Australia: Migration policies for People with HIV perpetuate criminalisation and expose them to harm

David Carter Delivers Keynote at the Australasian HIV&AIDS Conference

Health+Law’s research lead David Carter, delivered a keynote address at the recent ASHM HIV Conference in Sydney, exploring the controversial past and present of HIV criminalisation in Australia. His urgent, provocative address challenged us to consider how current legal and policy processes in migration law recreate conditions of criminalisation, producing serious health and other harms for people living with HIV. 

Talking to Health+Law researchers in an interview about legal issues, Sergio*, a man in his thirties originally from South America and living with HIV, described the experience of migration to Australia:

I didn’t have to face any court, but I [did] have to prove that I wasn’t a bad person just because I have HIV […] I [had] to prove myself to someone else, who probably is not living with HIV, that I was not a bad person, and I was a good citizen and I deserve to be here.

The migration process is a complex one – and this complexity is amplified for people living with HIV. Sergio’s reflections express a particularly grim aspect of this process for migrants, especially those living with HIV.

Indeed, as Scientia Associate Professor David Carter, Health+Law’s research lead, argued in an invited keynote at the 2024 Australasian HIV&AIDS Conference hosted by ASHM Health in September this year, the experience of people living with HIV seeking to migrate to Australia is part of Australia’s long history of the criminalisation of HIV. Speaking to delegates from Australia, New Zealand, Asia and the Pacific at Sydney’s International Convention Centre on Gadigal Country, David reminded the audience that criminalisation is a policy approach, that doesn’t just use the criminal law. To show this he set out five stages of criminalisation that are also evident in the migration process for those living with HIV.

First, as he explained, criminalisation characterises specific behaviour as harmful or carrying a risk of harm to the community. In this case the harm presented is, to quote Australian migration law, that a person’s HIV care represents a ‘significant cost to the Australian community or prejudice [to] the access of Australian citizens or permanent residents to health care or community services’.

Second, criminalisation creates a suspect population, made up of people thought to warrant suspicion because they come to be associated with the potential harm.

Third and fourth, this suspect population attracts surveillance from the state, with a hierarchy created within the suspect population whereby some members are subject to further and intensified surveillance.

Fifth, and finally, some members of this suspect population are subjected ‘to the most severe forms of the state’s coercive and punitive authority’, including investigation, more intensive supervision, detention or arrest, and in some cases, criminal or civil proceedings.

The criminalisation of HIV has a long and storied history, going back to the very early days of the AIDS crisis. Vocal members of HIV-affected communities, legal and human rights advocates and many others have argued strongly against criminalisation, viewing it as draconian and as an approach to public (health) policy with very negative consequences for HIV epidemics.

In Australia, arguments against HIV-specific criminal offences have been broadly successful, and yet the ‘temptation’ to criminalise – as the very first Australian National HIV Strategy described it – continues to emerge in some policy responses to HIV and other communicable diseases.

In 1987, when the authors of the first national HIV strategy were writing, they were warning against measures including compulsory universal HIV testing, the closure of gay venues, criminal penalties for HIV transmission, and limitations on the movement of HIV positive people, including forced quarantine. Today, HIV criminalisation is operating in Australian migration policy and law.

‘This contemporary criminalisation of HIV begins’, David argued, ‘like all criminalisation, with the characterisation of behaviour in terms of harm and risk of harm’. He continued, arguing that:

This characterisation of migrating while HIV positive as harmful establishes, and in-turn enlivens, the suspect population management and criminalising processes of our medical border […] This criminalising logic establishes an adversarial relationship between the person living with HIV and the state, and between them and members of the Australian community, whose access to health care it is alleged may be prejudiced by providing care for a person living with HIV who wishes to migrate.

Among the many negative effects of this process is that it can discourage migrants living with HIV from engaging in testing, treatment and HIV care. Interviews conducted by Health+Law as part of our national legal needs (LeNS) study confirm that this is happening. They show that many migrants living with HIV in jurisdictions across Australia experienced an alienating and hostile environment: a ‘threat environment so elevated’, as David described it in his keynote, that they frequently described withdrawing from HIV care and community life as a coping mechanism.

