Zarina Saidova is thrown out of Norway following a decision by UNE

NRK has previously told the story of Zarina Saidova.

When she was 13, she and her mother left everything in their home country.

Kazakhstan was replaced by Norway and Leirfjord.

– I had to say that I was from Chechnya, Zarina told NRK in September.

UDI thought Zarina should have told about the lie when she turned 18 and expelled her.

Now there is a committee of three people UNE processed the complaint.

The facet?

One person thought she should be allowed to stay, two people thought she must be thrown out.

Zarina and her partner Joakim therefore have to continue their relationship via Teams or Skype. This is one of UNE’s own proposals in the rejection.

Zarina’s voice was insignificant

In the decision, the tribunal points out that Zarina was not present during the meeting, and adds:

“She was not given access to attend because the chairman of the tribunal believes that there is no doubt about the fact and that it is obvious that her attendance will have no bearing on the decision in the case.”

Zarina says that she and the lawyer asked to be included.

– I feel that the decision had already been made before the meeting began.

The notice of exclusion came on 10 April.

On 1 May, she must be out of Norway.

– I got three weeks. I have work and exhibitions that just have to be put aside. I have to say goodbye to friends, says Zarina and adds:

– I have to say goodbye to Joakim. Every second counts now.

Joakim is consequently also affected by the fact that the roommate has to leave.

– Nothing matters without Zarina. Everything immediately becomes uncertain.

For Zarina, it is now about getting the most urgent things sorted out.

– I have to find a place to sleep in Kazakhstan. My entire network is here. Everything has to be thrown away and I just have to start all over again.

Sends a bad signal

Zarina’s lawyer, Felix Oliver Helle, believes the decision is wrong.

– Of greatest importance is that she came to Norway as a 13-year-old and that it was her mother who gave a false explanation on her behalf. It must be given decisive weight. She and her mother also left on their own and told the police that they were here based on a lie. They went there on their own initiative, he says and continues:

– It sends a bad signal that it is of no importance to Zarina’s case that she and her mother acknowledged everything without any suspicion or ongoing case.

Appears random

Expand/minimize fact box

In the complaint to the tribunal, reference was also made to another example of a similar case.

NRK has seen the decision in the relevant case.

There the UDI ended up using its discretion:

“We have, among other things, looked at the statements in the reply that you have lived in Norway since you were 10 years old, and thus have lived in Norway for 11 years, and came here as a child. In addition, it is indicated in the reply that you have very good results from upper secondary school and are currently studying to become xxxx, and that you count Norwegian as your mother tongue.

Lawyer Helle says it therefore appears random that the conclusion for Zarina was deportation.

– In the example case, there was no confession and they had lived in Norway for a much shorter time. It shows the randomness in the system and that the case manager you are assigned can be decisive for whether you are deported or not. It’s a bit of a lottery.

That they were not allowed to be present at the meeting in UNE is also unfortunate, the lawyer points out. Sespecially when the decision was made during a dissent and this was due, among other things, to the fact that the tribunal disagreed internally about factual matters, such as her connection to Kazakhstan.

– One is deprived of an opportunity to clarify facts that have become decisive in the case. It is extremely provocative and unfortunate.

– Now the Minister of Justice must intervene

Zarina’s case has led to discussion in the Storting.

Storting representative Lan Marie Berg (MDG) believes the case is absolutely terrible.

– It is terribly sad. Zarina has lived in Norway for 20 years. She has a life here. Now she will be sent home to a country she does not know, she tells NRK and adds:

– Instead, we could take care of the people we have here who contribute to our society. Now the Minister of Justice must intervene.

The MDG politician points out that it is urgent because Zarina must leave the country before 1 May.

– It is completely disproportionate that she has to be sent home for a mistake her mother made. This is urgent.

NRK has been in contact with the Ministry of Justice, which says they cannot comment on individual cases, but refers to previous answers to the Storting in connection with the case.

You can read more about that answer here.

The matter is well informed

NRK has asked UNE a number of questions, including why Zarina was not allowed to attend the meeting, and why it ended in expulsion.

