition, the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science is actively promoting

the Netherlands in China as a destination to undertake one’s study. The Netherlands

is a popular destination for Chinese students due to the English-language study

programmes and the high level of education. In addition, the Netherlands may also

be attractive to this group of migrants because they are given the opportunity to try

and find a suitable job in the Netherlands in the year following graduation.20

In 2009 as well, the American students ranked second with regard to the number of

migrants for reasons of study. With regard to this group as well, an increase was

observed compared to 2008. In 2008, 1,086 applications were granted and in 2009,

this number was 1,285, an increase of 18%. This increase is difficult to explain. It is

clear, however, that an increasing number of Americans go abroad to undertake a

study.21

20 INDIAC (2010a), p. 52

21 INDIAC (2010a), p. 54

Page 24 of 66

Page 25 of 66

4 Illegal Immigration and Return

The Netherlands has a restrictive admission policy. The Dutch Aliens Act sets out who

is legally present in the Netherlands and who is not. In addition to persons with

Dutch citizenship, persons with a residence permit or a visa may also stay in the

Netherlands. Citizens of a number of countries furthermore have the right to stay in

the Netherlands for a specific period of time without a visa. This also applies to

persons who wish to rely on a residence permit for international protection. As stated

above in section 3.2, persons may submit an application for a residence permit to the

IND. A person who is not or is no longer a legal resident in the Netherlands is obliged

to leave the Netherlands. If this does not happen, he or she may be forced to return.

The Netherlands performs border controls on the Schengen external borders 22 to

check whether the persons concerned, their means of transport, and the items in

their possession may either enter or leave the Netherlands.

These border controls are performed by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee (KMar).

The Seaport Police of the Rotterdam-Rijnmond Regional Police Force performs these

border controls in the Rotterdam port area.

Anyone who is refused entry to the Netherlands or anyone who no longer has the

right to residence is obliged to leave the Netherlands. The illegally resident third-

country national is personally responsible for his or her own departure. The

government encourages third-country nationals who are not permitted to stay in the

Netherlands to leave the country independently and provides assistance if necessary.

Illegally resident third-country nationals who do not leave the Netherlands may be

removed. For this purpose, it is, for instance, possible to request the court to order

detention.

The cooperation of the country of origin is sometimes also required. This is the case if

the third-country national does not have valid travel documents and the country

where he or she states to come from must provide a travel document or a

replacement travel document.

In the Netherlands, the Repatriation and Departure Service (DT&V) is responsible for

the independent and forced departure of third-country nationals who are not

permitted to stay in the Netherlands. The DT&V is an implementing body of the

Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations.23

The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) may also provide assistance if

third-country nationals wish to return. The Dutch government supports the activities

of the IOM.

The DT&V targets two groups:

22 This concerns sea borders and airport borders.

23 http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/vragen-en-antwoorden/hoe-is-het-terugkeerbeleid-voor-

vreemdelingen-in-nederland-geregeld.html, see also: www.dienstterugkeerenvertrek.nl.

Page 26 of 66

• Illegally resident third-country nationals who have been apprehended in the

context of aliens supervision, mobile or otherwise, and third-country

nationals who have been refused entry in the context of border control; and

• Asylum seekers who have exhausted all legal remedies and who must leave

the Netherlands.

The DT&V adopts a personalised multi-disciplinary approach to the departure

process. The DT&V cooperates with other government organisations that have a duty

in the departure process, including the IND, the KMar, the Aliens Police, the Central

Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers, the DJI, and other organisations such

as the IOM.

4.1 Prevention of Illegal Entry and Stay -Apprehensions

The statistics used for this report as a measure for illegally resident third-country

nationals relate to the number of third-country nationals placed in detention. Dutch

law provides that a third-country national who is not or no longer legally present in

the Netherlands may be placed in detention.24

Figure 6: Third-country nationals found to be illegally present in the

Netherlands in 2009

Somalia

11%

Iraq

7%

Morocco

7%

Turkey

5%

Other

70%

In 2008, a total of 7,505 third-country nationals were placed in detention. In 2009,

this number increased slightly to 7,565. Somalis (850), Iraqis (535), and Moroccans

(520) are at the top of the list of persons placed in detention most often.

There are two noticeable developments compared to 2008. The first development is

related to the Chinese. In 2008, a total of 605 Chinese were placed in detention. In

2009, this number was 255. An obvious explanation for this decrease of 58% could

be the decision of the highest administrative tribunal in the Netherlands which in

24 Section 59 of the Aliens Act 2000

Page 27 of 66

September 2008 held that Chinese without documents could not be kept in detention

because forced removal for this group of Chinese appeared to be impossible.25 The

possibility of removing an illegally resident third-country national to his or her

country of origin is a condition for keeping illegally resident third-country nationals in

detention. In other words: there must be a prospect of removal. This decision could

explain the smaller number of Chinese in detention.

A second development is the larger number of Somalis (850) that were placed in

detention. The previous year, it concerned 295 persons. The reason for this increase

could be the abolition of the policy of protection for certain categories of asylum

seekers on 19 May 2009.26 The large number may also be related to the fact that

Somalia is the country of origin that occurs most among the persons who come to

the Netherlands for international protection.

4.2 Returns

Return has high priority within Dutch aliens policy. Everything possible is being done

to realise the actual departure of persons who are not permitted or no longer

permitted to stay in the Netherlands. The government committed itself in 2009 to

improve the possibilities to ensure the return of third-country nationals and it made

commitments to this end in the following five areas:27

• To cooperate in the area of return with countries of origin;

• To cooperate with local authorities and civil society organisations in the area

of return;

• To adopt a more effective approach to the individual third-country national to

induce him or her to departure;

• To create possibilities for the cooperating organisations concerned to

effectively work on the return of the third-country nationals;

• To take measures against criminal third-country nationals.

The Dutch government encourages independent departure. The Dutch government is

cooperating with other national and international organisations in various projects.28

The obligation for a person to leave the Netherlands ensues directly from the law. In

2009, the Netherlands did not have a separate return decision or expulsion order.29

In the Netherlands, the decision made on the applications for residence permits has

multiple consequences. The decision rejecting a residence permit also includes the

obligation for the third-country nationals to leave the Netherlands. The figures

relating to applications for residence permits that have been rejected are provided by

the IND. Where reference is made to third-country nationals who have received a

notice ordering them to leave the Netherlands in this report, this refers to third-

25 Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, 5 September 2008, no 200805982/1. The prosepct of

removing Chinese to China again has arisen anew, also for Chinese who do not have any travel documents. 26 Decision of the State Secretary for Justice of 2 July 2009, no 2009/16 amending the Aliens Act Implementation

Guidelines 2000, Government Gazette no 11449. 27 Parliamentary Papers II 2008/09, 19 637, no 1263 (Letter).

28 The EMN Report (2009b) Gefaciliteerde terugkeer- en herintegratieprogramma’s in Nederland (Facilitated Return

and Reintegration Programmes) includes a list of various facilities for return. 29 This could change in the future as a result of the Directive 2008/115/EC (Return Directive) of the European

Parliament and the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for

returning illegally staying third-country nationals. This Directive has not yet been implemented in the Netherlands.

Page 28 of 66

country nationals who have received a decision rejecting their application for a

residence permit. 30

Figure 7: Total number of notices to leave the Netherlands in 2009

Total

49%

Morocco

4%

Other

29%

Turkey

6%

Iraq

6%

Somalia

4%

Afghanistan

2%

In 2009, 8,980 third-country nationals left the Netherlands demonstrably. That is

slightly less than the year before (9,350). In this context it should be pointed out as

well that – according to national definitions – the number of third-country nationals

that left demonstrably is higher (10,400).31

A total of 35,574 third-country nationals received a notice to leave the Netherlands.

