A16.2 Operational instruction: exercise of discretionary powers...

Note: The operational instructions contained in this section of the Operational Manual do not constitute immigration instructions as described in section 22 of the Immigration Act 2009.

A16.2.1 Introduction

1. This Operational Instruction provides guidance to immigration officers concerning the continuing treatment of persons claiming refugee or protection status on arrival at the border, including in a mass arrival context. In particular, it is intended to inform decisions made by immigration officers at the border and whether to detain or otherwise restrict the freedom of movement of persons claiming refugee or protection status. It rescinds previous operational instructions and internal administration circulars on this subject.
2. The overriding principle behind the Operational Instruction is that, if freedom of movement of persons claiming refugee or protection status at the border is to be restricted at all, then it should be restricted to the least degree and for the shortest duration possible. Particular care must be given in any decision involving women (particularly pregnant women and adolescent girls), children and members of other vulnerable groups.
3. The Operational Instruction has been drafted having regard to the UNHCR Revised Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards Relating to the Detention of Asylum Seekers (February 1999), and the Court of Appeal's 16 April 2003 decision in Refugee Council and Ors v AG.
4. The Operational Instruction will be incorporated into the INZ Operational Manual and the Compliance Staff Toolkit.

A16.2.5 Background

1. The Immigration Act 2009 contains discretionary powers that may be exercised by immigration officers in relation to non-New Zealand citizens or residents arriving at New Zealand's border. The spectrum of responses ranges from the grant of a temporary visa and/or entry permission to New Zealand to detention in a penal institution until departure from New Zealand can be arranged on the first available flight. In all cases, a decision to detain in a penal institution rather than any lesser form of restriction on the freedom of movement of a refugee or protection claimant is to be made only after all other alternatives have been excluded.
2. The full range of possible responses are as follows:
   1. The grant of a visa under section 45 and/or entry permission under section 107 of the Immigration Act 2009 where the person is able to lodge an application in accordance with section 79 of the Immigration Act 2009 (i.e. they hold a valid visa or have arrived under a visa waiver);
   2. The grant of a visa under section 61 of the Immigration Act 2009 where the person is not able to lodge an application;
   3. Release into the community on residence and reporting requirements under section 315 of the Immigration Act 2009 without the grant of a visa and without initially detaining the person under section 313 of the Immigration Act 2009;
   4. Initial detention under section 313 of the Immigration Act 2009 for the purpose of release into the community on conditions under section 320 Immigration Act 2009;
   5. Initial detention under section 313 of the Immigration Act 2009 for the purpose of obtaining a warrant for further detention in an approved premises under section 317 of the Immigration Act 2009;
   6. Initial detention under section 313 of the Immigration Act 2009 for the purpose of obtaining a warrant for further detention in a penal institution under section 317 of the Immigration Act 2009.
3. The response chosen will take into account the individual circumstances of the person presenting at the border. In the case of a group arrival in New Zealand, all the circumstances surrounding its arrival will be considered. The responses are not static. It may be appropriate, throughout the duration of a person's presence in New Zealand, for an immigration officer to revisit the case to ensure that their decision remains appropriate in view of any changed circumstances (including the simple passage of time). This is particularly important where a person remains subject to restrictions on their freedom of movement (including being released on conditions). Those restrictions must continue to be able to be justified as necessary. It may, for example, be appropriate for a person initially detained in a penal institution to be moved to an approved premises. A person detained at an approved premises may be released on conditions or released into the community with a temporary visa. It may be appropriate for a person previously released on conditions to be taken back into custody to be detained at an approved premises or in a penal institution.

A16.2.10 Restricting movement of refugee or protection status claimants

A16.2.10.1 Convention/Covenant Analysis

Where a person arrives in New Zealand from another country and on arrival claims refugee status under the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugee Convention), or protection status under the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) or the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), care must be exercised in determining the appropriate immigration response. This is especially important where the response involves possible detention under section 317 in a penal institution or at an approved premises. There are a number of reasons for this:

1. Commitment to a system of asylum, as being a Party to the Refugee Convention, CAT and ICCPR entails, requires all persons claiming asylum to be treated carefully and with sensitivity at all stages of the process. This is especially important where it is proposed that restrictions on freedom of movement be imposed, particularly restrictions involving detention;
2. The effect of custody in a penal institution can be traumatic for some genuine claimants;
3. Immigration officers need to have regard to the provisions of the Refugee Convention in carrying out their functions. In accordance with Article 31 of the Refugee Convention and also with the UNHCR Guidelines on Detention, it is accepted that restrictions on freedom of movement of refugees, in particular by detention (including detention of refugee status claimants), should occur only where necessary. In particular Article 31 states:

   Article 31: Refugee Unlawfully in the Country of Refuge

   The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorisation, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

   The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restriction shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularised or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period of time and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country.