Questions for UNE from NRK in connection with the case:

Expand/minimize fact box

Why was Zarina not given the opportunity to attend the meeting?
In the decision, the majority argues that the connection to Norway is built on a false basis because she has been here illegally. Does that mean her connection to the realm is weaker? What does that actually mean?
In the decision, it is argued that Zarina should have spoken up when she came of age herself. Does this mean that people in the same situation as Zarina should report such things when they turn 18? Or should they report before they turn 18? Is it reasonable to ask young people in the establishment phase to hand over their parents in that way?
In the decision, the tribunal argues that Zarina and Saidova can keep in touch through Skype or Teams. Do you have any further comments on this?
Lawyer Felix Helle believes this case sends a bad signal to others in similar situations on the basis that Zarina and her mother spoke up themselves, but that it has no significance. How do you comment on this?
Zarina was a child when she came to Norway. She has lived most of her life in Norway. She has a Norwegian boyfriend, speaks Norwegian and has an education and a job in Norway. She has a well-established life here. Both her and her partner’s lives undergo a total upheaval. How do you comment on this?
What can Zarina do in two years? Can she come back then?
What happens if Zarina does not leave Norway on May 1?
Lawyer Felix Helle argued to UNE that Zarina should stay on the basis of a similar case (enclosed is the information you have received). What is the difference between these two cases since the example case from lawyer Helle ended with the person concerned being granted residence in Norway?

UNE replies to NRK by e-mail that the case was dealt with in a tribunal meeting with one tribunal chairman and two tribunal members.

– All three came to the conclusion that UDI’s decision on five-year deportation was disproportionately strict, but then they differed in a majority and a minority. One of the tribunal thought that she should not be deported, but the other two thought it was right to reduce the entry ban from five to two years.

– Why wasn’t Zarina given the opportunity to participate in the meeting?

– The case was dealt with in a tribunal meeting without the complainant being present. The matter was already well explained in written documents, which we have received, among other things, from the complainant’s lawyer.

They emphasize that it is serious to obtain residence in Norway on incorrect grounds, and that the tribunal has emphasized that Zarina has stuck to this incorrect information in her applications as an adult.

To this, Zarina says that it is inhumane to expect a young person to turn their back on their mother, because she did when Zarina was 13 years old.

– What happens if Zarina does not leave Norway by May 1?

– She has a duty to leave the country by the departure deadline. If she does not travel on her own, the police will be responsible for any transport out. She can apply to return to Norway after two years.

Move to Kazakhstan or talk on Skype

Expand/minimize fact box

UNE’s total decision is 16 pages.

Nemda’s assessment is on 10 pages.

They write that it is clear that Zarina cannot be blamed for her mother providing incorrect information when they came to Norway in 2005.

But since Zarina did not provide the correct information when she turned 18, and in later applications continued to tell the original story, they find grounds to deport her.

“The tribunal assumes that the complainant has always been aware of her correct identity.”

They further write that it can undermine respect for the regulations and appear unfair to everyone who is law-abiding if gross or repeated breaches of the Immigration Act cannot have consequences.

It was indeed two against one in the tribunal – and the person who did not agree with the ban commented that the lie was unfortunate, but that Zarina was a child and that this should have an impact on how the seriousness should be assessed. The person also believes that the fact that Zarina herself contacted the police to clarify her own identity should be emphasised.

Nemda agrees that Zarina has good connections to Norway:

Norwegian partner since high school
Integrated in Norway both in terms of studies, work, language and network.

But:

“However, the complainant’s residence permits in Norway have been granted on false premises and therefore revoked, see UNE’s decision of today where UDI’s revocation decision was upheld. A connection established under such conditions shall not weigh heavily in the assessment of whether an expulsion is proportionate.” they write.

Nemda has also taken up how Joakim is affected by Zarina’s ban. Overall, the consideration for Joakim is not enough for them to justify letting her stay. They argue, among other things, that there is nothing in the way of the couple continuing their lives in Kazakhstan.

In addition, they write:

“The majority also indicates that it will be possible for the couple to have contact in other ways during the period of the entry ban (Skype/telephone/teams etc)”.

NOAS: – Far too strict

Spokesperson for NOAHJon Ole Martinsen, says that they react strongly to the decision that has now been taken.

– It is far too strict, and it is particularly problematic that they choose not to let Zarina meet herself. There is weak weighting of the considerations that speak in her favor, both about the long time she has lived in Norway, that it was not her who did not give incorrect information and that she was a child when it happened.

Martinsen says that the politicians must look at the regulations. The decision of the tribunal is considered a final decision, but he says that the question can be taken to the court.

– You don’t get free legal aid here, and we have a court project that provides support for such legal review. If there is something she wants to do, we would like to consider her case, as we believe that this is an incorrect interpretation of the legislation.