Just as in 2008, the largest group of third-country nationals who received a notice to

leave the Netherlands was formed by Turks (4,095). The Turks were also the largest

group of third-country nationals who returned demonstrably (935). Iraqis ranked

second. A total of 3 915 Iraqis received a notice to leave the Netherlands; 685 Iraqis

left demonstrably. Somalia ranked third in the list of third-country nationals who

received a notice to leave the Netherlands (2,730); 395 Somalis left demonstrably.

Other countries that occurred in both lists, the list of notices and the list of

demonstrable return, were Morocco (2,570 notices vs 380 departures), China (1,350

notices vs 475 departures), Surinam (1,180 notices vs 410 departures), and Nigeria

(1,130 notices vs 435 departures). Afghanistan, Ghana, and Iran were in the top 10

of countries of third-country nationals who received notices, but not in the top 10 of

countries who actually returned. The opposite is true for Brazil, the Ukraine, and

Indonesia. These countries occurred in the top 10 of countries to which third-country

30 Dienst Terugkeer en Vertrek hanteert een andere definitie voor de term aanzegging. De Vreemdelingenpolitie geeft

bijvoorbeeld ook aanzeggingen aan vreemdelingen die niet rechtmatig in Nederland verblijven. Te denken valt aan

vreemdelingen die zich nooit tot de IND hebben gewend en dus nooit een procedure hebben gevoerd. Maar ook

vreemdelingen die met een visum naar Nederland zijn gekomen maar niet (tijdig) teruggekeerd zijn, de zogenaamde

“overstayers”, kunnen een aanzegging van de Vreemdelingenpolitie krijgen. 31 Rapportage Vreemdelingenketen: periode juli-december 2009 (Report of the organisations cooperating in the

immigration process: period July-December 2009), to be consulted on www.rijksoverheid.nl.

Page 29 of 66

nationals actually returned, but they do not occur in the top 10 of countries of third-

country nationals who received a notice to leave the Netherlands.

Page 30 of 66

Page 31 of 66

5 Border Control

Persons who wish to come to the Netherlands from a country outside the Schengen

territory must do so via a personal security check at a border crossing point. This

border control is performed by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee (KMar) or – in

the Rotterdam port area – by the Seaport Police of the Rotterdam-Rijnmond Regional

Police Force. If a person is refused entry, he or she is obliged to return immediately

to the country where he or she departed from, to the country of origin, or to another

country where his or her admission is granted.

5.1 Prevention of Illegal Entry and l Stay: Refusals

In 2009, a total of 2,500 persons were refused entry to the Netherlands. Just as in

2008, the majority of the refusals took place at the airport, namely 2,445. 60

persons were refused entry at a seaport. In 950 cases, the persons concerned did not

have visas or valid visas or did not have residence permits or valid residence permits.

In 675 cases, the persons concerned appeared not to be able to give reasons for their

stay. In 460 cases, the persons concerned were refused entry because they were

considered to pose a danger to public order in the Netherlands. In 160 cases, the

persons concerned were refused entry because they did not have valid travel

documents (see Table 25).

Figure 8: Third-country nationals refused entry at the external borders in

2009

China

6%

Brasil

8%

Nigeria

10%

Surinam

11%

Other

59%Turkey

6%

Page 32 of 66

5.2 Relationship between refusals, apprehensions and returns

In theory, a relationship could be assumed between the number of third-country

nationals that were refused entry, the number of third-country nationals found to be

illegally present, and the number of third-country nationals that returned.

What is noteworthy is the fact that the number of third-country nationals that

actually returned is lower than the number of notices to leave the Netherlands. It

may be concluded from this that most third-country nationals fail to comply with their

legal obligation to leave the Netherlands after having received a decision rejecting

their application. This complicates the task of the Dutch authorities to supervise and

combat illegality.

In general, it is difficult to find an explanation for this conclusion. Different

explanations are conceivable. It cannot be concluded from the figures on the number

of third-country nationals that actually returned whether each of them received a

notice in 2009. It could be the case that some third-country nationals received a

notice to leave the Netherlands years ago.

Some third-country nationals may have left independently without their departures

having been registered, either to unknown destinations or to their countries of origin

or to other countries. Other third-country nationals may have chosen to initiate

proceedings against the rejection of their application. In some cases, they are

allowed to await the outcome of these proceedings in the Netherlands. Another group

of third-country nationals may prefer to submit a new application for a residence

permit. In that case, they are legally present in the Netherlands awaiting the decision

of the IND.

Somalia is the most important country with regard to the number of apprehensions of

illegally resident third-country nationals in the Netherlands (see Table 22). This

ranking is, however, not recognised in the category of third-country nationals who

actually returned (see Table 24). Somalia ranks seven in that category. The return of

third-country nationals, whether forced or voluntarily, to the country of origin, mainly

occurs among Turks. In general, it may be argued that the return to some countries

is more difficult than to other countries. Many persons are undocumented and this

complicates and delays the return.

Page 33 of 66

6 Asylum: International Protection

This chapter focuses on the most important developments in the area of international

protection in the Netherlands in 2009.

A comparison will be made with the figures for 2008. Where possible, noteworthy

statistical shifts will be related to policy developments.

6.1 Applications for International Protection

In 2009, more asylum applications were submitted than in the previous year. In

2009, the number increased by 11% to 14,880 new asylum applications (see Table

32). Compared to 2008, the number of applications increased less strongly. In that

year, the increase was 88%.32

Just as in previous years, more than half the number of asylum seekers came from

Somalia (5890) and Iraq (1990) (see Table 33). Both in 2007 and in 2008, Iraq

ranked first on the list of countries where most asylum seekers came from, while

Somalia ranked second. In 2009, it was the other way around. The large decrease in

the number of applications submitted by persons originating from Iraq is probably

related to the abolition of the policy of categorical protection for persons from Central

Iraq on 12 September 2008.33 It concerns a decrease of 60%.

But on the other hand, the number of first asylum applications submitted by Somalis

increased for the third subsequent year. In 2009, the number increased by 53%,

from 3,840 in 2008 to 5,890 in 2009. The security situation in Somalia has been poor

for years. For this reason, the policy of categorical protection for persons applied to

Central and South Somalia. 34 The increase may be ascribed to this policy, which was

abolished on 19 May 2009.35 The abolition of this policy did not immediately result in

a decrease in the number of applications. The number of asylum seekers from

Somalia did not start to decrease until the last quarter of 2009.36

An increase in the number of asylum applications is also observed for persons who

originate from Afghanistan. For the second subsequent year, the number increased.

Compared to 2008, the increase is substantial. In 2008, 396 applications were

submitted, but in 2009, this number had increased to 1,280. In the absolute sense,

there was an increase of 885 applications. This increase may be caused by the

deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan. The number of asylum applications

submitted by Afghan persons increased in nearly all European countries.37

32 EMN (2010) The Netherlands Annual Report on Migration and International Protection Statistics 1 January 2008-31

December 2008, p. 17. 33 Parliamentary Papers II 2008/09, 19 637, no 1220 (Letter).

34 For more information, see Chapter 6, section 6.2.

35 Decision of the State Secretary for Justice of 2 July 2009, no. 2009/16 amending the Aliens Act Implementation

Guidelines 2000, Government Gazette no. 11449. 36 Sprangers, A. and Nicolaas, H., 2010, Stijging aantal asielzoekers in Nederland iets groter dan in EU (Increase in

number of asylum seekers in the Netherlands larger than in EU), pp. 25-27. Derived from www.cbs.nl on 9 March

2011. 37 Parliamentary Papers II 2009/2010, 19 637, no 1346.