Unfolding the history of ‘unjust and unhelpful’ HIV criminalisation in Australia, David outlined how the current legal and policy conditions that prospective migrants living with HIV face in Australia today work to recreate conditions of criminalisation and expose both individuals and the community to multiple health harms.

You can read more about David’s keynote in The Medical Republic’s coverage of the conference.

US: Restrictive immigration policies would undermine Public Health and economic stability

Expected Immigration Policies under a second Trump administration and their health and economic implications

Introduction

Immigration was a central campaign issue during the 2024 Presidential election with President-elect Trump vowing to take strict action to restrict both lawful and unlawful immigration into the U.S. Such actions would have stark impacts on the health and well-being of immigrant families as well as major economic consequences for the nation. As of 2023, there were 47.1 million immigrants residing in the U.S., and one in four children had an immigrant parent.¹ Increased immigration boosts federal revenuesand lowers the national deficit through immigrants’ participation in the country’s economy, workforce, and through billions of dollars in tax contributions.

This issue brief discusses key changes to immigration policies that may take place under the second Trump administration based on his previous record and campaign statements, and their implications. President-elect Trump has indicated plans to restrict and eliminate legal immigration pathways, including humanitarian protections, and deport millions of immigrants, which would likely lead to separation of families, negative mental and physical impacts for immigrant families, and negative consequences on the nation’s workforce and economy.

Expected Policy Changes

Elimination of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program

The future of the DACA program remains uncertain due to pending litigation, and President-elect Trump has indicated plans to eliminate it, which would lead to over half a million DACA recipients losing protected status. DACA was originally established via executive action in June 2012 to protect certain undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children from removal proceedings and receive authorization to work for renewable two-year periods. During his prior term, President-elect Trump sought to end DACA but was blocked by the Supreme Court in 2020. The Biden administration issued regulations in 2022 to preserve DACA protections. In September 2023, a district court in Texas ruled the DACA program unlawful, preventing the Biden administration from implementing the new regulations while the case awaits a decision in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Under pending court rulings, while the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is accepting first-time DACA requests, it is unable to process them. DHS is continuing to process DACA renewal requests and related requests for employment authorization. After the attempt to end DACA failed in 2020, the Trump administration saidthat it would try again to eliminate DACA protections, and, if the pending court ruling finds the program unlawful, the administration is unlikely to appeal the decision. There are over half a million active DACA recipients, a majority of whom are working and many of whom have U.S.-born children, who could be at risk of deportation if the program is eliminated.

A recent health coverage expansion to DACA recipients also is subject to pending litigation and would, if eliminated, leave many DACA recipients without access to an affordable coverage option. In May 2024, the Biden administration published regulations to extend eligibility for Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace coverage with premium and cost-sharing subsidies to DACA recipients, who were previously ineligible for federally funded health coverage options. The regulation became effective November 1, 2024, allowing for enrollment during the 2025 Open Enrollment Period. In August 2024, a group of states filed a lawsuit against the federal government alleging that the ACA Marketplace coverage expansion for DACA recipients violates the Administrative Procedure Act. The case is currently under review at a district court in North Dakota and a decision is expected in the coming months. Elimination of the expansion could leave the nearly 100,000 uninsured DACA recipients it is estimated to cover without an affordable coverage option.

Changes to Public Charge Policy

President-elect Trump could reinstate changes to public charge policy that he made during his first term, which led to increased fears and misinformation among immigrant families about accessing programs and services, including health coverage. Under longstanding immigration policy, federal officials can deny entry to the U.S. or adjustment to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status (i.e., a “green card”) to someone they determine to be a public charge. During his prior term, President-elect Trump issued regulations in 2019 that broadened the scope of programs that the federal government would consider in public charge determinations to newly include the use of non-cash assistance programs like Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Research suggests that these changes increased fears among immigrant families about participating in programs and seeking services, including health coverage and care. Prior KFF analysis estimated that the 2019 changes to public charge policy could have led to decreased coverage for between 2 to 4.7 million Medicaid or CHIP enrollees who were noncitizens or citizens living in a mixed immigration status family. The Biden administration rescinded these changes. However, as of 2023, a majority of immigrant adults said in a KFF survey that they were “not sure” about public charge rules, and roughly one in ten (8%), rising to about one in four (27%) of likely undocumented immigrant adults, said they have avoided applying for assistance with food, housing, or health care in the past year due to immigration-related fears (Figure 1). As of November 2024, President-elect Trump has not indicated whether his administration plans to reinstate his first term changes to public charge policy.