   Therefore, not only should restrictions on freedom of movement occur only where necessary, but the level of restriction on freedom of movement should be as minimal as possible, appropriate to the circumstances of the particular case.

   Section 164 provides that no person who is a refugee status claimant (or who has been recognised as a refugee) may be deported from New Zealand unless such deportation is permitted in terms of Articles 32.1 or 33 of the Refugee Convention; and, no person who is claiming protection status or is a protected person may be deported from New Zealand to a place where there is reason to believe they would be in danger of being subjected to torture, arbitrary deprivation of life or cruel treatment. Because processing claims to refugee or protection status, and appeals, may not be straightforward, claimants held in detention may be liable for detention for a considerable period of time.

A16.2.10.1.5 Restrictions on freedom of movement

There will be circumstances where restricting the movement of a person who claims refugee or protection status at the border is necessary, particularly where issues of national security or public order arise. Determining whether placing restrictions on freedom of movement (in particular, through detention) is necessary will depend on a careful assessment of all factors relevant to the arrival. This may include the extent to which that person is able to provide accurate and reliable information about their identity, whether the claim appears to be made in good faith, and the extent to which there are identified risks to national security and public order.

An assessment of any risk to public safety, security, and order will need to take account of the prevailing security situation, both in New Zealand and globally. Whether the person arrived as part of a group which arrived unlawfully, or was involved in organised smuggling of illegal migrants, may be a factor in determining whether restriction on freedom of movement (in particular detention in a penal institution) is necessary. Smuggled migrants must not, however, be automatically subject to detention.

A16.2.10.10 Judgement

1. The necessary standard will vary according to the type of restriction on freedom of movement to be applied. The UNHCR Guidelines on Detention recognise a distinction between detention in a prison environment and accommodation at an open centre with some restrictions on freedom of movement. The Guidelines also recognise a distinction between detention and release into the community with reporting conditions. Individual immigration officers must, therefore, make judgements taking into account a cumulative set of considerations:
   1. Immigration officers are first to consider whether any restriction at all on a refugee or protection status claimant's freedom of movement is necessary or whether the officer may grant the claimant a visa and/or entry permission so that they may remain in the community unrestricted.
   2. If a visa and/or entry permission is refused then officers are next to consider whether monitoring of the claimant on residence and reporting requirements can manage the identified risks.
   3. If release on residence and reporting requirements is not sufficient to manage the risks, then officers should consider whether the client could be released on conditions by a District Court.
   4. If the identified risks cannot be managed by this means, immigration officers are to consider whether accommodation at the Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre can manage those risks.
   5. If not then detention in a penal institution may be considered necessary.
2. All decisions are based on a careful, individual assessment of the circumstances of each case, and a decision must not restrict freedom of movement more than is necessary. All decisions involving any form of restriction on freedom of movement must be lawful and in accordance with international standards. An immigration officer making a decision to restrict freedom of movement should record all of the matters considered in reaching the decision. All decisions to restrict the freedom of movement of a refugee or protection status claimant are also subject to built in safeguards, by way of administrative or judicial review. These review processes are described at A16.2.25.
3. An indicative list of considerations has been drawn up to guide decisions by immigration officers as to whether in a particular case any restrictions on freedom of movement are necessary, and if so, the type of restriction that may be necessary. See A16.2.30.

A16.2.15 Children and young persons under 18 years of age

1. Under the Immigration Act 2009, an immigration officer may apply a discretionary power in respect of a child or young person under 18 years of age who has (or, if accompanied, whose parent/s have) claimed refugee or protection status. In this situation, where any restriction on freedom of movement is being considered, the additional principles set out below apply. These principles are in accordance with the UNHCR Guidelines on Policies and Procedures in dealing with Unaccompanied Children Seeking Asylum (February 1997) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child:
   1. The best interests and welfare of a child or young person shall be the primary consideration;
   2. A child or young person is entitled to such measures of protection as are required given their status as a minor;
   3. A child or young person is entitled to receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance in pursuing their claim to refugee or protection status;
   4. A child or young person is not to be separated from their parent(s) against their will, except where such separation is necessary for the best interests and welfare of the child or young person;
   5. In the case of a child or young person under 18, there must be a responsible adult to represent their interests, in accordance with, and as defined in, section 375 of the Immigration Act 2009, before any decision regarding restrictions on that child or young person's freedom of movement is made;
   6. A child or young person is entitled to express their views regarding any proposed restriction on their freedom of movement, either personally or through a responsible adult. Due weight is to be given to those views having regard to the age and level of maturity and understanding of that child or young person;
   7. The detention of a child or young person is only to be used as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time; and
   8. A child or young person should not be detained with adults unless it is considered in that child’s or young person's best interests and welfare to do so (for example if this is the only way to preserve family unity). It is recognised, however, that due to the number of suitable facilities, in some cases detention with adults will be unavoidable.
2. On the basis of these principles, as a general rule, children and young persons under 18 years of age should not be detained, and it would only be in extenuating circumstances that their detention in a penal institution could be justified as necessary. As a general rule, an unaccompanied child or young person under 18 should not be detained. Any restriction on the freedom of movement of an unaccompanied child or young person under 18 years of age should only occur after the Ministry for Children, Oranga Tamariki has been involved, either in the role of responsible adult, or otherwise.
3. As a minimum, any restriction on the freedom of movement of an accompanied or unaccompanied child (all young persons under 18 years of age) should be notified to the Ministry for Children, Oranga Tamariki as soon as practicable after that detention has occurred.

A16.2.20 Officers authorised to exercise discretionary powers

Only immigration officers listed in A16.2.35, (as may be amended by an Area Manager from Compliance Risk and Intelligence Services from time to time), are authorised:

• to determine whether a request that a police officer arrest and detain a person who is a refugee or protection status claimant, under section 313 of the Immigration Act 2009, is justified as necessary;
• to agree to a residence and reporting requirements agreement with a refugee or protection status claimant under section 315 of the Immigration Act 2009;
• to apply for or give consent to the release on conditions of a refugee or protection status claimant under section 320 of the Immigration Act 2009;
• to refer to a branch with a direction to grant a visa under section 61 of the Immigration Act 2009 to a claimant who has been detained and/or released on conditions.

A16.2.25 Periodic review of restrictions on freedom of movement

A16.2.25.1 Administrative review processes

1. Any decision restricting the freedom of movement of a refugee or protection status claimant must not only be justified as necessary at the time of the decision, but that restriction must continue to be justified as necessary. Individual's circumstances can change with the passage of time. Restrictions on freedom of movement that are necessary for shorter periods of time may not meet the necessary test over a longer period.
2. At the time of a person's arrival in New Zealand there may be limited time and information available to inform a decision that affects a claimant's freedom of movement. A more conservative approach to the guidelines set out in A16.2.30 may be appropriate. Often, further information will become available over the next 10-14 days that may be relevant to the initial decision to restrict a person's freedom of movement. This may include information regarding the identity of the claimant such as:
   1. documents and further information provided by the claimant regarding their identity;
   2. a credibility assessment concerning identity by a refugee and protection officer following an interview of the claimant;
   3. information from a superintendent of a penal institution or the person in charge of the Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre (MRRC) about the identity of a person and any identified risks that they present in terms of criminal offending, absconding or to national security and public order; and
   4. any relevant information provided by international agencies, the New Zealand Police or security services.
3. For claimants in detention, a review of the grounds justifying detention should occur as soon as practical after any new evidence or information emerges about the claimant, or 14 days after detention at the latest. This is preferable to waiting until the initial 28 day period expires, when the matter will be subject to mandatory judicial review by a judge. If detention is determined at that stage to no longer be necessary, then the immigration officer must decide whether to apply for the claimant's release on conditions under section 320 of the Immigration Act 2009, or to direct that a visa be granted under section 61 of the Immigration Act 2009. Alternatively, an application for a variation of the warrant to allow the person to be transferred from a penal institution to the MRRC may be appropriate.
4. Immigration officers should also continue to monitor the circumstances of claimants released on conditions or subject to a residence and reporting requirements agreement. A review of the appropriateness of that release should occur as soon as practical after any new evidence or information emerges or is provided about the claimant, and immigration officers should continue to monitor these cases. Where applicable, steps to vary the conditions or requirements should be taken.
5. In conducting a review, immigration officers may obtain information about the claimant and the claim from a variety of sources, including the Refugee Status Branch (RSB) of Immigration New Zealand. Without compromising its ability to carry out a full and fair assessment of the claim, the RSB may be in a position to offer factual advice about the circumstances of the claimant (including their identity and nationality) and about the relative strength or weakness of the claim. Where the RSB has declined refugee or protection status, that fact itself may have a bearing on any review of the necessity for continued restrictions on the claimant's freedom of movement.

