In relation to an Iranian asylum applicant, the High Court is scheduled to render a decision that may permit the release of 170 additional immigration inmates into the community.
Iranian inmate ASF17 refused to be sent back to Iran because he feared being prosecuted there, therefore he filed a lawsuit against the Commonwealth and his continued incarceration.
The 37-year-old gay man arrived in Australia via boat, and he has been held in custody since 2013.
He said that because of the strict rules the Islamic government has regarding LGBTQ rights, he will receive the death penalty in Iran.
The main issue in the case is whether or not non-citizens who have refused to assist with deportation procedures should be freed.
The court announced in a significant development that the ruling would be rendered on Friday at 10 a.m.
All asylum seekers who are presently in immigration detention and who do not want to be deported may be released into the community if the High Court upholds the case.
The Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee provided an update on Labor’s contentious deportation measure, which sought to address the ruling, on Tuesday.
The government claims that the bill will compel non-citizens who are on a removal pathway and who have run out of ways to stay in Australia to assist with the processes involved in setting up their legal departure from the country.
The government intends to use the legislation to require noncitizens who disobey instructions to be removed once all visa avenues to lawfully remain in Australia have been exhausted with obligatory jail sentences.
Furthermore, it suggests designating a list of “removal concern countries” that Australia may permanently exclude from consideration for new visa requests in the event that those nations refuse to return their citizens, who the Australian government is attempting to deport.
The Committee has suggested that the Senate approve the bill, but it has also suggested that the Minister “take community impact into account when designating a country as a removal concern country.”
The Coalition is worried about “potential unintended consequences” that could result from the hurried procedure and other reasons, so they made a number of amendments to the law.
The changes mandate that the minister report to parliament each time a removal pathway direction is issued and that the minister evaluate whether issuing a direction along this pathway would be in a child’s best interests before issuing it.
Rejecting the bill in its entirety, according to the Greens, is necessary because it is “divisive and cruel legislation” that “fundamentally undermines social cohesion in Australia and stokes racism.”
Earlier this year, the government tried to get the Migration Amendment Bill 2024 through parliament quickly, but the Coalition and the Greens stopped it and the bill was submitted to the Senate investigation.