Expanded Interior Enforcement Actions

President-elect Trump has indicated that his administration plans to carry out mass detentions and deportations of millions of immigrants, including long-term residents, which could lead to family separations and negative mental and physical health consequences. President-elect Trump has stated that he will declare a national emergency and use the U.S. military to carry out mass deportationsof tens of millions of undocumented immigrants residing in the U.S., many of whom have been living and working in the country for decades. Such a policy could lead to family separations as well as mass detentions, which can have negative implications for the mental health and well-being of immigrant families and also put their physical health at risk. Tom Homan, who was the director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during the first Trump administration and has been selected as the incoming administration’s “border czar”, has said that it is possible to carry out mass deportations without separating families by deporting an entire family unit together, even if the child may be a U.S. citizen. As was the case during his first term, he may also carry out workplace raids as part of mass deportation efforts. Research shows that such raids can lead to family separations, poor physical and mental health outcomes for immigrant families, negative birth and educational outcomes for the children of immigrants, and financial hardship due to employment losses. Prior KFF research shows that restrictive immigration policies implemented during the first Trump administration, including detention and deportation led to increased fears and stress among immigrant families and negatively impacted the health and well-being of children of immigrants, most of whom are U.S. citizens.

Mass deportations could also negatively impact the U.S. workforce and economy, where immigrants make significant contributions. Immigrants have similar rates of employment as their U.S.-born counterparts and play outsized roles in certain occupations such as agriculture, construction, and health care. Research has found that immigrants do not displace U.S.-born workers and help foster job growth through entrepreneurship and the consumption of goods and services. Further, federal data show that unemployment rates for U.S.-born workers have not decreased between 2022 and 2023 and have remained similar to those for immigrant workers. In addition, immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, pay billions of dollars in federal, state, and local taxes each year. Mass deportation of immigrants could lead to workforce shortages in key sectors which could have negative economic consequences including an increase in the cost of essential goods such as groceries. Vice President-elect Vance has stated that immigrants are responsible for the U.S. housing crisis. While some studies show a link between immigration and rising housing costs, in general, economists are skeptical of immigration being a primary driver. Mass deportation of immigrants could also worsen housing shortages since immigrants make up a significant share of construction workers. Workplace raids can exacerbate existing labor shortages and have a negative impact on the local economies of the communities where they take place. Further, research shows that without the contributions undocumented immigrants make to the Medicare Trust Fund, it would reach insolvency earlier, and that undocumented immigrants result in a net positive effect on the financial status of Social Security. There also is likely to be a significant cost to taxpayers for the government to carry out large-scale detention and deportations.

Ending Birthright Citizenship

President-elect Trump has stated that he will sign an executive order to end birthright citizenship for the children of some immigrants despite it being a guaranteed right under the U.S. Constitution, which would negatively impact the health care workforce and economy. This proposed action would limit access to health coverage and care for the children of immigrants since they may not have lawful status. It could also have broader ramifications for the nation’s workforce and economy, potentially exacerbating existing worker shortages, including in health care. KFF analysis of federal data shows that adult children of immigrants have slightly better educational and economic outcomes than adult children of U.S.-born parents and make up twice the share of physicians, surgeons, and other health care practitioners as compared to their share of the population (13% vs. 6%) (Figure 2). Other research also has found that children of immigrants contribute more in taxes on average than their parents or the rest of the U.S.-born population, and that their fiscal contributions exceed their costs associated with health care, education, and other social services.

