“Irregular secondary movements are ones that occur from initial areas of safety to newer destinations for the purpose of claiming asylum, irrespective of whether persons have been officially recognized as refugees previously, and in the absence of authorization or (usually) sufficient documentation for travel.”
– Zimmermann, Susan E. 2009. “Irregular Secondary Movements to Europe: Seeking Asylum beyond Refuge.” Journal of Refugee Studies 22(1): 74-96.
“a) The phenomenon of refugees, whether they have been formally identified as such or not (asylum-seekers), who move in an irregular manner from countries in which they have already found protection, in order to seek asylum or permanent resettlement elsewhere, is a matter of growing concern. This concern results from the destabilizing effect which irregular movements of this kind have on structured international efforts to provide appropriate solutions for refugees. Such irregular movements involve entry into the territory of another country, without the prior consent of the national authorities or without an entry visa, or with no or insufficient documentation normally required for travel purposes, or with false or fraudulent documentation. Of similar concern is the growing phenomenon of refugees and asylum-seekers who willfully destroy or dispose of their documentation in order to mislead the authorities of the country of arrival;
b) Irregular movements of refugees and asylum-seekers who have already found protection in a country are, to a large extent, composed of persons who feel impelled to leave, due to the absence of educational and employment possibilities and the non-availability of long-term durable solutions by way of voluntary repatriation, local integration and resettlement;”
– UN High Commissioner for Refugees Executive Committee (ExCom), Conclusion No. 58 Problem of Refugee and Asylum Seekers who Move in an Irregular Manner from a Country in Which They Had Already Found Protection. 1989. No. 58 (XL). [Accessed 16 September 2013].
“a) The term “irregular movement” should only be used in the context of this discussion insofar as it is based on the principles set out in EXCOM Conclusion 58 of 1989. This Conclusion deals specifically with “[t]he phenomenon of refugees whether they have been formally identified as such or not (asylum-seekers), who move in an irregular manner from countries in which they have already found protection”. This Conclusion, and the language it uses, is wholly consistent with the object and purpose and principles of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
b) Primary movement: In our view, the primary movement of a refugee does not end as soon as s/he sets foot in a country of first asylum or transit country. Indeed, it does not end until s/he has found effective protection. It is only after that point that it is possible to speak of a “secondary” movement. Restrictions or measures aimed at blocking access to protection would, in that sense, be a direct violation of the fundamental human right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution.
c) Secondary movement: Unlike “irregular movement of refugees and asylum-seekers from a country in which they have already found protection”, which has a clear legal meaning, there is no such agreement on “secondary movement”. Like “onward movement”, it denotes a fact, not a legal status. It reflects the practical reality that refugees move, but it does not speak to why they move.”
– International Council of Voluntary Agencies. 12 March 2004. “NGO Statement on Irregular Secondary Movements of Refugees and Asylum-Seekers.” Agenda Item 2(ii), High Commissioner’s Forum. https://icvanetwork.org/doc00001126.html.
“Today’s reality of ‘mixed flows’ suggests that the problem is broader, in that it extends to the movements of refugees and asylum-seekers across several international borders either without seeking international protection or without awaiting the outcome of their claims. Ideally, strategies to address irregular secondary movements as defined by Conclusion 58 (XL) and as called for in the Agenda for Protection should also tackle this new phenomenon…Irregular secondary movements are of concern to refugees, States and UNHCR because:
• they reflect gaps in protection for refugees, including the absence of
any prospect of a timely solution to their problems.
• they can have a destabilizing effect on structured international efforts
to provide appropriate solutions for refugees.
• they feed smuggling and trafficking networks, with harmful
consequences to refugees and asylum-seekers.
Efforts to deter these movements can lead to refugee-in-orbit situations and, in the worst case scenario, to refoulement…the problem of irregular secondary movements is best addressed through multilateral approaches that focus on reducing the causes for onward movements.”
– UNHCR. 25 June 2004. “Convention Plus: Basic propositions on irregular secondary movements.” www.refworld.org/pdfid/471de1e62.pdf. [Accessed 16 September 2013].
“The blurring of refugee/migrant boundaries, known as an asylum– migration nexus, means that asylum seekers increasingly run the risk of being ‘tarnished as bogus’ (UNHCR 2006: 140). In the UK, there is much talk within the popular tabloid and political rhetoric of ‘bogus’ asylum seekers being eager to ‘abuse’ the system by making ‘false’ claims to asylum. Irregular secondary migrants are increasingly unwelcome in industrialized areas, and safe third country policies have been used in particular in an attempt to transfer responsibility back to earlier ‘safe’ points of entry. Tactics can lead to ‘refugee-in-orbit’ situations, or to ‘chain’ refoulement (Legomsky 2003: 4; UNHCR 2004d) and attempts to respond to the ‘problem’ of irregular secondary movements thus have implications for the protection of those in need, as well as for developing areas that already face the greatest burdens and which are likely to see these increase.”
– Zimmermann, Susan E. 2009. “Irregular Secondary Movements to Europe: Seeking Asylum beyond Refuge.” Journal of Refugee Studies 22(1): 74-96.
“”Secondary movement” ought to be a neutral term, but governments increasingly use it as if it were synonymous with “irregular movement,” a term used by UNHCR to refer to those refugees who leave a country of first asylum, where they have obtained “effective protection,” for economic or other non-compelling reasons. UNHCR Executive Committee (ExCom) Conclusion No. 58 states that all such “irregular movements” are inherently undesirable. There is no basis in international law for using the mere fact of secondary movement as a presumptive bar to the right to seek asylum. The onward movement of refugees from the country where they first fled often reflects a serious failure of international protection there. Therefore, for example, an Afghan refugee moving on from Iran in search of protection elsewhere should not be treated differently from an asylum seeker arriving directly from a country of origin…Australia defines effective protection as existing in a country where “the person will not face a real chance of being persecuted in the third country or returned to a country where his or her life or freedom would be threatened for a Convention reason.” Australia holds that it is unnecessary for the country in question to be a party to the Refugee Convention or for it to provide access to a secure legal status to refugees.”
-Human Rights Watch. 2002. “By Invitation Only: Australian Asylum Policy.” http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/australia/. [Accessed 16 September 2013].
EU Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on Minimum Standards for the Qualification and Status of Third Country Nationals or Stateless Persons as Refugees or as Persons Who Otherwise Need International Protection and the Content of the Protection Granted [2004] OJ L304/12.
UN High Commissioner for Refugees Executive Committee (ExCom), Conclusion No. 58 Problem of Refugee and Asylum Seekers who Move in an Irregular Manner from a Country in Which They Had Already Found Protection. 1989. No. 58 (XL). [Accessed 16 September 2013].
UNHCR. 25 June 2004. “Convention Plus: Basic propositions on irregular secondary movements.” www.refworld.org/pdfid/471de1e62.pdf. [Accessed 16 September 2013].
UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Agenda for Protection, October 2003, Third edition, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/4714a1bf2.html [accessed 17 September 2013]. See Goal 2, para. 4.
UNHCR, Refugee Protection and Mixed Migration: a 10-Point Plan of Action, January 2007, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/45b0c09b2.pdf. [Accessed 16 September 2013].
International Council of Voluntary Agencies. 12 March 2004. “NGO Statement on Irregular Secondary Movements of Refugees and Asylum-Seekers.” Agenda Item 2(ii), High Commissioner’s Forum. https://icvanetwork.org/doc00001126.html.
International Crisis Group. Perilous Journeys: The Plight of North Koreans in China and Beyond. Asia Report No.122. October 26, 2006. http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/asia/north-east-asia/north-korea/erilous_journeys___the_plight_of_north_koreans_in_china_and_beyond. [Accessed 16 September 2013].
Klaauw, Johannes van der. 2009. “Refugee Rights in Times of Mixed Migration: Evolving Status and Protection Issues.” Refugee Survey Quarterly 28(4): 59-86.
Legomsky, Stephen H. 2003. “Secondary Refugee Movements and the Return of Asylum Seekers to Third Countries: The Meaning of Effective Protection.” International Journal of Refugee Law 15(4): 567-677.
Long, Katy. 2009. “Extending Protection? Labour Migration and Durable Solutions for Refugees.” UNHCR: New Issues in Refugee Research 176.
Long, Katy and Jeff Crisp. 2010. “Migration, Mobility, and Solutions: an evolving perspective.” Forced Migration Review 35. http://www.fmreview.org/disability-and-displacement/katy-long-and-jeff-crisp.
Moret, Joelle; Baglioni, Simone; Efionayi-Mäder, Denise. 2006. The Path of Somali Refugees into Exile: A Comparative Analysis of Secondary Movements and Policy Responses. SFM, Swiss Forum of Population Studies, SFM Studies 46, https://doc.rero.ch/record/6426/files/s_46.pdf (Accessed 21 September 2013)
Storey, Hugo. 2008. “EU Refugee Qualification Directive: a Brave New World?” International Journal of Refugee Law 20(1): 1-49.
Zimmermann, Susan E. 2009. “Irregular Secondary Movements to Europe: Seeking Asylum beyond Refuge.” Journal of Refugee Studies 22(1): 74-96.