A16.2.25.5 Further warrants of commitment and judicial review processes

Further Warrants of Commitment

1. The Immigration Act 2009 provides for periodic review of the detention of all persons detained under sections 317 and 323 of the Immigration Act 2009 in either a penal institution or an approved premise, regardless of whether or not they have claimed refugee or protection status.
2. Section 317(4) states that in determining whether to issue a warrant of commitment, or whether to order the person’s release on conditions, the Judge must have regard to, among other things, the need to seek an outcome that maximises compliance with the Act.
3. Section 323(3) allows the Judge to order a person’s release on conditions where a warrant of commitment is applied for, and if successful would result in the persons continuous detention for a period of more than six months, unless the person’s deportation or departure is prevented by some action or inaction of the person; and no exceptional circumstances exist.
4. It is therefore particularly important that immigration officers, when preparing the required section 316 application, present all the circumstances of the case, and that the application justifies as necessary the continued detention of the claimant in either a penal institution or the Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre

Application for release on conditions

1. An immigration officer may at any time apply for release on conditions of a person detained under section 317 of the Immigration Act 2009. A detainee may also apply for a variation of the warrant or release on conditions, which is ultimately a matter for the discretion of a District Court Judge.
2. Orders for release on conditions must be made subject to particular statutory conditions (e.g. place of residence, frequency and manner of reporting), and can be made subject to other conditions the Judge thinks fit to impose. Immigration officers have a role in informing the way in which the statutory conditions are applied and in assisting in the imposition of any judicial conditions. The conditions imposed should be no more than are necessary to manage the risks associated with the claimant.

Judicial review of release on conditions

A District Court Judge may make an order for a person released on conditions to be detained under a warrant on application by an immigration officer, either due to a breach or because detention in a penal institution or approved premises is considered necessary. Where a person breaches the statutory conditions, there is a presumption of continued detention unless the person concerned can provide a reasonable excuse for the breach. An application for an order to detain under a warrant of commitment by an immigration officer must include the reasons why detention in a penal institution or at the Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre is necessary.

Habeas corpus and judicial review

1. Persons subject to detention under sections 317 or 323 of the Immigration Act 2009 or released on conditions under section 320 of the Immigration Act 2009 may apply at any time to the High Court for judicial review of any decision by an immigration officer or a District Court Judge to detain them or release them on conditions.
2. Persons detained pursuant to sections 317 or 323 of the Immigration Act 2009 may also apply to the High Court in accordance with the Habeas Corpus Act to have the lawfulness of their detention determined by a High Court Judge. Such applications must be heard and determined in precedence to all other matters.

A16.2.30 Indicative list of considerations which may guide decisions about restriction on freedom of movement (at the time of their arrival and subsequently) of persons claiming refugee or protection status at the border

Any decision to impose any level of restriction on the freedom of movement of the individual, and the level of restriction of movement that is to be imposed, remains a matter for careful judgement by the officer concerned after weighing up all relevant circumstances of the case. For example, with regard to the factors listed below, the absence of valid travel documents is just one factor which may be taken into consideration when making a decision whether or not to impose any level of restriction of movement. There is no predetermined view that a claimant without valid travel documents, or whose documents have been destroyed, should be treated as high risk, as it is recognised that individuals with legitimate claims to refugee or protection status may have to resort to such measures to escape a well founded fear of persecution, torture, cruel treatment or arbitrary deprivation of life.

