The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Refugees is also very concerned about the new US rule and fears that it could endanger already vulnerable families. The measure is not in line with international obligations, the agency said. He noted, however, that the United Nations Refugee Relief and Works Agency considers the agreement to be positive “provided that the two countries have comparable asylum systems and procedures, that citizens have access to a fair review of their asylum claims and that no one is at risk of returning, including by chaining (removal) from one country to another to their country of origin (and) that persons are protected from return to a country where they are subjected to torture or persecution.” The government also argued that a downgrade of the agreement would result in an increase in applications and jeopardize the entire refugee system. The agreement has been under intense scrutiny by U.S. President Donald Trump`s administration since the start of tightening asylum rules. The federal government argued that a contract ruling would result in an increase in refugee complaints, but the Federal Court of Justice contradicted and stated that the current refugee system could solve this problem. The Bundesgerichtshof suspended its cancellation declaration for a period of six months from 22 July, the date of the decision, in order to give Parliament sufficient time to decide. The 16-year-old agreement recognizes both countries as “safe” countries for migrants, and stipulates that refugee seekers are required to apply for protection in the first country they arrive in – meaning that Canadian border guards send back to the United States all so-called refugee seekers who arrive in Canada at an official crossing point. “The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act requires that all designated safe third countries be constantly monitored to ensure that the conditions that led to the designation remain met. On the basis of this ongoing surveillance, the United States remains a safe country, governed by the rule of law and branches of the executive branch, legislative and judicial conventions and at the same time international conventions on refugees and torture,” Said Mr.
Cadieux. Blair spokeswoman Marie-Emmanuelle Cadieux said Canada still considers the United States a safe country. Read The joint letter from Amnesty International/Canadian Refugee Council on why the United States should not be considered safe third countries A Federal Court of Justice has ruled that the Safe Third Country Agreement – Canada`s Asylum Agreement with the United States – is contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and gives the federal government six months to respond. The Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Council of Churches and Amnesty International, as well as the various parties to the trial, have asked the Federal Court to reject this request for a stay. The organizations argued that the federal government has not demonstrated the irreparable damage it will suffer if the agreement is reached. While the decision focused specifically on cruel and harmful detention practices in the United States, which punish individuals for seeking security, many recent measures have virtually ended the right to seek national asylum. In this virtual briefing, our participants discussed the impact of the decision, its impact on the lengthening of the detention of asylum seekers and other attempts to outsource U.S. asylum obligations (including the “Remain in Mexico” program and the host of recent illicit asylum agreements with Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras) and discussed how the United States can restore its reputation as a safe haven for asylum seekers.
The briefing also included introductory remarks by Congressman Joaquin Castro, who defended the right to asylum and conducted several Congressional investigations into access to asylum and detention practices. Yet, says Amnesty International, maintaining the status quo in the Safe Third Countries Agreement could “compromise complicity in the United States.