Reinstatement of “Remain in Mexico” Policy

President-elect Trump has stated that he will reinstate the “Remain in Mexico” border policy and that he may use military spending to carry out stricter border enforcement, which would leave an increased number of asylum seekers facing unsafe conditions at the border. The first Trump administration implemented Migrant Protection Protocols, often referred to as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, in 2019. Under this policy, asylum seekers were required to remain in Mexico, often in unsafe conditions, while they awaited their immigration court hearings. The Biden administration ended this policy in 2022, following some legal challenges, although it implemented a series of increasingly restrictive limits on asylum eligibility in 2023 and 2024 in response to a high number of border encounters. President-elect Trump said he plans to reinstate the Migrant Protection Protocols. He also has indicated that he will deploy the National Guard, as well as active duty military personnel, if needed, to the U.S.-Mexico border, although details of the plan remain unclear. Heightened military presence at the border can lead to increased fears among immigrant families living in border areas and using part of the military budget for border security could face legal challenges.

Restrictions on Humanitarian Protections

President-elect Trump said he plans to significantly limit the entry of humanitarian migrants into the U.S. during his second term by restricting refugee limits, shutting down the CBP One application for asylum seekers, and eliminating Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations for immigrants from some countries. During his first term, President Trump set the annual refugee admissions ceiling at its lowest levels, ranging from 50,000 in 2017 to a historic low of 18,000 in 2020. The Biden administration increased the limit to 65,000 in 2021, a level close to the annual ceilings prior to the first Trump term, and further increased the limits in 2022 and 2024 in response to humanitarian concerns. It is likely that President-elect Trump will reduce the admissions ceiling for refugees in his second term. The President-elect has also said that he will close the CBP One application created by the Biden administration which allows asylum seekers to seek lawful entry to the U.S. by making an interview appointment with the DHS. While there have been implementation challenges with the CBP One application, shutting down the application could lead to “mass cancellation of appointments” and possibly an increase in attempts to cross the border outside of ports of entry. President-elect Trump also has indicated that he will roll back TPS designations for some immigrants, including those from Haiti. TPS designations protect immigrants from countries deemed unsafe by the DHS from deportation and provide them with employment authorization but do not provide a pathway to long-term residency or citizenship. As of March 2024, over 860,000 immigrants from 16 countries were protected by TPS. Loss of TPS would put people at risk for deportation, which could contribute to family separation which in turn can have negative impacts on the mental and physical health of immigrant families, and broader negative consequences for the workforce and economy.

Endnotes

KFF analysis of 2023 American Community Survey 1-year Public Use Microdata Sample.

Sweden: 96% of LGBTQI+ asylum seekers in Sweden rejected, violating legal protections

Asylum-seeking LGBTQI+ individuals deported on illegal grounds

Migration authorities are rejecting and deporting LGBTQI+ asylum seekers in violation of Swedish and international law. This is revealed by an extensive report by RFSL. “A legal scandal that continues in silence, behind confidentiality and secrecy,” says Aino Gröndahl, asylum law specialist at RFSL.

Despite the Swedish Migration Agency having taken several actions since RFSL’s last legal investigation in 2020, the situation for LGBTQI+ individuals seeking asylum in Sweden has not improved. A staggering 96 percent of the decisions and judgments reviewed in the new investigation were rejections, a higher percentage than the data RFSL’s asylum law specialist reviewed in 2020. The latest report also shows that illegal demands in SOGIESC asylum cases persist. This results in LGBTQI+ asylum seekers, who are entitled to protection in Sweden, being deported to countries where they risk persecution, torture, and the death penalty.

“Sweden continues to deport LGBTQI+ individuals on illegal grounds. It is a legal scandal that occurs in silence, behind confidentiality and secrecy. A shame for a country that claims to be a rule-of-law state,” says Aino Gröndahl, asylum lawyer at RFSL.

Stop the deportations of asylum-seeking LGBTQI+ individuals if safe and fair assessments cannot be guaranteed

RFSL is now calling for a decision and enforcement halt until safe and fair investigations, reviews, and assessments consistent with current law are guaranteed in SOGIESC asylum cases.

“The government must now ensure that the asylum process for LGBTQI+ individuals follows Swedish and international law. Until then, RFSL wants all illegal rejections and deportations of LGBTQI+ individuals to be stopped,” says Peter Sidlund Ponkala, Chairman of RFSL.