Page 34 of 66

Noteworthy in this top 10 of countries is the presence of Georgia ranking sixth. In

total, 410 applications were submitted by persons originating from Georgia. The

reason for this is unclear. The Dutch government received signals that it might be

connected with the possibility of a financial contribution upon return to one’s country

of origin.38

Since August 2006, it has been possible to distinguish new applications from

repeated applications. As stated above, a total of 14,880 new applications were

submitted. In addition, 1,260 subsequent asylum applications were submitted.

6.2 Decisions on International Protection

This section describes the developments with regard to the number of decisions on

applications for international protection. An overview will be given of the rejected and

granted applications, with a comparison being made with the numbers in the

previous reference period. It also applies to 2009 that not all the decisions made

relate to the applications submitted in this year. Not all applications are processed in

the same calendar year in which they are submitted.

Figure 9: First instance decisions on applications for international protection

82459320

Granted

Rejected

In 2009, a total of 17,565 decisions were made on applications for international

protection. Out of this number, 8,245 applications were granted and 9,320

applications were rejected (see Table 40).

An overview of the general developments in national asylum policy in 2009 is given

below.

This will be followed by a discussion of the decisions granting a refugee status. Next,

the decisions granting a subsidiary protection status will be discussed. Finally,

attention will be paid to the decisions granting a humanitarian status.

38 Parliamentary Papers II 2009/2010, 19 637, no 1346.

Page 35 of 66

Figure 10: Positive decisions in 2009 by status

Refugee

Status

8%

Subsidiary

Protection

Status

40%

Humanitarian

Status

52%

6.2.1 General Developments

In national asylum policy, population groups may be designated as a risk group and

as a vulnerable minority group. In addition, the government has the possibility to

implement the policy of protection for a certain category of asylum seekers.

Risk Groups

A group may be designated as a risk group if it turns out that persons belonging to

this group in the country of origin are being prosecuted. It is not necessary that it

concerns systematic prosecution. Incidents may also constitute an indication that it

concerns a risk group. The fact that a person belongs to a specific risk group does not

automatically mean that he or she will be granted a residence permit on the basis of

the Convention on Refugees. This person will be required to demonstrate that he or

she has had problems or expects to encounter problems if he or she were to return.

The fact that he or she belongs to a risk group means that even small problems may

be sufficiently compelling to grant a residence permit on the basis of the Convention

on Refugees.

In 2009, the following groups were designated as risk groups in the context of

national asylum policy:

• Afghanistan

o persons from areas where they belong to an ethnic

minority;

o persons from an area where they belong to a religious

minority;

o homosexuals.

• Somalia

o persons belonging to the population group of Reer Hamar.

• Iraq

o Homosexuals.

Page 36 of 66

Vulnerable Minority Groups

If a person does not qualify for a residence permit on the basis of the Convention on

Refugees, he or she may qualify for a residence permit on the basis of subsidiary

protection. This form of protection has been harmonised with the EU. What is

precisely meant by this protection is defined in the Qualification directive.39 This form

of protection corresponds largely with the protection envisaged by Article 3 ECHR.

If a group is systematically exposed to inhuman treatment in a country of origin, this

group may be designated as a vulnerable minority group. For a population group to

be designated as a vulnerable minority group, the following aspects are important:

• To what extent it is a matter of arbitrary violence or arbitrary violation of human rights;

• The position of the population group in the country of origin; and • The degree in which the persons of this group can rely on effective protection against threatening violence or violation of human rights or the degree in which

these persons are in the position to withdraw from this by taking up residence

elsewhere. 40

Unlike persons who belong to a risk group, persons who belong to a vulnerable

minority group are not required to adduce personal facts and circumstances on the

basis of which it may be concluded that they may be subjected to inhuman treatment

upon return. The mere fact of belonging to such a group is sufficient to be granted a

subsidiary protection status.

The following groups were designated as vulnerable minority groups in 2009:

• Afghanistan:

o ethnic minorities

o religious minorities

o single women

• Democratic Republic of the Congo:

o Tutsi

• Iraq:

o Christians

o Mandaeans

o Yezidi

o Palestinians

o Jews

o Shabak and Kaka’i

• Sudan:

o Non-Arab population groups from Darfur

• Somalia:

o Reer Hamar

39 Directive No 2004/83/EC of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the minimum standards for the qualification and status

of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection

and the content of the protection granted. 40 Parliamentary Papers II 2009/10, 29,344, no 72 (Letter).

Page 37 of 66

Policy of Protection for Certain Categories of Asylum Seekers

In exceptional circumstances, the government may implement a policy of protection

for certain categories of asylum seekers from a specific country, a specific region, or

a specific population group. Reasons for such a policy of categorical protection may

be that the security and human rights situation in a specific area or for a specific

group is a matter of great concern and return is not justifiable. In order to determine

if such protection must be provided, the government also includes the policies

adopted in this context by other European countries in its considerations.

In 2009, the policy of categorical protection applied to persons originating from Ivory

Coast. Until 19 May 2009, this policy also applied to persons originating from

Somalia, with the exception of the regions of Puntland, Somaliland, Sool, and

Sanaag.41

6.2.2 Refugee Status

For the second subsequent year, there was an increase in the number of applications

granted on the basis of the Convention on Refugees. In 2007, there were 485

positive decisions, in 2008, this number rose to 515, and in 2009, there were 695

positive decisions (see Table 41). This increase of 180 more positive decisions, or

35% more than in 2008, may be ascribed to the higher number of applications

submitted in 2009.

Iraq is again the country with the highest number of Convention refugees; 200

persons were admitted on the basis of the Convention on Refugees (see Table 40).

The group of persons originating from Iraq constitutes 29% of the total number of

refugees admitted in 2009. Somalia ranked second, an increase from 35 in 2008 to

95 in 2009. Just as is the case in Iraq, the security situation in Somalia has also been

a matter of concern for years. Another increase was observed among Iranian persons

who qualified for a residence permit on the basis of the Convention on Refugees. In

2008, 45 persons had qualified, but in 2009, this number doubled to 90. China was

also listed in the top 10 of countries and ranked fourth with 55 applications granted,

5 more than in 2008. Afghanistan ranked fifth with 20 acknowledged refugees, 15

more than in 2008 (see Table 40).

41 For the reasons for ending the policy of protection for Somalia, see the EMN report (2009a): Annual Policy Report

2009, Ontwikkelingen in het Nederlandse migratie- en asielbeleid 1 januari 2009-31 december 2009 (Annual Policy

Report 2009, Developments in Dutch Migration and Asylum Policy 1 January 2009-31 December 2009), p. 23

Page 38 of 66

Figure 11: Positive decisions in 2009, by gender

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Male 4380 500 1575 2305

Female 3860 195 1695 1970

Total Refugee StatusSubsidairy Protection

Status Humanitarian Status

In 2009 as well, the proportion of men versus women remained the same, in the

sense that more men were granted a refugee status than women (see Table 41). This

proportion may also be associated with the higher number of asylum applications

submitted by men. The Tables 30 and 32 show that out of the 16,140 asylum

applications submitted in 2009, 10,680 had been submitted by men and 5,445 by

women. The same applies, however, also to the other categories of positive

decisions.

6.2.3 Subsidiary Protection Status (Article 3 ECHR)

Compared to 2008, the number of residence permits granted on the basis of

subsidiary protection increased. In 2008, the total number of persons who qualified

for this ground was 1,610. In 2009, this number increased to 3,270, a doubling of

the number in 2008. A possible explanation for this increase may also be that more

applications were submitted than in the previous year. Just as in 2008, the Somalis

and the Iraqis constituted the largest groups of persons to whom such a protection

status was granted (see Table 40).

In 2009, Somalia ranked first on the list (1,155). Iraq ranked second, with 985. The

two countries together made up 65% of the total number of residence permits

granted. It is an increase compared to the previous year, when the subsidiary

protection status was granted to 470 Iraqis and 335 Somalis.

