Thousands of third-country nationals who sought sanctuary in the Netherlands following Russia’s February 24, 2022 invasion of Ukraine have been instructed to depart by Monday, despite a four-week respite.
Many of those impacted, especially Ukrainian students and young professionals, have been protesting in Amsterdam’s streets in recent weeks, accusing the newly elected far-right Dutch government of discrimination.
The deportation decision came after the Netherlands’ highest court declared in January that a European Union policy that had permitted both Ukrainian citizens and residents to settle in the country since the conflict would no longer apply to temporary residents. Those affected must leave the country by March 4 or face forceful deportation.
Here’s why the Dutch government wants this group to leave now, and how attorneys hope to challenge the decision:
Why does the Netherlands want third-country nationals to leave?
Like the rest of the European Union, the Netherlands originally opened its borders to individuals leaving Ukraine at the commencement of the conflict, in March 2022.
The EU’s Temporary Protection Directive (TPD) stated that Ukrainian refugees and permanent residents would be allowed asylum for two years, until March 4, 2024, and that permits might be renewed by the union on an annual basis.
However, unlike several other EU members, the Netherlands did not review individual cases to distinguish Ukrainian nationals from those with temporary permits, such as the thousands of students – mostly from India, Nigeria, Morocco, and Egypt – who had lived and studied in Ukraine for years prior to the conflict.
“The point was to alleviate the burden on the asylum system,” Lotte van Diepen of Everaert Advocaten, an immigration law company, told Al Jazeera.
In most other nations, authorities determined whether people might safely return, which meant that those with temporary visas were either permitted to stay or sent to their home countries, depending on the strength of the particular cases.
However, the Dutch method was more appealing. Thousands of third-country nationals flocked to Dutch cities, and around 4,500 were registered in municipalities across the country.
The government provided most refugees with refugee center accommodations, a stipend, access to healthcare, and work permits.
Change of heart?
The Dutch government declared early in 2023 that it will remove protection for third-country nationals, and warned them via various letters that they must leave their shelters and the country by September 4, 2023, or face deportation.
Dutch officials said that third-country nationals who might safely return to their native nations had “abused” the protection system.
Minister of Migration Eric van der Burg stated that not taking action would “overburden” communities and guaranteed 5,000 euros ($5,422) in “remigration” compensation to individuals wanting to depart willingly.
“We didn’t know what to do because those letters were very terrifying,” said Isaac Awodola, a Nigerian graduate of Odessa State University and co-founder of the Derdelanders organization, which supports third-country nationals.
“We had like six months to prepare to do whatever we wanted, [but] at that moment we were still traumatised,” he went on to say.
Some third-country citizens working with immigration attorneys, including van Diepen, sued the Dutch government, contesting whether it could remove protection for a group already approved under an EU directive.
Many of these cases were expedited in the courts, while others remained pending.
With the judicial intervention, Migration Minister van der Burg was obliged to postpone the September 4 deadline, providing temporary respite to thousands such as Awodola. Refugees are once again facing uncertainty.
Many want to stay because they have ties to Ukraine, according to Awodola. There are individuals who need to return to reclaim lost certificates, and those, such as medical students, who need to stay close since, while their university courses are conducted online, they must be physically present for practical tests – and flights from their home countries are expensive.
“We are also human beings regardless of our background or where we come from, because the bombs and rockets that dropped on Ukraine did not ask for a passport,” he said. “There should not be any segregation or separatism involved.”
What did the courts say?
In numerous individual instances, including those brought by van Diepen, who represents at least six persons, district courts found that the authorities lacked the authority to terminate the stay of third-country nationals in the absence of an express EU mandate.
Other judges, however, concluded that van der Burg may order third-country people to leave even though there was no European statute requiring so.
Due to the disagreement, appeals were made to the Council of State, the Netherlands’ highest administrative court.
The court had to determine whether the Dutch government had the right to remove those protected by the EU regulation. In October, the EU extended the temporary protection measure for a second time, until March 4, 2025.
On January 17, the council concluded that Dutch authorities do not have such authority, and that the minister could not divide third-country people from Ukrainian nationals when everyone had initially received blanket protection.
If the order applies to Ukrainian refugees, the court argued that it should also apply to third-country nationals.
However, the court also stated that permits for third-country nationals will expire on March 4, the initial, flexible expiry date established by the EU at the outset of the war.
According to the court’s finding, the EU extension in October did not clearly identify third-country nationals. Therefore, protection no longer applies to that group.
It was a convenient victory for the Dutch but upsetting for third-country nationals and their attorneys.
The court “went beyond [the] scope of the initial dispute brought before it,” van Diepen said, referring to the original question about the Dutch government’s authority.
“The court argument did not address the termination date of March 4, 2024. It was only an extra statement of opinion stated by the court in the final judgment, not necessary to the outcome and hence, we contend, not legally enforceable as a precedent.”
What’s next?
The Council of State’s decision cannot be challenged. The Dutch government has given citizens an additional 28 days to plan their departures and will allow them to stay in their current accommodations until the first week of April.
However, state-provided benefits such as stipends and healthcare have been discontinued, and work permits have been withdrawn. After the grace period, individuals may be deported.
Dutch authorities have asked third-country nationals who do not feel comfortable going home to apply for asylum, although the majority do not meet that criteria.
Of the original 4,500 who settled in the Netherlands, around 2,700 to 2,900 remain.
“I don’t have a plan yet,” one Zimbabwean who recently graduated from an online Ukrainian institution said of this week’s deadline. Awodola, a Nigerian, has promised to continue protesting.
Van Diepen and other attorneys are returning to lower district courts to argue in ongoing cases that the EU’s extension did not need to identify third-country nationals because it already covered them specifically.
If the lower courts disagree, they can ask the EU’s Court of Justice to intervene. A judgment issued by the bloc takes precedence over national law.
Third-country nationals feel Ukraine was their home as well, and the war has harmed them. Several African and Asian students reported being denied evacuation from war zones in 2022 because they were not Ukrainian.
However, migration is a contentious issue in the Netherlands, which voted for the far-right, anti-migrant Party for Freedom, led by politician Geert Wilders, in the November legislative elections.
Some Dutch residents believe third-country nationals are diverting resources intended for Dutch citizens and Ukrainian refugees and that the government has the authority to revoke their stay.
“We recognise their move was very generous in the first instance,” van Diepen told the media. “But the problem is that those who were already admitted cannot suddenly turn around and say we don’t want them again. “It is an unjust decision with no legal basis.”
The lawyer stated that some of the lesser court matters will be heard in the coming weeks. However, time is running out for the thousands of third-country nationals who must immediately pack out. Again.
This article was created using automation technology and was thoroughly edited and fact-checked by one of our editorial staff members