Summary of the Report

In the report “Rejection motivations in SOGIESC asylum cases in Sweden” RFSL has reviewed the Migration Agency’s assessments. This involves 1,360 decisions and judgments in SOGIESC asylum cases between November 2020 and May 2023. The report is authored by Aino Gröndahl, asylum lawyer at RFSL.

The report shows that:

The Migration Agency assessments of SOGIESC asylum cases violate Swedish and international law.
The Migration Agency continues to reject and deport asylum seekers on illegal grounds to countries that persecute and also apply the death penalty to LGBTQI+ individuals.
A full 96 percent of the decisions and judgments reviewed in the new report were rejections. This is a higher percentage than in the data RFSL’s asylum law specialist reviewed in 2020.
The right to an individual review and objective assessment is not met in SOGIESC asylum cases.
Discretionary requirements still occur, meaning that asylum seekers are required to have hidden their SOGIESC status in their home country to avoid persecution. This is despite discretion requirements having been prohibited in Swedish law for nearly two decades and in international law for over a decade.
Requirements for internal emotional processes and risk considerations in credibility and reliability assessments are solely based on stereotypes and prejudices about SOGIESC individuals. This violates, among other things, EU law and UNHCR guidelines.
The Migration Agency often demands that SOGIESC asylum seekers display negative emotions such as shame. This means that Swedish authorities condition the right to protection on LGBTQI+ individuals showing self-hatred to appear credible.

RFSL’s recommendations to the government

Halt decision-making and deportations until safe and fair investigations, reviews, and assessments consistent with current law are guaranteed in SOGIESC asylum cases.
Promptly appoint the investigation promised in the Tidö Agreement to review the legal safety in SOGIESC asylum cases.
Provide clear instructions and requirements to the Migration Agency for quality assurance in the investigation, review, and assessment of SOGIESC asylum cases.
Task the Migration Agency with continuously training all operational staff in the investigation, review, and assessment of protection needs based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.
Task the Migration Agency with compiling statistics on SOGIESC asylum cases and the grounds on which an asylum case should be granted or rejected.

US : Report uncovers systemic abuse of LGBTQ+ and HIV-Positive immigrants in U.S. detention facilities

Report: No human being should be held here

A new report, “No Human Being Should Be Held Here,” claims that nearly a third of immigrant detainees interviewed (18 out of 41) were sexually assaulted while in the custody of federal immigration authorities. Almost all of those interviewed (35 out of the 41) reported being harassed for being LGBTQ+ or an immigrant in custody.

For this report, Immigration Equality, the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC), and Human Rights First (HRF) surveyed 41 LGBTQ and HIV-positive immigrants who were detained by CBP and ICE. This survey revealed:

Approximately one third of survey participants (18 out of 41) reported sexual abuse, physical assaults or sexual harassment in immigration detention due to their LGBTQ identity;
Nearly all of the participants (35 out of 41), reported being targets of homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, racist, or other verbal and nonverbal abuse in ICE and CBP jails that included threats of violence and assault;
A majority of participants (28 out of 41) reported receiving inadequate medical care or asking for medical care and not receiving it while in ICE or CBP detention.
Nearly half of participants (20 out of 41) interviewed reported new or increased mental health symptoms while in detention, including hives, panic attacks, mental health crises, flashbacks, and self-harm;
Roughly half of participants (20 of 41) were subject to solitary confinement;
Nearly half of participants (18 of 41) reported having their sexual orientation, gender identity, HIV status or other confidential medical information disclosed in custody without their consent;
More than a quarter of survey participants (12 out of 41) reported that ICE or CBP separated them from their loved ones, whether a partner, spouse, or sibling;
Survey participants routinely struggled to access their attorneys or find one, while in ICE or CBP detention;
The majority of survey participants living with HIV (13 out of 17 participants) reported medical neglect or denial of medical HIV treatment.

Syria: Syrian trans woman’s HIV status shared by media, leading to deportation and death

Refuge trans woman deported by Turkey over HIV status killed in Syria

A Syrian refugee trans woman, who was deported by Turkey after her HIV status was exposed on social media, was killed by the Free Syrian Army in collaboration with her family in Syria.