This increase may partly be explained by the abolition of the policy of categorical

protection for Iraqis originating from Central Iraq in 2008. If it was established that a

person originated from Central Iraq and that he or she did not qualify for an asylum

residence permit on individual grounds, a residence permit was granted on the basis

of this policy. These permits fall under the humanitarian status. As a result of the

abolition of the policy of categorical protection, many of these applications were

reassessed in 2009. The applications were reassessed on the basis of circumstances

relating to the third-country nationals in person and on the basis of the security

situation in Iraq at the time the decision was made. In part of the cases, this may

have resulted in granting the subsidiary protection status.

As already stated in section 6.1, the number of Somali asylum seekers that came to

the Netherlands in 2009 was considerably higher than in the previous year. This may

Page 39 of 66

partially be the explanation for the higher number of residence permits granted on

the basis of subsidiary protection. It also applies to Somali asylum seekers that in

mid 2009, the policy of categorical protection for Somalis was abolished. This means

that applications submitted after the abolition were assessed on individual grounds.

6.2.4 Humanitarian Status

Humanitarian residence permits also cover the residence permits granted on the

basis of categorical protection.

With regard to this type of permit as well, an increase in the number of permits could

be observed compared to 2008. In total, 4,280 persons were granted a humanitarian

status in 2009, compared to 3,550 in 2008. This number relates to the total number

of humanitarian residence permits, consequently including the permits granted on

the basis of categorical protection. Also in 2009, the major part of this group was

formed by Somali asylum seekers (2,595, or 58% of the total number of permits

granted on this ground). In 2008, this number was still 1,115. This doubling of the

number may be explained again by a large number of Somali asylum seekers that

came to the Netherlands in 2008 (see Table 40).

6.3 Dublin Transfers

The Dublin Regulation42 regulates which Member State in the EU is responsible for

the substantive examination of an asylum application. Another purpose of the Dublin

Regulation is that the asylum application of a person is processed by one EU country

only. This is to prevent people from submitting subsequent applications within the

EU. The Member State where the asylum application is submitted must examine

whether another Member State is possibly responsible for processing the application

submitted.

If another EU country is responsible for the asylum application on the basis of the

provisions in the Dublin Regulation, this Member State may submit a request for

transfer to this other country (the ‘Dublin claim’). If this request is honoured, the

responsibility of that other country to examine the substance of an asylum

application is hereby confirmed. This means that the person concerned will be

transferred to the responsible Member State.

The Dublin Regulation distinguishes between taking charge of and taking back the

asylum seeker concerned. It is a matter of ‘taking charge’ if the asylum application

has submitted an asylum application in a Member State for the first time, but this

Member State is of the opinion that another Member State is responsible for

processing this application. In that case, a request to take charge of the applicant is

submitted. It is a matter of ‘taking back’ if an asylum seeker has withdrawn the

application during the processing procedure and subsequently submits an asylum

application again in another Member State. In that case, the second Member State

will submit a request for the applicant to be taken back. The request to take back the

applicant may also be submitted if the asylum seeker whose asylum application has

been rejected subsequently leaves for another Member State and submits an asylum

application again there. The second Member State may subsequently request the first

Member State to take back the applicant.

42 The official name of this Regulation is: Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the

criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in

one of the Member States by a third-country national.

Page 40 of 66

In general, it may be concluded that the Netherlands submits more requests to other

Member States than it receives. In 2009, the Netherlands submitted 3,730 requests

to other Member States and it received 942 requests. What is furthermore

noteworthy is the fact that the percentage of outgoing requests that were granted is

fairly high. In 2009, a total of 3,402 requests were granted. The total number of

incoming requests that were granted was 501 in 2009.

The following caveat applies to these figures. With regard to both the incoming and

outgoing requests that were granted, the requests were not necessarily always

submitted in 2009. It is, for instance, possible that a request that had been

submitted at the end of 2008 was not granted until 2009. Most requests to take

charge of an applicant were submitted by Sweden (49), Germany (36), Belgium (30),

Norway (28), and France (15). Most requests to take an applicant back were

submitted by Germany (143), Belgium (131), France (125), Norway (79), and the

United Kingdom (65). Most requests to take charge of an applicant submitted by the

Netherlands were directed to Greece (799) and Italy (296). Most requests to take an

applicant back submitted by the Netherlands were directed to Italy (752), France

(239), Belgium (269), and Greece (130), (see Tables 26 up to and including 29).

6.4 Unaccompanied Minors

Also the number of unaccompanied minors increased compared to the previous year.

In 2008, 725 applications were submitted by unaccompanied minors. In 2009, this

number increased slightly to 1,040. The proportion of boys versus girls remained the

same, though. Also in 2009, the largest group was formed by the boys (83%). With

355 applications, Somalia was again the most important country of origin in 2009. In

2008, there were fewer applications, namely 200. Another noteworthy trend is the

increase in the number of Afghan unaccompanied minors that came to the

Netherlands. In 2008, 95 applications were submitted by unaccompanied minors. In

2009, this number increased to 320, an increase of 225 applications. This increase is

difficult to explain. An obvious explanation is the poor security situation and the

position of young men in Afghanistan. Child trafficking occurs on a large scale in

Afghanistan.43 Another noteworthy development is the decrease in the number of

applications submitted by Iraqi unaccompanied minors. In 2009, 65 applications were

submitted, 120 applications less than in the previous year. This may also have been

caused by the abolition of the policy of categorical protection for Central Iraq (see

Tables 34 and 35).

43 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Country Report on Afghanistan, July 2010, pp. 87-88

Page 41 of 66

Figure 12: Asylum applications from unaccompanied minors

Somalia Afghanistan Iraq Guinea Eritrea Others

355 320

65 45 40

215

Totaal 1040

Page 42 of 66

Page 43 of 66

Annex - Tables

Table 1: Total Migration, the Netherlands, 2002-2009

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Overall Immigration 121 250 104 514 94 019 92 297 101 150 116 819 143 516 128 813

Overall Emigration 66 728 68 885 75 049 83 399 91 028 91 287 90 067 85 357

Remark on Table 1: The immigration figures up to and including 2008 are in accordance with

the national definition and those of 2009 are in accordance with the Regulation. In 2009, the

number of immigrants in accordance with the national definition was 144,000. The emigration

figures are exclusive of the balance of the administrative corrections and in accordance with the

national definition.

Table 2: Immigration by country of citizenship, age group and sex

Country Total 0-19 20-34 35-64 65 Males Females

Total 128 813 26 015 68 084 32 666 2 048 67 086 61 727

Declaring country 36 929 10 871 12 220 12 440 1 398 19 899 17 030EU27-countries except

declaring country 47 312 6 252 29 401 11 398 261 24 518 22 794

Extra EU-27 : : : :Non EU27-countries nor

declaring country 34 577 5 727 21 533 7 039 278 16 482 18 095European Free Trade

Association 636 85 417 129 5 307 329Candidate countries in 2007

(3 countries) 3 253 414 2 268 534 37 1 834 1 419Countries other than EU-27,

EFTA and Candidate

countries 30 688 5 228 18 848 6 376 236 14 341 16 347

Highly developed countries 9 799 1 625 5 743 2 341 90 4 455 5 344Medium developed

countries 18 158 2 853 11 786 3 408 111 8 492 9 666

Less developed countries 2 731 750 1 319 627 35 1 394 1 337

Stateless 127 70 34 21 2 65 62

Others 29 0 25 2 2 12 17

Unknown 9 995 3 165 4 930 1 789 111 6 187 3 808

Age Sex

Remark on Table 2: The subdivision of ‘high, medium, and low development countries’ only

applies to countries different from the EU Member States, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein,

Switzerland, and prospective Member States. This also applies to Tables 4, 6, 12, 14, and 16.