A critical factor, particularly in considering whether detention in a penal institution is necessary, (and in line with the UNHCR Guidelines on Detention, including the 1989 Policy and 1991 Guidelines on the Protection of Refugee Women and the 1995 Sexual Violence against Refugees: Guidelines on Prevention and Response (as updated in 2003)), is the existence of an intention to mislead the authorities of the State in which they wish to claim asylum. In all cases, a decision to detain in a penal institution rather than any lesser form of restriction on the freedom of movement of a claimant is considered only after all other alternatives have been excluded.

A16.2.15 sets out the special principles that apply in relation to decisions affecting the freedom of movement of children and young persons under 18. Special consideration is also to be given to the treatment of other vulnerable groups, including women (especially pregnant women and adolescent girls), the elderly, the disabled, and torture or trauma survivors, in line with the relevant UN human rights instruments and UNHCR guidelines.

A16.2.30.1 Considerations which may inform a decision to grant a visa and release into the community

1. The refugee or protection status claimant has valid travel documents. There are no concerns as to the claimant's identity (including nationality) or risks to national security or public order. There are no concerns as to the claimant criminally offending or absconding (including for example, where a preliminary interview by a refugee and protection officer discloses that a claim is brought in good faith);
2. The circumstances outlined above apply but the claimant has no valid travel documents. However there would be no delay or difficulty in obtaining such documents in the event that the claim is declined;
3. The claimant is otherwise able to enter the community unrestricted, particularly in the case of a member of a vulnerable group including women (particularly pregnant women and adolescent girls), children, the elderly, the disabled, and torture or trauma survivors.

A16.2.30.5 Considerations which may inform a decision to release into the community on conditions or residence and reporting requirements

1. The identity (including nationality) of a refugee or protection status claimant cannot be ascertained to the satisfaction of an immigration officer but the officer is satisfied that the claimant presents a low risk of criminal offending, absconding or otherwise posing a risk to national security and public order;
2. A preliminary assessment of a refugee or protection status claimant's claim by a refugee and protection officer suggests that the claim may not be brought in good faith and for this reason an immigration officer cannot be satisfied that there is no real risk of the claimant absconding;
3. A refugee or protection status claimant has no valid travel and/or identity document [and there may be delay or difficulty in obtaining those documents in the event that their claim to refugee or protection status is declined].

A16.2.30.10 Considerations which may inform a decision to require residence at Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre

1. The identity (including nationality) of a refugee or protection status claimant cannot be ascertained to the satisfaction of an immigration officer and the risks presented by the claimant in terms of criminal offending, absconding or to national security and public order cannot be ascertained;
2. There is a clearly identified risk of a refugee or protection status claimant criminally offending, absconding or otherwise posing a risk to national security or public order but that risk can be managed by the claimant being required to reside at the Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre (MRRC);
3. A refugee or protection status claimant has arrived as part of a group of 10 or more persons who have also arrived unlawfully, and it is not appropriate for them to be released into the community on conditions;
4. A refugee or protection status claimant has no valid travel and/or identity document and there may be delay or difficulty in obtaining those documents in the event that their claim to refugee or protection status is declined, and requiring the claimant to reside at the MRCC is otherwise necessary given the risks associated with them;
5. A preliminary assessment of a refugee or protection claimant's claim by a refugee and protection officer suggests any refugee or protection claim is clearly not brought in good faith, or not related to the criteria for the granting of refugee status laid down in the Refugee Convention nor any other criteria justifying the granting of refugee or protection status, and requiring the claimant to reside at the MRRC is otherwise necessary given the risks associated with them;
6. A refugee or protection status claimant has already had a claim to refugee or protection status substantively declined in New Zealand, or another country that affords effective protection in a similar manner to the obligations listed in the Immigration Act 2009, and requiring the claimant to reside at the MRRC is otherwise necessary given the risks associated with them. However, if there were evidence that the claim was unfairly rejected (including new circumstances not being properly considered) this should be taken into account.