Adana LGBTI+ Solidarity on July 27 announced that a Syrian trans woman who were deported by Turkish authorities to Syria over her HIV status were killed in there five days ago.

LGBTI+ news outlet KaosGL reported that she was killed by Free Syrian Army and her family.

On July 5, local news outlets and several social media users shared medical documents about the refugee woman with serious hate speech.

Even though it is illegal to disclose any person’s medical information in Turkey, authorities decided to deport the refugee woman instead of punishing those involved in the crime.

The Adana LGBTI+ Solidarity stated, “In Adana, a Syrian trans woman had her private health information shared without consent and faced hate speech. This violated her personal rights and privacy. Trans woman M.E. was deported through the Cilvegözü Border Gate following these events. Unfortunately, we learned that she passed away five days ago.”

US: New report reveals dire conditions for LGBTQ and HIV-Positive asylum seekers in U.S. immigration detention facilities

“No Human Being Should Be Held There”: The Mistreatment Of LGBTQ And HIV-Positive People In U.S. Federal Immigration Jails

Asylum in the United States is a lifesaving necessity for LGBTQ and HIV-positive people. For decades, many have fled to the United States to seek refuge from persecution and torture. However, the United States subjects hundreds of thousands of people yearly, including LGBTQ and HIV-positive people, to its massive network of jails and prisons. These jails, run by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), are infamous for their inhumane and abusive conditions. For LGBTQ and HIV-positive people, these conditions routinely include high rates of physical and sexual violence, improper and prolonged solitary confinement, and inadequate medical care among other forms of systemic abuse and neglect.

For this report, Immigration Equality, the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC), and Human Rights First (HRF) surveyed 41 LGBTQ and HIV-positive immigrants who were detained by CBP and ICE. This survey revealed:

Approximately one third of survey participants (18 out of 41) reported sexual abuse, physical assaults or sexual harassment in immigration detention due to their LGBTQ identity;
Nearly all of the participants (35 out of 41), reported being targets of homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, racist, or other verbal and nonverbal abuse in ICE and CBP jails that included threats of violence and assault;
A majority of participants (28 out of 41) reported receiving inadequate medical care or asking for medical care and not receiving it while in ICE or CBP detention.
Nearly half of participants (20 out of 41) interviewed reported new or increased mental health symptoms while in detention, including hives, panic attacks, mental health crises, flashbacks, and self-harm;
Roughly half of participants (20 of 41) were subject to solitary confinement;
Nearly half of participants (18 of 41) reported having their sexual orientation, gender identity, HIV status or other confidential medical information disclosed in custody without their consent;
More than a quarter of survey participants (12 out of 41) reported that ICE or CBP separated them from their loved ones, whether a partner, spouse, or sibling;
Survey participants routinely struggled to access their attorneys or find one, while in ICE or CBP detention;
The majority of survey participants living with HIV (13 out of 17 participants) reported medical neglect or denial of medical HIV treatment.

The executive branch and Congress can take steps to end this unnecessary suffering and protect the rights of LGBTQ/H individuals. These include steps to apply parole authority, issue guidance on vulnerable populations, support legislative action and phase out immigration detention. Read the full report here.

Turkey: HIV-Positive Syrian refugee fights for access to treatment in Istanbul detention centre

HIV positive Syrian refugee ‘left for dead’ in İstanbul removal center

Ahmed Aaabo’s treatment has been disrupted by bureaucratic hurdles after his temporary protection status was removed, says his lawyer.

Ahmed Aabo was only 10 years old when his family left him at the Turkish border in 2011, seeking a safer life amidst the Syrian civil war.

Granted Temporary Protection Status upon entering Turkey, Ahmed’s life took a dramatic turn about eight months ago after he donated blood to the Turkish Red Crescent, which revealed he was HIV positive.

Ahmed began receiving treatment at Haseki Training and Research Hospital in Fatih, İstanbul, where he regularly took his medication. However, his situation worsened due to administrative decisions and bureaucratic barriers.

Losing protection status

His temporary protection status was deactivated under the G-78 restriction code, which is used for foreigners who are deemed to pose a public health threat due to infectious diseases. This deactivation prevented him from accessing his medications.