Page 44 of 66

Table 3: Top 10 countries immigration by citizenship

Top 10 countries Total

1. China (including Hong Kong) 3 822

2. Turkey 3 049

3. United States 2 718

4. India 2 699

5. Morocco 1 478

6. Surinam 1 014

7. Brazil 988

8. Indonesia 975

9. Japan 933

10. Ghana 865

Table 4: Immigration by country of birth, age group and sex

Total 0-19 20-34 35-64 65+ Males Females

Total 128 813 26 015 68 084 32 666 2 048 67 086 61 727

Declaring country 24 856 6 393 8 408 8 960 1 095 13 412 11 444EU27-countries except


Extra EU-27 : : : :European Free Trade

Association 749 165 444 41 100 6 357 392Candidate countries in 2007

(3 countries) 3 624 510 2 293 11 227 55 2 099 1 525

Countries other than EU-27,

EFTA and Candidate countries 53 789 11 631 29 084 - 9 576 614 27 588 26 201

Highly developed countries 17 639 3 937 9 517 - 1 001 182 8 336 9 303

Medium developed countries 24 155 4 338 13 557 - 12 979 309 12 073 12 082

Less developed countries 11 995 3 356 6 010 - 2 951 123 7 179 4 816

Others 91 37 41 12 1 47 44

Age Sex

Table 5: Top 10 countries immigration by country of birth


1. Somalia 4 530


3. Turkey 3 604

4. Iraq 3 311


6. India 2 839

7. Russia 2 564

8. Morocco 2 097

9. Surinam 1 947

10. Brazil 1 296

Page 45 of 66

Table 6: Immigration by country of previos residence, age group and sex


Total 128 813 26 015 68 084 32 666 2 048 67 086 61 727European Union (27

countries) 65 800 10 580 36 169 17 933 1 118 34 684 31 116

Extra EU-27 : : : :European Free Trade

Association 1 506 294 743 41 432 30 765 741Candidate countries in

2007 (3 countries) 4 164 804 2 497 14 227 69 2 340 1 824Countries other than EU-

27, EFTA and Candidate

countries 57 343 14 337 28 675 9 855 831 29 297 28 046Highly developed

countries 22 814 5 727 10 612 3 981 363 11 318 11 496Medium developed

countries 24 688 5 510 13 330 12 148 358 12 097 12 591

Less developed countries 9 841 3 100 4 733 1 442 110 5 882 3 959

Others 253 212 25 15 1 128 125

Age Sex

Table 7: Top 10 countries immigration by country of previous residence


1. Caribbean 6 332



4. Turkey 3 907

5. Somali 3 638

6. Iraq 2 745

7. India 2 697

8. Surinam 1 924

9. Morocco 1 690

10. Australia 1 597

Table 8: Emigration by citizenship, age group and sex


Total 85 357 17 200 36 442 28 905 2 810 45 327 40 030

Declaring country 49 885 12 436 17 286 18 104 2 059 26 959 22 926

EU27-countries except


Non EU27-countries nor


Stateless 34 30 2 2 0 19 15

Others 2 0 1 1 0 1 1

Unknown 393 124 168 94 7 229 164

Age Sex

Page 46 of 66

Table 9: Top 10 countries emigration by citizenship

top 10 countries Total


2. India 1 809

3. Japan 1 300


5. Turkey 1 009

6. Indonesia 639

7. Australia 542

8. Canada 436

9. Brazil 381

10. Philippines 365

Table 10: Emigration by country of next usual residence, age group and sex



countries) 47 107 8 553 20 744 16 166 1 644 25 265 21 842Non EU27-countries nor

declaring country 38 250 8 647 15 698 12 739 1 166 20 062 18 188

European Free Trade

Association 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Others 35 8 11 15 1 18 17

Age Sex

Table 11: Top 10 countries by country of next usual residence



2. Former Netherlands Antilles 4 062

3. Turkey 2 287

4. Australia 1 977

5. India 1 862


7. Switzerland 1 427

8. Canada 1 312

9. Japan 1 217

10. Surinam 1 119

Page 47 of 66

Table 12: Usual Residence by country of citizenship, age group and sex,

1 January 2010


Total 16 574 989 3 928 334 3 011 823 7 096 504 2 538 328 8 203 476 8 371 513

Declaring country 15 839 792 3 802 081 2 738 931 6 800 992 2 497 788 7 838 251 8 001 541


declaring county 310 930 38 040 112 383 139 544 20 963 155 821 155 109

Extra EU-27 341 258 62 443 128 666 132 140 18 009 160 449 180 809

European Free Trade

Association 4 496 418 1 570 2 147 361 1 983 2 513

Candidate countries in

2007 (3 countries) 93 065 19 387 29 258 37 054 7 366 46 141 46 924

Countries other than

EU-27, EFTA and

Candidate countries 243 697 42 638 97 838 92 939 10 282 112 325 131 372Highly developed

countries 56 682 8 082 21 401 24 853 2 346 25 058 31 624Medium developed

countries 165 858 28 794 68 689 60 818 7 557 75 991 89 867Less developed

countries 21 157 5 762 7 748 7 268 379 11 276 9 881

Stateless 2 060 954 183 752 171 1 239 821

Others 177 27 107 39 4 74 103

Unknown 83 009 25 770 31 843 23 828 1 568 48 955 34 054

Age Sex

Table 13: Top 10 countries usual residence by citizenship, 1 January 2010


1. Turkey 90 837

2. Morocoo 66 568



5. Indonesia 11 645

6. India 8 744

7. Surinam 6 737

8. Thailand 5 986

9. Ghana 5 407

10. Japan 5 407

Page 48 of 66

Table 14: Usual residence by country of birth, age group and sex, 1 January

2010


Total 16 574 989 3 928 334 3 011 823 7 096 504 2 538 328 8 203 476 8 371 513

Declaring country 14 742 479 3 758 263 2 515 153 6 127 378 2 341 685 7 322 212 7 420 267


declaring country 428 147 49 399 127 550 195 487 55 711 196 094 232 053

Extra EU-27 1 404 363 120 672 369 120 773 639 140 932 685 170 719 193

European Free Trade

Association 9 282 1 708 2 512 4 157 905 3 936 5 346

Candidate countriesin 2007

(3 countries) 196 983 7 013 48 666 124 782 16 522 101 796 95 187

Contries other than EU-27,

EFTA and Candidate

countries 1 198 098 111 951 317 942 644 700 123 505 579 438 618 660

Highly developed countries 292 396 37 175 91 308 150 087 13 826 135 823 156 573

Medium developed countries 771 144 50 568 174 134 439 859 106 583 366 816 404 328

