class=”sc-29f61514-0 fQbOYE”>
A man from Tibet entered Switzerland in June 2018 and applied for asylum. He claims to be from Tibet and said he lived in the Chinese-controlled country before leaving the country. The Chinese authorities were looking for him because he had spoken critically of China. That’s why he fled.
Only: the Swiss authorities do not believe the man. They want to clarify his origins. In such cases, the Lingua department of the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) comes into the picture. It plays a central role in the Swiss asylum system.
Its experts carry out language and knowledge analyzes of asylum seekers whose origin is unclear. The SEM keeps their names secret. In the reports, they only appear under abbreviations and pseudonyms – to protect the experts, as the SEM says.
Department controversial
The department is therefore considered controversial – because its reports are classified. And they carry a lot of weight. Those involved only receive summaries of the reports. The reports are decisive for the rejection of the affected asylum applications.
Also in the case of the Tibetan. The specialist office comes to the conclusion that the man is Tibetan, but has not lived in Tibet, but in exile, the specialist with the pseudonym AS19 judges. asylum application rejected.
Inadvertently, instead of the summary, the full report is sent to the asylum seeker. The man from Tibet is challenging the decision and has four professors of Tibetology draw up a counter-advice. Their conclusion: the federal government’s report was inadequate.
Court of Audit supports analyses
Leading Tibetologists have criticized the reports of the Lingua Department and the experts AS19 in the past, as the “NZZ am Sonntag” wrote in 2020. It is clear that the expert is “very pro-China” and that some of his statements sound “like official Chinese state propaganda”.
The Federal Administrative Court (BVGer) has now ruled in the case of the Tibetan. In a verdict published on Thursday, it writes: The quality of the analyzes of the Lingua department and the expertise of AS19 are “not objectionable”. And: the federal agency’s methods correspond to the “best standards” in an international comparison. The judgment is a reference judgment. Means: It applies to all similar cases.
The Swiss Refugee Aid (SFH) therefore criticizes the verdict. It is incomprehensible that the court has not taken the counter-opinion into account, according to a press release. The SFH also fears that the ruling will have a negative impact on future complaints.
Difficult to follow instructions
The SEM now wants to analyze the verdict and its consequences in detail. On request, it says: “In its reference judgment, the Federal Administrative Court upheld the validity and high quality of the language analysis and confirmed the qualification, diligence, neutrality and independence of the expert who prepared the analysis in the case in question.”
Not only in specific cases, but in general for people from Tibet it is difficult to carry out directions. After all, they cannot be deported to China because they are threatened with persecution there. However, other countries are also excluded because those affected claim to be from Tibet.
This threatens them with a hopeless existence as undocumented migrants, as they cannot be deported and the authorities do not accept applications for hardship.
Source:Blick
I am Liam Livingstone and I work in a news website. My main job is to write articles for the 24 Instant News. My specialty is covering politics and current affairs, which I’m passionate about. I have worked in this field for more than 5 years now and it’s been an amazing journey. With each passing day, my knowledge increases as well as my experience of the world we live in today.