In an attempt to understand his situation and secure his medication, Ahmed visited the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Branch Directorate. There, he was detained and handcuffed for allegedly residing illegally and transferred to the Hadımköy Removal Center.

His lawyer, Hasan Kocapınar, filed a lawsuit to halt the deportation process. While awaiting the court’s decision, Ahmed was moved to the Adana Removal Center, where he could not access his medication, further deteriorating his health.

Kocapınar managed to get Ahmed transferred back to İstanbul, where he finally received his medication, but the interruption in his treatment had already severely affected his health.

Appeal to authorities

Kocapınar emphasized that denying Ahmed his right to treatment is a human rights violation. “Ahmed’s health has severely deteriorated due to the deprivation of his right to treatment and erroneous administrative actions. We will pursue all necessary legal avenues to restore his treatment rights,” he said.

He urged the authorities to honor international agreements and provide Ahmed with the care he needs, highlighting that sending Ahmed back to Syria would endanger his life, especially given his HIV status, which would make him a target for extremist groups.

Kocapınar also noted that Ahmed only has a three-month supply of medication left and emphasized the need for the Directorate General of Migration Management and the Directorate of Migration Affairs to resolve the issue. “Ahmed is currently held at the Arnavutköy Removal Center, where he does not have adequate access to his treatment. This is a human rights violation, and Ahmed’s right to health and life must be protected,” Kocapınar asserted.

G-78 Restriction Code

This code is applied to foreigners who carry infectious diseases that could threaten public health and safety, resulting in an indefinite ban on their entry to Turkey.

European Union: Call to safeguard the right to asylum in Europe

HRW and Amnesty International among NGOs urging EU to safeguard right to asylum in Europe

Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International plus other NGOs signed a joint statement Monday urging the European Union (EU) and its member states to “safeguard the right to territorial asylum in Europe.”

The statement refers to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and emphasizes EU member states’ responsibility under Article 18, which guarantees the right to asylum. Over 90 organizations, also including Oxfam and Save the Children, signed the statement.

The statement criticizes member states’ attempts to shift asylum procedures and refugee protection to countries outside the EU (third countries). Such externalization measures allow states’ to “evade their asylum responsibilities,” which the statement asserts undermines the international refugee protection system and compromises states’ “commitment to the rule of law.”

The signatories criticize the European Commission’s facilitation of these arrangements between member states and non-EU countries as policies seeking to “contain and deter” the migration of refugees toward the EU. This is despite the Commission’s earlier assertion that such policies were “neither possible nor desirable,” and given EU law, “not legally or practically feasible.” Arrangements between countries, such as the Italy—Albania migration agreement, were denounced in the statement as “shortsighted measures” that lacked “genuine human rights safeguards or monitoring mechanisms.”

The UNHCR Note on the “Externalisation” of International Protection establishes that such measures are in contravention of the 1951 Refugee Convention and fundamental principles of international cooperation, responsibility-sharing and solidarity as they are designed to “avoid responsibility or to shift, rather than share burdens.” The statement echoes these sentiments, pointing to the significant consequences of externalization. Current EU law and the recently adopted Pact on Migration and Asylum do not include provisions concerning shifting asylum processing and refugee protection measures outside EU territory.

The statement warns of the human rights violations that have arisen where models externalizing asylum procedures have been implemented. Assigning low and middle-income countries that are unable to provide effective protection are already collectively “hosting 75 percent of the world’s refugees” has resulted in human rights abuses as the EU lacks “adequate tools and competencies to effectively monitor or enforce human rights standards” outside its territory.

HRW’s Europe and Central Asia advocacy director Iskra Kirova said, “Instead of wasting further time and resources on proposals incompatible with EU law and human rights commitments, the EU should support humane, sustainable, and realistic reception and asylum processing policies in EU territory.”

Canada: HIV status at the centre of legal fight against immigration barriers

Challenging the constitutionality of Canada’s “excessive demand” regime in Federal Court

The HIV Legal Network and a client of Battista Migration Law Group are challenging the constitutionality of Canada’s “excessive demand” regime in federal court. On February 2, 2024, we filed legal arguments and materials challenging the decision of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to deny a work permit based on an applicant’s HIV status. The IRCC relied on s. 38(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which prevents individuals from travelling to, or remaining in, Canada if they are living with a health condition that is expected to place an “excessive demand” on the public system — meaning that the cost of treating their health condition is expected to be above a certain financial threshold.