Less developed countries 134 558 24 208 52 500 54 754 3 096 76 799 57 759

Others 949 236 311 344 58 453 496

Age Sex

Table 15: Top 10 countries usual residence by country of birth, 1 January

2010


1. Turkey 196 699

2. Surinam 186 818

3. Morocco 167 416

4. Indonesia 140 657

5. Former Netherlands Antilles 86 087


7. Serbia 51 727

8. Iraq 40 936

9. Russia 35 522

10. Afghanistan 31 072

Page 49 of 66

Table 16: Acquisition of citizenship by country of former citizenship, age

group and sex



countries) 1 881 487 554 743 97 695 1 186Non EU27-countries nor

declaring country 20 844 5 662 7 676 6 677 833 8 563 12 281European Free Trade

Association 16 4 3 9 0 9 7

Candidate countries in

2007 (3 countries) 4 282 1 164 1 527 1 254 337 1 915 2 367

Countries other than EU-

27, EFTA and Candidate

countries 16 546 4 494 6 142 5 414 496 6 639 9 907

Highly developed countries 2 088 428 717 912 31 623 1 465Medium developed

countries 12 101 3 227 4 632 3 810 432 4 920 7 181

Less developed countries 2 357 839 793 692 33 1 096 1 261

Stateless 158 114 19 24 1 89 69

Others 12 0 7 5 0 4 8

Unknown 7 029 2 786 1 950 2 193 100 3 731 3 298

Age Sex

Table 17: Top 10 countries acquisition of citizenship by country of former

citizenship


1. Morocco 5 508

2. Turkey 4 167

3. Surinam 1 142

4. Iraq 674

5. Afghanistan 596

6. China (including Hong Kong) 559

7. Ghana 411

8. Russia 400

9. Thailand 383

10. Egypt 337

Page 50 of 66

Table 18: First Residence permits by reason and citizenship

Total

Family

reasons

Education

reasons

Remunerated

activiteis

Other

reasons

Total first permits by reason 56 489 23 078 9 944 10 433 13 034

Top 10 countries

1. China 5 604 1 072 2 264 1 727 541

2. Turkey 4 567 3 174 655 515 223

3. United States 4 035 1 485 1 285 1 120 145

4. Somalia 3 975 60 0 0 3 915

5. India 3 577 1 365 378 1 791 43

6. Morocco 2 291 2 036 57 55 143

7. Iraq 2 248 223 9 2 2 014

8. Indonesia 1 293 448 541 270 34

9. Surinam 1 283 1 043 141 48 51

10. Japan 1 238 635 119 470 14

Table 19: All vallid permits by reason, length of validity and citizenship on

31 December 2009

Total

From 3 to

5 months

From 6 to

11 months 12 months or over

Total 433 088 69 890 363 198

Family reasons 156 438 35 101 121 337

Education reasons 16 629 0 16 629

Remunerated activities 24 164 9 557 14 607

Other reasons 235 857 25 232 210 625

Top 10 countries

1. Turkey 88 635 8 248 80 387

2. Morocco 71 587 6 786 64 801

3. United States 18 049 3 908 14 141

4. China 21 032 3 608 17 424

5. Iraq 11 754 1 917 9 837

6. Somalia 9 476 3 741 5 735

7. Indonesia 10 222 1 494 8 728

8. India 9 456 3 447 6 009

9. Afghanistan 7 707 1 825 5 882

10. Surinam 7 209 1 361 5 848

Page 51 of 66

Table 20: Long-term residents by citizenship on 31.December 2009

Total 19 351

Stateless 3

Unknown 255

Top 10 countries

1. Turkey 8 069

2. Morocco 2 459

3. Indonesia 1 073

4. China 901

5. Thailand 800

6. United States 684

7. Russia 348

8. India 320

9. Ghana 309

10. Japan 275

Table 21: Third country nationals found to be illegaly present, by age group

and sex


Total 7 565 25 325 4 875 2 340 6 590 975

Stateless 55 0 0 25 30 45 5

Unknown 410 5 20 250 135 365 50

SexAge

Table 22: Top 10 countries of citizenship of third country nationals found to

be illegaly present


1. Somalia 850

2. Iraq 535

3. Morocco 520

4. Turkey 360

5. Afghanistan 350

6. Nigeria 2757. China (including

Hong Kong) 255

8. Algeria 250

9. India 225

10. Surinam 210

Page 52 of 66

Table 23: Third country nationals ordered to leave, top 10 countries

Total 35 574

Stateless 220

Unknown 1 315


1. Turkey 4 095

2. Iraq 3 915

3. Somalia 2 730

4. Morocco 2 570

5. Afghanistan 1 3756. China (including

Hong Kong) 1 350

7. Surinam 1 180

8. Nigeria 1 130

9. Ghana 970

10. Iran 790

Third country nationals ordered to leave

Table 24: Third country nationals returned following an order toe leave, top

10 countries

Total 8 980

Stateless 35

Unknown 130


1. Turkey 935

2. Iraq 685

3. Brazil 5354.China (including Hong

Kong) 475

5. Nigeria 435

6. Surinam 410

7. Somalia 395

8. Morocco 380

9. Ukraine 270

10. Indonesia 190

Third country nationals returned following an order to

leave

Page 53 of 66

Table 25: Third country nationals refused entry at the external borders, top

10 countries

Ground for refusal Total

Refused at

the land

border

Refused at

the sea

border

Refused at

the air

border

Total 2 500 60 2 445

No valid travel document(s) 160 5 160

False travel document 45 5 45

No valid visa or residence permit 950 15 940

False visa or residence permit 10 0 10

Purpose and conditions of stay not justified 675 5 670

Person already stayed 3 months in a 6-months period 35 0 35

No sufficient means of subsistence 80 0 75

An alert has been issued 80 25 55

Person considered to be a public threat 460 5 455

Top 10 countries

1. Surinam 265 0 265

2. Nigeria 245 0 245

3. Brazil 180 0 180

4. China (including Hong Kong) 155 0 155

5. Turkey 140 5 135

6. Philippines 130 15 115

7. Nicaragua 115 0 115

8. Russian Federation 75 5 70

9. India 75 0 75

10. Paraguay 65 0 65

Type of border

Table 26: Incoming requests-Dublin transfers by reason for request and

decision taken

Reason for request Total Accepted Refused Transfered

Total number of requests 942 501 317 323

Total number of taking charge requests 221 92 66 42Taking charge requests: Family reasons (Art.6, Art.7,

Art.8, Art.14) 14 0 9 0Taking charge requests: Documentation and entry reasons

(Art.9, Art.10, Art.11, Art.12) 200 92 52 42

Taking charge requests: Humanitarian reasons (Art.15) 7 0 5 0

Total number of taking back requests 721 409 251 281Taking back requests: Withdrawal of application during

Dublin procedure (Art. 4.5) 6 70 2 44Taking back requests: Under examination - no permission

to stay (Art.16.1c) 503 115 197 77Taking back requests: Withdrawal - new application

(Art.16.1.d) 1 2 0 1Taking back requests: Rejection - no permission to stay

(art.16.1.e) 211 222 52 159

Total EURODAC 619 426 220 :

Taking charge requests based on EURODAC 5 7 3 :

Taking back requests based on EURODAC 614 419 217 :Total number of pending requests at the end of reference

period 76 : : :

Total number of requests for information 931 : : :

Number of answers to requests for information 908 : :

Incoming requests

Page 54 of 66

Table 27: Outgoing requests-Dublin transfers by reason for request and

decision taken

Reason for request Total Accepted Refused Transfered

Total number of requests 3730 3402 247 1458

Total number of taking charge requests 1349 1303 110 231Taking charge requests: Family reasons (Art.6, Art.7, Art.8,

Art.14) 19 14 8 7Taking charge requests: Documentation and entry reasons

(Art.9, Art.10, Art.11, Art.12) 1324 1288 101 221

Taking charge requests: Humanitarian reasons (Art.15) 6 1 1 3

Total number of taking back requests 2381 2099 137 1227Taking back requests: Withdrawal of application during

Dublin procedure (Art. 4.5) 2 18 1 17Taking back requests: Under examination - no permission to

stay (Art.16.1c) 2021 1413 117 672Taking back requests: Withdrawal - new application

(Art.16.1.d) 1 7 0 6Taking back requests: Rejection - no permission to stay

(art.16.1.e) 357 661 19 532

Total EURODAC 2876 2942 83 :

Taking charge requests based on EURODAC 860 969 7 :

Taking back requests based on EURODAC 2016 1973 76 :Total number of pending requests at the end of reference

period 363 : : :

Total number of requests for information 1128 : : :

Number of answers to requests for information 1107 : : :

Outgoing requests by reason and decision taken

Page 55 of 66

Table 28: Total Incoming requests by Member State requesting and reason for request

Taking charge

requests:

Family

reasons

(Art.6, Art.7,

Art.8, Art.14)

Taking charge

requests:

Documentation and

entry reasons

(Art.9, Art.10,

Art.11, Art.12)

Taking charge

requests:

Humanitarian

reasons (Art.15)