A16.2.30.15 Considerations which may inform a decision to detain in a penal institution

1. A refugee or protection status claimant is a person to whom section 15 or 16 of the Immigration Act 2009 applies, or detention is otherwise required to protect national security or public order;
2. There is reason to suspect that a refugee or protection status claimant is a person to whom sections 15 or 16 of the Immigration Act 2009 applies but their section 15 or 16 status cannot be immediately ascertained. This is especially in the case of a group arrival situation where there may be good reason to suspect some of those people of being involved in people smuggling;
3. It is necessary to verify the identity of a refugee or protection status claimant where identity cannot be ascertained, particularly if identity may impact on the application of sections 15 or 16 of the Immigration Act 2009. This is especially relevant in the group arrival situation where there may be reason to suspect some of those arriving of being involved in people smuggling and the risks in failing to properly ascertain identity are high;
4. There are strong grounds to believe that a refugee or protection status claimant has destroyed or otherwise disposed of their travel and/or identity documents with the intention of misleading Immigration New Zealand (INZ) officials as to the details of their travel and/or identity;
5. A refugee or protection status claimant has used fraudulent documents in order to mislead INZ officials (for example the claim to refugee or protection status follows detection of the fraud by officials or the New Zealand Police);
6. There is a clearly identified risk of a refugee or protection status claimant criminally offending, absconding or otherwise threatening national security and public order and that risk cannot be managed by the claimant being required to reside at the Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre (MRRC).
7. A preliminary assessment of a refugee or protection claimant's claim suggests the claim is clearly not brought in good faith, or not related to the criteria for the granting of refugee status laid down in the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugee Convention) nor any other criteria justifying the granting of refugee or protection status, and detention in a penal institution is otherwise necessary given the risks associated with them;
8. A refugee or protection status claimant has already had a claim to refugee or protection status substantively declined in New Zealand, or another country that affords effective protection in a similar manner to the obligations listed in the Act, and the risks associated with the claimant cannot be managed by the claimant being required to reside at the MRRC. However, if there were evidence that the claim was unfairly rejected (including new circumstances not being properly considered) this should be taken into account.
9. In the case of a group arrival, if it is expected to take INZ and other government agencies considerable time to fully investigate and determine all the circumstances and facts pertaining to the group’s arrival in New Zealand. Such enquiries might include extensive enquiries both inside New Zealand, as well as in other countries, to obtain information regarding the group’s origin, history, composure, movements and activities.

A16.2.35 Officers authorised to exercise discretionary powers

1. Immigration officers who are authorised to determine whether detention in a penal institution of a person who is a refugee or protection status claimant is justified as necessary, to apply for or consent to the release on conditions of a refugee or protection status claimant from a penal institution, or to direct that a visa be granted under section 61 of the Immigration Act 2009 to a refugee or protection status claimant detained in a penal institution are:
   • Assistant General Manager(s), Compliance and Border Operations, CRIS
   • Head(s) of Operation, Compliance Investigations, CRIS
   • Visa Operations Manager(s) ; Manager(s) Systems and Support, Compliance Investigations, CRIS
   • Immigration Manager(s), Border Operations, CRIS
   • Technical Specialist(s), Compliance Investigations ; Border Operations, CRIS
   • Compliance Officers (CRIS) who, as determined by the Manager(s) Systems and Support, are deemed sufficiently experienced to make this determination
   • Border Officers (CRIS), as determined by Technical Specialist(s) Border Operations, are deemed sufficiently experienced to make this determination
2. Immigration officers who are authorised to determine whether detention at the Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre (MRRC) of a person who is a refugee or protection status claimant is justified as necessary, or to apply for or consent to the release on conditions of a refugee or protection status claimant from the MRRC, to agree a residence and reporting requirements agreement with a person who is a refugee or protection status claimant, or to direct the grant of a visa under section 61 of the Immigration Act 2009 to a refugee or protection status claimant detained at the MRRC are:
   • those immigration officers listed in A16.2.35(a).
3. Immigration officers who are authorised to direct the grant of a visa under section 61 of the Immigration Act 2009 to a refugee or protection status claimant who is released on conditions or is subject to a residence and reporting requirements agreement are:
   • those immigration officers listed in A16.2.35(a).

Effective 13/05/2019