At the HIV Legal Network, we have been challenging the “excessive demand” provision since it came into effect in 2001, as the provision places an undue and discriminatory burden on people living with HIV. As recently as September 2023, when a new Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship took office, the HIV Legal Network, together with the HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario (HALCO) and Coalition des organismes communautaires québécois de lutte contre le sida (COCQ-SIDA), called again for the immediate revocation of the provision.

In the February challenge, we argue that the decision to deny the individual applicant’s work permit was unreasonable and unfair. Moreover, we argue that the very existence of the “excessive demand” provision is discriminatory, and thus inconsistent with s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We highlight clear evidence, confirmed by the House of Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in 2017, that the provision is harmful to foreign nationals living with health conditions, not only by increasing application costs and delays compared to those without health conditions, but also by perpetuating stigmatizing views that people with disabilities are burdens on society and that migrants merely abuse public programs. We stress that the provision does not consider any of the value that these individuals bring to Canadian society — including economic, social, and cultural. Finally, we highlight the IRCC’s own evidence that the “excessive demand” provision is ineffective in protecting the public health care system, as the provision leads to minimal savings. Provinces and territories have regularly asked IRCC to reverse its “excessive demand” decisions and absorb the resulting minimal additional health care costs to benefit from the value that immigrants bring to Canada.

In 2018, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship promised to revoke the “excessive demand” regime, on the basis that “it no longer aligns with our country’s values on the inclusion of persons with disabilities in Canadian society.” We are calling on Canada to finally live up to this promise.

The affidavits of the anonymised applicant and of the HIV legal Network as well as the Applicant’s Memorandum of Argument are available to download here.

Canada: Advocates call for end to Canada’s discriminatory HIV partner notification policy

HIV organisations in Canada call for the immediate revocation of immigration policy that harms people with HIV

This statement can be attributed to HALCO, the HIV Legal Network, and COCQ-SIDA.

June 21, 2023 – The HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario (HALCO), HIV Legal Network, and La Coalition des organismes communautaires québécois de lutte contre le sida (COCQ-SIDA), are deeply concerned about the continued application of the “Automatic Partner Notification Policy” (“the Policy”) by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and are calling for the Policy to be immediately revoked.

The Automatic Partner Notification Policy requires individuals living with HIV who are applying for permanent resident status through a family class sponsorship or as a dependent family member of a refugee to inform their sponsor of their HIV status. Applicants must also provide the IRCC with proof of such notification within 60 days. Otherwise, applicants must withdraw their application or wait until the IRCC informs their sponsor. This Policy discriminates against people living with HIV, including by violating their right to equal treatment under s. 15(1) under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Applicants are tested for many illnesses during medical examinations as part of the immigration process. However, IRCC requires only those living with HIV to choose between revealing their health condition or withdrawing their application. IRCC does not impose this requirement on applicants living with any other health conditions, including other sexually transmitted or blood-borne infections. Moreover, provincial and territorial public health authorities already, and more appropriately, address these issues, with each having specific procedures to be followed after a positive HIV diagnosis.

The Policy can also add a year or more to the already lengthy immigration process because applicants living with HIV are required to attend an interview, which is not normally required in permanent residence applications. This is expected to have a disproportionate harmful impact on gay, trans, Black, and other racialized people, without any justification.

While this Policy is intended to “protect” public health, it does the opposite by increasing stigma and perpetuating stereotypes that people with HIV are inherently dangerous and deceptive. The Policy is also based on stereotypes about risks of HIV transmission, which are much lower than commonly assumed. While HIV can only be transmitted through specific activities (e.g. HIV cannot be transmitted sexually by people with suppressed viral loads or when a condom is used properly and does not break), the Policy treats every applicant as posing a high risk of transmission.

IRCC policies must comply with the Charter and uphold the human rights of people living with HIV. The Automatic Partner Notification Policy is invasive, discriminatory, and arbitrary, and must be revoked.