Taking back

requests: Withdrawal

of application during

Dublin procedure

(Art. 4.5)

Taking back

requests: Under

examination - no

permission to

stay (Art.16.1c)

Taking back

requests:

Withdrawal -

new application

(Art.16.1.d)

Taking back

requests: Rejection

- no permission to

stay (art.16.1.e)

Taking charge

requests

based on

EURODAC

Taking

back

requests

based on

EURODAC

Total number

of requests

for

information

Belgium 0 29 1 0 63 0 68 0 96 111

Bulgaria 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1

Czech Republic 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Denmark 0 2 0 0 4 0 5 0 5 8Germany (including

former GDR from

1991) 3 33 0 0 85 0 58 0 123 91

Estonia 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Ireland 0 0 0 0 6 0 3 0 7 15

Greece 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Spain 3 2 0 0 1 0 4 0 3 3

France 1 14 0 5 109 0 11 5 110 41

Italy 0 0 0 0 11 0 2 0 12 7

Cyprus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Latvia 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lithuania 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Luxembourg 0 8 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 3

Hungary 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1

Malta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Netherlands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Austria 0 9 1 0 3 0 2 0 4 77

Poland 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 4

Portugal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

Romania 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0

Slovenia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Slovakia 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 4

Finland 0 9 0 1 15 0 6 0 21 31

Sweden 0 48 1 0 28 0 17 0 38 163

United Kingdom 5 5 1 0 65 0 0 0 57 11

Iceland 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 1

Norway 1 25 2 0 73 0 6 0 76 96

Switzerland 1 12 0 0 27 1 25 0 50 257

Total 14 200 7 6 503 1 211 5 614 931

Page 56 of 66

Table 29: Total Outgoing requests by Member State requesting and reason for request

Taking charge

requests:

Family reasons

(Art.6, Art.7,

Art.8, Art.14)

Taking charge

requests:

Documentation

and entry reasons

(Art.9, Art.10,

Art.11, Art.12)

Taking charge

requests:

Humanitarian

reasons

(Art.15)

Taking back

requests:

Withdrawal of

application during

Dublin procedure

(Art. 4.5)

Taking back

requests: Under

examination - no

permission to stay

(Art.16.1c)

Taking back

requests:

Withdrawal - new

application

(Art.16.1.d)

Taking back

requests: Rejection -

no permission to

stay (art.16.1.e)

Taking charge

requests based

on EURODAC

Taking back

requests based

on EURODAC

Total

number of

requests for

information

Belgium 0 5 0 0 183 0 86 0 211 265

Bulgaria 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2

Czech Republic 1 17 0 0 21 0 9 0 24 20

Denmark 1 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 7 22Germany

(including former

GDR from 1991) 2 19 0 0 114 0 75 1 132 169

Estonia 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ireland 2 2 0 0 4 0 1 0 4 4

Greece 4 793 2 0 125 0 5 573 94 45

Spain 0 13 0 0 79 0 7 3 76 39

France 1 87 0 0 186 0 53 64 181 163

Italy 0 296 0 0 734 0 18 214 682 91

Cyprus 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 1

Latvia 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3

Lithuania 0 2 0 0 4 1 0 0 5 2

Luxembourg 0 0 0 0 10 0 3 0 13 4

Hungary 0 6 0 0 66 0 2 2 65 5

Malta 0 13 0 0 161 0 3 1 149 4

Netherlands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Austria 0 5 1 0 55 0 17 0 61 45

Poland 1 12 0 0 71 0 2 0 73 13

Portugal 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

Romania 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3

Slovenia 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 3

Slovakia 0 7 0 0 16 0 1 1 16 2

Finland 0 3 0 0 3 0 1 0 4 9

Sweden 0 9 0 0 81 0 36 0 106 69

United Kingdom 6 7 2 2 29 0 11 1 31 67

Iceland 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Norway 0 0 0 0 47 0 18 0 60 30

Switzerland 0 8 0 0 15 0 9 0 15 42

Total 19 1 324 6 2 2 021 1 357 860 2 016 1 128

Page 57 of 66

Table 30: Asylum applicants by age group and sex

Total 0-14 14-17 18-34 35-64 65+ Unknown Males Females Unknown

Total 16 140 3 110 1 720 8 710 2 475 120 5 10 680 5 445 15

Stateless 100 30 0 50 20 0 0 60 40 0

Unknown 605 425 30 90 50 0 5 350 255 0

Age Sex

Table 31: Asylum applicants: top 10 countries of citizenship


1. Somalia 6 025

2. Iraq 2 165


4.Iran 585

5.Eritrea 485

6. Georgia 425

7. Armenia 370

8. China (including Hong

Kong) 340

9. Guinea 265

10. Mongolia 245

Table 32: New asylum applicants by age group and sex

Total 0-14 15-17 18-34 35-64 65+ Males Females Unknown

Total 14 880 2 915 1 685 7 985 2 185 110 9 775 5 095 15

Stateless 90 25 0 45 15 0 55 35 0

Unknown 505 350 30 75 45 0 285 220 0

Age Sex

Page 58 of 66

Table 33: New asylum applicants: top 10 countries of citizenship


1. Somalia 5 890

2. Iraq 1 990


4. Iran 500

5. Eritrea 475

6. Georgia 410

7. Armenia 3508. China (including

Hong Kong) 305

9. Guinea 235

10. Mongolia 235

Table 34: Asylum applicants considered to be unaccompanied minors by age

and sex

Total 0-14 15-17 16-17 Unknown Males Females Unknown

Total 1 040 55 230 660 100 865 175 0

Stateless 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unknown 20 20 0 15 0 20 5 0

Age Sex

Table 35: Asylum applicants considered to be unaccompanied minors: top 10

countries of citizenship


1. Somalia 355

2. Afghanistan 320

3. Iraq 65

4. Guinea 45

5. Eritrea 40

6. Iran 20

7. Ivory Coast 10

8. Nigeria 10

9. Sudan 10

10. Sierra Leone 10

Page 59 of 66

Table 36: Persons subject of asylum applications pending at the end of the

month by age and sex

Total 0-14 14-17 18-34 35-64 65+ Unknown Mals Females Unknown

Total 16 245 1 580 1 255 9 660 3 565 185 0 11 350 4 895 0

Stateless 95 20 5 45 25 0 0 65 30 0

Unknown 360 165 25 100 60 10 0 220 140 0

SexAge

Table 37: Persons subject of asylum applications pending at the end of the

month by age and sex: top 10 countries by citizenship


1. Iraq 4 895

2. Somalia 3 765


4. Iran 560

5. Burundi 430

6. Armenia 405

7. Georgia 370

8. Eritrea 335

9. Sri Lanka 275

10. Guinea 265

Table 38: Asylum applications withdrawn by age and sex


Total 635 55 15 375 180 5 0 505 130 0

Stateless 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0

Unknown 35 15 0 10 5 0 0 25 10 0

SexAge

Page 60 of 66

Table 39: Asylum applications withdrawn by age and sex: top 10 countries

by citizenship


1. Iraq 220

2. Somalia 60

3. Afghanistan 40

4. Georgia 25

5. Iran 25

6. Russian Federation 15

7. Turkey 15

8. Egypt 15

9. Mongolia 15

10. Guinea 10

Table 40: First instance decisions on applications by citizenship, age and

sex, top 10 countries

First instance decisions

Total Rejected

Total

positive

decisions

Geneva

Convention

Status

Subsidiary

protection

status

Temporary

protection

status

Humanitarian

status

Total 17 565 9 320 8 245 695 3 270 0 4 280

Stateless 100 60 40 5 10 0 20

Unknown 580 305 275 25 100 0 150

Top 10 countries

1. Somalia 6 015 2 170 3 845 95 1 155 0 2 595

2. Iraq 4 490 2 640 1850 200 985 0 665

3. Afghanistan 995 715 280 20 165 0 95

4. Iran 540 310 230 90 60 0 80

5. Eritrea 420 170 250 20 195 0 35

6. Armenia 320 245 75 10 15 0 50

7. Guinea 315 210 105 5 75 0 25

8. China (including

Hong Kong) 275 160 115 55 25 0 35

9. Sri Lanka 260 190 70 15 15 0 40

10. Sierra Leone 250 145 105 0 65 0 40

Page 61 of 66

Table 41: First instance decisions on applications by age, sex en granted

status


Total 17 565 3 275 1 375 9 590 3 135 180 10 11 360 6 200 5

Rejected 9 320 915 590 5 980 1 760 65 5 6 980 2 340 0Positive

decisions 8 245 2 360 785 3 610 1 375 115 5 4 380 3 860 5Convention

status 695 20 25 405 235 15 0 500 195 0Subsidiary

protection status 3 270 735 220 1565 670 75 5 1 575 1 695 0

Temporary

protection status 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Humanitarian

