COA Head of the Department for Legal Matters, Atty. Mrs. C.L.M. Verlaan informs you (Prof. Sison) that according to the Regulation for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (ROA), the Utrecht Municipality granted you accommodation at Rooseveltlaan 778 in Utrecht, financial benefits, among which for clothes, pocket money and medical insurance.

On April 5, 2001 it was decided that COA would take responsibility for ROA asylum seekers. The Utrecht Municipality decided to make use of this possibility. It passed on the care and reception of ROA asylum seekers to the COA on 29 November 2002 and further complemented this agreement on 9 January 2003. This means that in the concrete, COA has the mandate of the municipality to take decisions regarding the termination of receiving ROA asylum seekers who no longer have the right to benefits in the framework of ROA.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (IND) [under the Ministry of Justice] has reported to the COA that you, in the framework of the asylum procedure, on the basis of which you have a right to ROA benefits, have become legitimately ["rechtmatig"] removable ["verwijderbaar"]. Hence, Art. III of the Decision of the State Secretary of Justice of 27 March 2001 for the amendment of the ROA (City gazette 29 March 2001, no. 63, p. 16) is applicable to you. According to Art. III the reception is ended if before the date of effectiveness of this regulation one's asylum application in the first instance or upon appeal has been decided negatively and an order for expulsion is given and the Chief of Police of the region has given notice that he must leave the Netherlands. According to the IND these requisites have been fulfilled with regard to you.

Through its letter of 9 April 2003 you were informed that the COA had the intention to terminate the reception benefits. This was already told to you in the letter of the Ministry of Finance of 7 March 2003. On 24 April 2003 you were given the opportunity to present your views. A report has been made on this conversation (Annex 1).

In that conversation of 24 April 2003 COA informed you that the policy of exception for asylum seekers who have no travel documents does not apply to you. The reception benefits are not terminated while the asylum seeker, even if his procedure is completed, when he has no travel document to travel back or be sent back to his country of origin. But if the IND establishes that the person has not sufficiently cooperated in doing everything he can to secure travel documents, then the benefits are terminated by the COA. This exception policy does not apply to you.

In your asylum procedure following your asylum application on 26 October 1988, the IND determined through its decision on the appeal/complaint of 4 June 1996, that you shall not be expelled to your land of origin, as long as you have well-grounded reasons to fear persecution in the meaning of the Refugee Convention of 28 July 1951 as amended by the Protocol of New York of 31 January 1967 (Refugee Convention) or for a treatment that would constitute a violation of Art. 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (EVRM). But you have not been allowed entry as a refugee, because weighty reasons from the general interest as meant in Art. 15 par. 2 Aliens Law (old) worked against it. Nor were you given possession of a permit to stay. The appeal against this decision was rejected by the Law Unity Chamber [Rechtseenheidskamer-REK] by its decision of 11 September 1997 (JV 1997, 8).

In your case there is no question about the (temporary) impossibility of being expelled to the country of origin simply because of a lack of travel documents. Hence, you are outside the extent of those benefiting from the policy of exception, which according to its nature must be understood restrictively.

Notice to leave [the Netherlands] on the basis of an order of expulsion

In the conversation on 24 April 2003, you said that the order of expulsion had been withdrawn and that furthermore you were not told by the aliens police to leave the Netherlands. This is however not accurate.

Your asylum application of 26 October 1988 was rejected by decision of the IND of 13 July 1990. Accordingly, on 13 July 1990 you were notified to leave the Netherlands on the basis of an order of expulsion. You asked for a review of the decision of 13 July 1990. Since there was no decision on that, you filed an appeal with the Judicial Department of the Council of State against the fictive rejection. With its ruling on 17 December 1992 the Judicial Department of the Council of State nullified the fictive decision, so that the IND had to make again a decision on the request for review.

In its decision of 26 March 1993, the IND again rejected the request for review. On 30 March 1993 you were told to leave the Netherlands on the basis of an order for expulsion.

Against this you again filed an appeal to the Council of State in a letter of 23 April 1993. The Council of State in its decision of 21 February 1995 nullified the ruling of 26 March 1993, so that the IND had again to decide on the request for review.

In its decision of 4 June 1996 the IND again rejected the request for review. In it was established that you shall not be expelled to the Philippines, as long as you have well-grounded reasons to fear persecution in the meaning of the Refugee Convention or for a treatment in violation of Art. 3 of EVRM. With this decision you were also told to leave the Netherlands. The decision of 4 July 1996 was delivered on 18 July 1996. Thereby you were notified that you ought to leave the Netherlands on the basis of an order for expulsion. Against this ruling you filed an appeal. The REK declared this appeal not well-grounded in its ruling of 11 September 1997. You were thus - contrary to what you brought up in the conversation to hear your views - notified to leave the Netherlands on the basis of an order for expulsion.

