What's the case of someone who sought asylum in a European country and got rejected, then moved to another European country and applied again.

Based Dublin Regulation the person will have their fingerprints checked against an EU database, then they will contact the first country that processed their asylum.

Now the questions are, if the first country accept to take charge or take back the person.

  • What will happen to them in the first country?
  • Are there any regulations to stop the second country from sending the person back?
  • Is there any chance they will send them back to home country (the one where there is a threat)?
  • I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because identical question already asked, and answered on Travel stack exchange.
    – James K
    Jul 1 '19 at 22:01
  • @JamesK Do you mean this question? What happens if a person is deported to a country that previously refused asylum?
    – divibisan
    Jul 1 '19 at 22:44
  • If you notice the questions are different.
    – bomsn
    Jul 1 '19 at 23:01
  • @JamesK the answer on that question is not all encompassing and very narrow in scope, and this is much more of a legal question than a travel question - its much more at home here than there. This one shouldn't be closed - if anything, that one should be (or migrated here).
    – Moo
    Jul 2 '19 at 1:30

The EU asylum system is in a slight disarray because the southern and south-eastern member states could not cope with the numbers. The Dublin regulations are unfair to the EU member states on the south-eastern borders and the shores of the Mediterranean, who are supposed to handle all refugee matters. Some of them reacted by ceasing to even try, which is no solution, either. Meanwhile, eastern member states demand structural cohesion funds and protection from Russia, yet they wash their hands of the refugee problem.

How it is supposed to work:

A refugee arrives in one EU state. There he makes an application for political asylum. If the application is granted, he can stay. If it is declined, he gets deported to his homeland.

  • The application must be made as soon as the refugee reaches the EU.
  • The refugee has no right to travel within the EU to select where the application is handled. If he tries that, he is sent back.
  • The refugee has no right to make two applications in the EU. The decision of the first application is accepted by all EU members.

How it actually works:

  • Countries like Greece, the Balkans, and Hungary got overwhelmed by the numbers. Germany, Sweden, and others processed the applications by refugees who walked north instead of applying in their country of first arrival.
  • There is a time limit on sending people back to other EU states under Dublin. In some cases the northern countries were unable to complete the paperwork in time.
  • In a few cases, courts in northern Europe decided that sending refugees back to camps in southern EU countries was impossible because they were so overcrowded.

Still, they are trying to get back to an orderly Dublin process, and numbers are much lower now than they were in 2015.

To the specific questions:

  • If refugees are sent back to their first country of arrival, their asylum claim gets processed there.
  • There are a few exceptions to refugees being sent back. Close family already in the asylum process in the second country, medical inability to travel, the second country voluntarily deciding to hear the case.
  • If one EU country declined the asylum application, then the EU does not believe there is a threat, and it will send the applicant back to his home country or any country that will take him.
  • "The Dublin regulations are unfair to the EU member states on the south-eastern borders and the shores of the Mediterranean..." I think that's debatable. It wasn't those negotiating the Dublin Convention that also had the inhumane idea of encouraging thousands of men, women and children cross the Mediterranean, with no assurance of safe travel or a place to reside, to their watery deaths. And I seriously doubt those regulations were put into place with such an event in mind.
    – ouflak
    Jul 2 '19 at 11:10
  • 1
    If anything, they were probably put in place with the idea of instability in Europe as a general assumption, something that is not historically unrealistic (such as the break up of Yugoslavia, or Russia invading the Crimea, etc...).
    – ouflak
    Jul 2 '19 at 11:10
  • Thanks for the detailed answer, just to understand a little bit more, I've read that rejection only lasts 4 years, after that if you're sent back to first country, are they going to re-consider your application? Allow you to go out...etc? Or, take you into a facility once you're in their hands and keep you there until they put you on a plan to your home country?.
    – bomsn
    Jul 2 '19 at 11:11
  • And for the cases where they can't send you, I've ready that this only applied if the first country didn't yet accept to take you back after that, there is nothing you can do, is that correct?
    – bomsn
    Jul 2 '19 at 11:13
  • "encouraging thousands of men, women and children cross the Mediterranean, with no assurance of safe travel or a place to reside, to their watery deaths" - well, the primary responsibility for that rests with the belligerents in Syria and Libya?
    – pjc50
    Jul 2 '19 at 11:49

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .