THE BOTTOM LINE
- Long-term illegal residency does not create a right to remain, even after decades of integration. The court weighs ties formed without a residence permit less heavily.
- To defer removal on medical grounds, individuals must prove essential treatment is both unavailable and inaccessible in their home country—a challenging standard to meet.
- Dutch courts give significant weight to expert medical assessments and place the burden of proof squarely on the applicant to demonstrate insurmountable obstacles to care.
THE DETAILS
A recent ruling from the District Court of The Hague underscores the strict approach of Dutch immigration authorities toward individuals residing without legal status, regardless of their length of stay. The case involved an Iraqi national who, after living in the Netherlands for 25 years, sought to prevent his removal based on serious medical conditions. The Minister for Asylum and Migration denied his request for a “deferral of departure,” a decision the court has now firmly backed, signaling a clear prioritization of immigration enforcement.
The legal battle hinged on the claimant’s health. While he presented multiple serious conditions, the court deferred to the expert opinion of the Bureau of Medical Advice (BMA). The BMA concluded that a medical emergency was not imminent and that necessary treatments, including for methadone addiction, were available in Iraq. The claimant’s argument that he could not access this care without an ID he was unable to obtain was dismissed. The court found he had not sufficiently proven that acquiring the necessary documents was impossible, placing the high burden of proof on him to demonstrate that care was practically inaccessible.
The claimant also invoked his right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, citing his 25-year integration into Dutch society. However, the court performed a balancing act between his established life and the state’s interest in maintaining a regulated immigration system. Critically, the fact that his ties to the Netherlands were formed while he lacked a residence permit significantly weakened his claim. The court concluded that these connections did not outweigh the public interest in his departure, especially since his medical needs could be met in his country of origin.
SOURCE
Source: District Court of The Hague