status 4 280 1 605 540 1 640 470 25 0 2 305 1 970 0

Sex

First instance decisions

Age

Table 42: Final decisions on applications by granted status, top 10 countries

of citizenship

Final decisions

Total Rejected

Positive

decisions

Geneva

Convention

Status

Subsidiary

protection

status

Temporary

status

Humanitarian

status

Total 685 425 260 45 125 0 90

Stateless 15 10 0 0 0 0 0

Unknown 40 25 15 0 5 0 10

Top 10 countries

1. Iraq 150 105 45 10 30 0 5

2. Somalia 60 30 30 0 15 0 15

3. Afghanistan 65 30 35 0 20 0 15

4. Iran 55 30 25 10 10 0 5

5. Burundi 30 20 10 0 5 0 5

6. Sri Lanka 25 15 10 5 5 0 0

7. Armenia 20 15 5 5 0 0 0

8. Russian Federation 15 10 5 0 5 0 0

9. Turkey 15 15 5 0 0 0 0

10. Angola 15 10 5 0 0 0 0

Page 62 of 66

Table 43: Final decisions on applications by age and sex, top 10 countries by

citizenship


Total 685 145 40 350 175 10 0 445 240 0

Rejected 425 65 25 225 110 5 0 290 135 0

Positive decisoins 220 35 15 125 65 5 0 155 105 0

Geneva Convention

status 45 0 0 30 15 0 0 35 10 0

Subsidiary protection

status 125 20 5 60 35 5 0 70 55 0

Temporary status 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Humanitarian status 90 25 10 35 15 0 0 50 40 0

Sex

Final decisions

Age

Table 44: Resettled persons by age and sex


Total 370 115 30 105 90 25 0 165 205 0

Citizens of

countries

outside the

EU-27

115 30 105 90 25 0

Stateless 10 5 0 5 0 0 0 10 0 0

Unknown 55 20 5 10 15 5 0 25 30 0

370

Age Sex

165 205 0

Table 45: Resettled persons, top 10 countries by citizenship


1. Iraq 90

2. Ethiopia 45

3. Bhutan 40

4. Eritrea 15

5. Somalia 15

6. Rwanda 10

7. Congo, the Democratic Republic of 10

8. Sri Lanka 10

9. Congo 5

10. Sudan 5

Remark on Tables 44 and 45: The data relate to invited refugees.

Page 63 of 66

Table 46: Decisions withdrawing status granted at first instance decision

Total

Total 770

Stateless 0

Unknown 10

Top 10 countries

1. Iraq 400

2. Somalia 135

3. Burundi 125

4. Afghanistan 25

5. Bosnia and Herzegovina 15

6. Sudan 10

7. Iran 10

8. Russian Federation 5

9. Congo, the Democratic Republic of 5

10.Angola 5

Page 64 of 66

Page 65 of 66

Bibliography

Press release from Statistics Netherlands, Press release10-006 (2010), Crisis remt

migratie en verhuizingen (Crisis acts as a brake on migration and relocations).

Extracted from http://www.cbs.nl/nl on 8 July 2011.

European Migration Network (EMN) (2009a) Annual Policy Report 2009,

Ontwikkelingen in het Nederlandse migratie- en asielbeleid 1 januari 2009-31

december 2009 (Annual Policy Report 2009, Developments in Dutch Migration and

Asylum Policy 1 January 2009-31 December 2009). Rijswijk: Immigration and

Naturalisation Service (IND), National Contact Point for the European Migration

Network

EMN (2009b) Gefaciliteerde terugkeer- en herintegratieprogramma’ s in Nederland

(Facilitated Return and Reintegration Programmes in the Netherlands). Rijswijk:

(IND), National Contact Point for the European Migration Network.

EMN (2010) T

he Netherlands Annual Report on Migration and International Protection

Statistics 1 January 2008-31 December 2008. Rijswijk: (IND), National Contact Point

for the European Migration Network.

Garssen, J., Wobma, E., (CBS) 6 juli 2011, Bijdrage migratie aan bevolkingsgroei

relatief gering (Contribution of migration to population growth relatively small)

Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) (2010a), Trendrapportage Regulier:

Reguliere migratie naar Nederland in beeld. (Trend Report on Regular Residence

2010, An Overview of Regular Migration to the Netherlands) Rijswijk: Information

and Analysis Centre (INDIAC)

IND (2010b), Trendrapportage Naturalisatie VI: Aanvragen en verkrijgen van het

Nederlanderschap door naturalisatie en optie (Trend Report on Naturalisation VI:

Application and Acquisition of Dutch Citizenship by Naturalisation and Option)

Rijswijk: Information and Analysis Centre (INDIAC)

Ministry of Foreign Affairs (July 2010), Country Report on Afghanistan

Nicolaas, H., Wobma, E., and Ooijevaar, J., 2010, Demografie van (niet-westerse) allochtonen

in Nederland (Demography of Western and non-Western migrants in the Netherlands)

Schreijenberg, A., Klaver, J.F.I., Soethout, J. E., Lodder, G.G., and Vleugel, M.J.

(2009) Community Law and Family Migration – The use of Community Law by family

migrants from third countries (Gemeenschapsrecht en gezinsmigratie – Het gebruik

van gemeenschapsrecht door gezinsmigranten uit derde landen). Amsterdam/The

Hague: WODC; Regional Plan Policy Research; Institute of Immigration, Leiden

University; IND Information and Analysis Centre (INDIAC).

Sprangers, A. and Nicolaas, H., 2010, Stijging aantal asielzoekers in Nederland iets

groter dan in EU (Increase in number of asylum seekers in the Netherlands larger

than in EU)

Page 66 of 66

United Nations, International Human Development Indicators, derived from

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

Research and Documentation Centre (WODC) and Immigration and Naturalisation

Service (IND), Information and Analysis Centre (INDIAC), (2009), Internationale

gezinsvorming begrensd? Een evaluatie van de verhoging van de inkomens- en

leeftijdseis bij migratie van buitenlandse partners naar Nederland (International

family formation restricted? An evalutaion of the raised income and age requirement

with regard to the migration of foreign partners to the Netherlands)

The European Migration Network (EMN) has been set up by the

Council of the European Union. The EMN collects up-to-date,

objective, reliable and where possible comparable information

on migration and asylum. The EMN publishes reports on a variety

of subjects in the fi eld of asylum and migration.

The establishment of the EMN is consistent with the aim of the

EU to establish an effective asylum and migration policy.

www.emnnetherlands.nl

The EMN was established via Council Decision

2008/381/EC of 14 May 2008 and is fi nancially sup-

ported by the European Commission.

Documents

ANNUAL REPORT - European Commission · Rapportage Vreemdelingenketen: periode juli-december 2009 (Report of the organisations cooperating in the immigration process: period July-December