Fraudulent Families? Investigating the Role of Paperwork in the Assessment of Refugees’ Family Reunification in Belgium

AbstractCurrent European directives indicate that refugees must be afforded more leniency when certifying the family relationships in family visa applications. However, our research—based on an in-depth thematic analysis of a sample of proceedings of the Belgian Council for Alien Law Litigation (2015–2019)—shows that even when refugee families provide documentary evidence about family ties and identity, this is often used against them. Building on studies on the bureaucratic culture of disbelief/suspicion, we illustrate that refusals are often based on discretionary decisions not to further investigate the application, as families allegedly committed fraud by presenting fake or discrepant proofs, while discrepancies may well emerge from the complexity of refugees’ transnational lives and bureaucratic experiences.Keywords: Family reunificationrefugeespaperworkbureaucratic borderingfraudmoral gatekeepingculture of suspicionBelgium AcknowledgmentsWe are deeply thankful to Dr Laura Cleton and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments to previous draft of this article. Milena Belloni wishes to thank Benoit Dhondt for the insightful conversations and information about the complex legal pathways of refugee families in Belgium.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 All names used in this article are fictitious, to protect the privacy of the respondents. Sara De Hertog became acquainted with Zahir’s legal representative through professional connections, while working for the Belgian federal Ombudsman. After following Jamila’s history for months, S.H. decided to further investigate the challenge of family reunification for refugees in Belgium by joining Milena Belloni’s research entitled “Exiled and Separated: A multi-sited ethnography of separated refugee families” (FWO grant no.: 12Z3719N). S.H. is personaly responsible for this contribution and in no way does it bind the federal Ombudsman.2 https://www.unhcr.org/familiestogether/3 This means that an application should in theory not be rejected solely because official documentary evidence is lacking, and that states must take into account other forms of evidence, such as interviews, written statements, documents, audio-visual materials, and DNA testing.4 Jubany writes (Citation2017, p. 167): “Whilst there is a negative value attached to a narrative without any sort of documentation, the positive value that should be attached to those with supporting evidence is always tempered as ‘proof can have a good or a bad influence, it can be good or bad, it depends on the country, it depends if it is fabricated’.”5 Law of 15 December 1980 regarding the entry, residence, settlement and removal of foreign nationals, Article 10, 10bis, 12bis and 13, Belgian Official Gazette 31 December 1980 (Aliens Act). Online: http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg.pl?language=nl&la=N&cn=1980121530&table_name=wet6 Annual reports of the CGRS 2015–2019. https://www.cgvs.be/nl/publicaties (in Dutch).7 Age was not mentioned in the judgements, so we could not consider it in our analysis. In most of the cases, a combination of different motives was mentioned in the decision of the IO. In order to compare the motives for refusal between the four countries, we chose to count every motive and not select one motive per case.8 The in-depth analysis excluded cases which gave socio-economic requirements as the sole motive for refusal: insufficient income, inadequate housing or lack of medical insurance. There were also two cases in which the application was denied based on the criminal record of the applicant. We did include cases in which reference was made toa combination of these motives and the authenticity of documents or the family relationship.9 Furthermore, the research sample included one case from Syria and one case from Afghanistan in which the family tried to circumvent the socio-economic requirements of the family reunification procedure by submitting an application based on humanitarian grounds. Both applications were processed as “normal” applications for family reunion and rejected by the IO, but the CALL overruled the decision, stating that the IO’s motivation was inadequate, because it did not mention the humanitarian grounds invoked by the applicants.10 195761, 202121, 202561, 203558, 205111, 209371, 210792, 211679, 212061, 212708, 212218, 226829.11 178762, 180672, 180671, 180668, 180945, 183723, 183719, 186304, 188529, 188795, 196954, 200834.12 It is important to note that in most cases the asylum narrative, or other information in the asylum file, is not the sole motive for refusal of the application for family reunion. As stated above, the IO often bases itself on a combination of different motives to deny the (visa) application.13 Researchers have documented similar problems in other contexts. In their study about Eritrean refugees in the Netherlands, Van Reisen et al. (Citation2019, p. 476) write : “Other procedural inconsistencies have been identified as causing delays or thwarting family reunification processes; for example, the wrong spelling or transposition/translation of a name can jeopardise the process. Dan, a family reunification sponsor living in Israel, only had a copy of his son’s baptism certificate and the date of birth of his son. However, the name given to his son did not match the information the Dutch authorities had. An erroneous date of birth could not be corrected and this was the end of his family reunification procedure.”