On 26 February you applied for a permit to stay with the aim of working with a salary with the National Democratic Front (NDF). In its decision of 22 October 1998, the IND rejected this application. Thereby you were told on 26 October 1998 to leave the Netherlands on the basis of an order for expulsion. This notice to leave was withdrawn in a letter dated 5 November 1998. The appeal against this rejection of 22 October was declared as not well grounded by the IND in its decision of 1 August 2000. You were then informed to leave the country on the basis of an order for expulsion. You were told to leave the Netherlands within 2 weeks. You filed an appeal against the ruling of 1 August 2000. This appeal was declared not well-grounded by a ruling of 28 November 2002 of the Aliens Chamber of the Court in The Hague.

You have thus been notified, in the framework of the first asylum application, to leave the Netherlands on the basis of the decision of 4 June 1996. In that manner the requisite of Art. III of the Decision of the State Secretary of Justice of 27 March 2001 towards the amendment of the ROA has been fulfilled. In the regular procedure on the basis of your application of 26 February 1998 you were told on 26 October 1998 to leave the Netherlands. This notice in the framework of the regular procedure was withdrawn [incorrectly] in the letter of 5 November 1998. This withdrawal however stands completely unconnected to the notice for departure in the framework of the first asylum application and is founded moreover on an official mistake. See in this connection the letter of the IND of 15 May 2003 which is attached as Annex 2. Moreover, the IND has rectified this mistake with the ruling of 1 August 2000 by notifying you that you must leave the Netherlands.

Right to reception and Art. 8 EVRM

During the conversation to hear your views, you stated that Art. 8 of EVRM would be violated by the termination of your benefits. This is however incorrect. There is no question of unallowed interference into the exercise of your right to respect for family life as meant in Art. 8 of EVRM. The (factual) termination of the benefits does not stand in the way of your fulfilling your family life in another manner.

Contrary to what you state, your family is not broken up by the termination of the reception (benefits). Against this background in the established jurisprudence that Art. 8 EVRM does not bring with it that if one family member is given reception or allowed permit to stay in the Netherlands, that the other members of the family may stay in the reception [with benefits] in the Netherlands.

See in this connection the ruling of the Council of State of 8 November 2002, with case no. 200205425/1 (COA/Senuni), the case of the Arnhem Court of 20 November 2001 with nos. 01/532 KGN01/533 KG (COA/Heydari) and the case of the Court of Arnhem of 10 December 2002 with the no. 2002/1098 KG (COA/Aleksandrova).

Special Circumstances

To COA it does not appear that there are circumstances for the continuation of the giving of benefits. That you up to now cannot be forced to be expelled to your land of origin, considering the Refugee Convention and Art. 3 EVRM is not a special circumstance for the continuation of the benefits. In this connection, the COA again refers to the ruling of the IND of 1 August 2000 and the ruling of the Aliens Chamber of the Court in The Hague of 28 November 2002, wherein this material was taken up extensively. Considering the above-mentioned, the reception benefits are terminated with immediate effect. You must leave the ROA-accommodation where you are staying within three days after the notice of this ruling. If you do not follow this [order], the COA on behalf of the municipality shall initiate a procedure to make you vacate the place ["ontruimingsprocedure opstarten"]. The costs of this procedure shall be charged to you.

I am informing you that on the basis of Article 7:1 of the General Administrative Law an appeal against this decision to terminate the ROA-benefits can be submitted to the COA which has taken this decision. You have to submit the appeal within 6 weeks after the day of sending/delivery. You are requested to address the appeal to:

The Central Organ for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (COA)
P. O. Box 3002
2280 ME RIJSWIJK

The submission of an appeal does not suspend the effectiveness of the decision to terminate the benefits (Art. 6:16 Awb = General Administrative Law). The same holds for a request, if filed, for a provisional measure. Nor does the submission of an appeal or a request for provisional measure stand in the way of initiating a procedure for causing the vacating of the residence ["ontruimingsprocedure"]

In the name of the Mayor and the Councilors of the Utrecht Municipality,
The Board of the Central Organ Reception of Asylum Seekers,
In the name of these,

(Sgd.) Atty. Mrs. C.L.M. Verlaan
Head, Department of Legal Matters