The Luxembourg Minister of Immigration and Asylum Jean Asselborn has shared additional information on the subject of the return of a Georgian minor to…

In addition to his official statement over the weekend on the matter, Minister Asselborn has emphasised the difficulty of such decisions to repatriate schoolchildren and that such choices are made only after careful consideration of the case.  

To take into account the special case of families with children who have lived in Luxembourg for several years, the government initiated in 2015 an amendment to the immigration law to cover the situation of schoolchildren who have spent more than four years in a local school, by allowing these families to regularise their situation in Luxembourg under certain conditions.

In this case, the mother and her child resided in Luxembourg for 6 years before their return. However, various elements of the case explain why repatriation took place after so many years. Firstly, the mother came to Luxembourg in 2011 with her child to file an application for international protection. This request was refused at the Ministry level in 2013, a decision upheld by the administrative courts in 2014. Following the final rejection of the application, the family remained in the Grand Duchy despite being invited to return voluntarily to Georgia. A voluntary return would have meant that the mother was eligible for financial support from the Luxembourg State.

In light of the amendment of the immigration law, it was decided to grant the family the chance to make a request for regularisation as soon as the law came into effect at the beginning of 2016. According to Minister Asselborn, the family was then repeatedly invited to discuss the situation and encouraged to take steps to regularise the situation. In the absence of such a request, the Ministry decided in 2017 to launch the procedure for a return to Georgia. In this context, it appeared that the mother had used false information about her identity and that of her son and, after further examining the case, it was found that the use of such information was unfounded. Furthermore, the Ministry of Immigration and Asylum has stated that claims of a German-resident father have borne no evidence and in any case, would be the responsibility of German authorities.

Given these circumstances, regularisation was therefore not considered possible in this specific case, just as a return of the mother without her child was not an option, and so forced repatriation is being used as a last resort.

Finally, Minister Asselborn claimed that whilst it is understandable to want a better life for one’s children, it is essential to respect the rules.