The planned deportation of Suel Kassembo, who has resided in Norway for nearly 20 years, has been halted following a determination by the Burundian embassy that he is not a citizen of their country. The development, confirmed by a decision from the Borgarting Court of Appeal on Thursday, leaves the timeline and destination for his potential removal uncertain.
Kassembo was recently removed from church asylum to facilitate his return to Burundi. However, a meeting between Kassembo and Burundian authorities concluded that he does not originate from the nation. The embassy cited several factors for this conclusion, noting that he does not speak Kirundi or French, lacks knowledge of Burundian naming traditions, and could not provide details regarding his family beyond his parents or specify his home province, region, or quarter.
The Court of Appeal has agreed with immigration authorities that it is highly probable Kassembo is not from Burundi. The court ruled that he cannot be returned there at this time, though the decision does not grant him permanent residency in Norway.
Did You Know? The Burundian embassy’s assessment specifically highlighted that all names in their culture hold a distinct meaning, a tradition the authorities noted Kassembo was unable to demonstrate knowledge of during their interview.
Expert Insight: The judicial disagreement over where Kassembo should reside while awaiting further identity investigations highlights the friction between administrative detention and the legal rights of individuals caught in long-term immigration stalemates. The appeal to the Supreme Court suggests that the state is seeking a definitive legal precedent regarding the conditions of detention for those whose deportation remains logistically blocked.
Legal dispute over location
A secondary conflict is currently unfolding regarding where Kassembo should stay while authorities conduct further identity investigations. Both the district court and the Court of Appeal previously ruled that he could return to Sunnmøre under a police reporting obligation. However, the National Police Immigration Service (Politiets utlendingseining) has appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
Jon Andreas Johansen of the National Police Immigration Service stated via email that they disagree with the majority assessment from the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court will now determine whether Kassembo will be released from the Trandum detention center pending further developments.
Concerns over interview process
Kassembo’s lawyer, André Møkkelgjerd, has raised concerns regarding the nature of the meeting with Burundian officials. Møkkelgjerd noted that the interview was conducted in English without a lawyer or police presence, describing the process as problematic. This perspective aligns with previous statements from Elizabeth Baumann of the Supervisory Council for Forced Returns and Immigration Detention, which has generally advocated for the presence of legal counsel during such proceedings.
While previous legal documents listed Kassembo as a citizen of Burundi, the National Police Immigration Service clarified that this designation was based solely on information provided by the individual himself and served as a formal procedural requirement rather than an official confirmation of his nationality.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was the deportation to Burundi stopped?
The Burundian embassy concluded that Kassembo is not a citizen of Burundi, a finding supported by the Borgarting Court of Appeal, which deemed it highly probable that he does not originate from the country.
Where will Kassembo stay while investigations continue?
The location of his stay is currently under dispute. While the Court of Appeal ruled he could return to Sunnmøre with a reporting duty, the National Police Immigration Service has appealed this to the Supreme Court.
What happens next regarding his identity?
Police authorities have stated they will initiate further investigations to clarify his true identity and nationality, including conducting interviews with him as soon as possible.
What do you think is the most significant challenge in verifying the identity of long-term residents in immigration cases?
