“Social media profiles and phone contacts” used as proof of identity for deportations

Thirteen non-EU countries sometimes accept “social media profiles and phone contacts” as evidence of identity for the purpose of deportations, according to an internal European Commission assessment of third country cooperation on readmission.

The assessment is produced annually and is used to determine where and how to apply pressure on third states not deemed to be sufficiently cooperative with deportations from EU member states.

One of the assessment’s central concerns is countries’ level of cooperation on identifying and issuing travel documents for purported citizens and it evaluates the types of evidence of citizenship accepted by each country.

In addition to the types of evidence already listed in the 2019 assessment report – such as biometric data, information extracted from the Visa Information System, or other identity documents – the 2021 assessment mentions that several countries sometimes also accepted “social media profiles and phone contacts” as evidence of identity.

The document does not expand upon how this works, but the fact that unverified information can be used for the purposes of deportation is likely to raise eyebrows amongst migration and asylum specialists – particularly given a recent German court ruling that mining mobile phone data for the purpose of asylum proceedings is unlawful. The extraction of data from phones seized from asylum seekers has also been ruled unlawful in the UK.

The countries in question

Algeria, Cameroon, the Ivory Coast, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, India, Iran, Kosovo, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Sudan, and Nigeria are all mentioned as at least occasionally accepting such evidence; Nigeria additionally sometimes accepted “money transfers” as evidence.

The Commission also notes that a number of countries frequently requested information considered “confidential information under EU or national legal frameworks (e.g. information on asylum processes, medical information or criminal records)” in connection to the organization of deportations.

The following countries were mentioned as often, very often, or always/almost always requesting such information from certain member states: Algeria, Belarus (“a ruling stating that a return order has been issued to the person concerned”), the Ivory Coast, the DRC, Egypt (“criminal records, in particular terrorism related crimes“), Ghana, Guinea, India, Iran, Iraq (“in most cases, this concerned the criminal record of the returnee as the only forced returns Iraq accepts are returns of criminals, and only in some cases.”), Lebanon, Mali, Morroco, Nigeria, Pakistan (“in all cases this concerned criminal records”), Russia, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, Turkey, and Vietnam.

A number of other countries more rarely requested such information. The assessment does not clarify how Member States responded to such requests.

EC Assessment used to decide visa sanctions, scale up deportations

The European Commission annually assesses the level of certain non-EU countries’ cooperation on “readmission”, producing a lengthy report that outlines obstacles faced by EU member states in the organisation of deportations to these countries.

The assessment is part of the decision-making process on whether to implement sanctions according to Article 25a of the Visa Code, which has been in force since February 2020 and allows the Council to punish countries deemed “non-cooperative” by limiting access to short-stay Schengen visas for citizens of these countries.

Sanctions and the mechanism of regular assessments are part of a strategy of creating “leverage” to scale up deportations, with possible sanctions including the creation of bureaucratic hurdles such as considerable increases in visa processing time and visa fees.

The Gambia became the first country to face such sanctions in 2021. In late 2022 the sanctions were further escalated. Sanctions targeting Bangladesh, Iraq, and, most recently, Senegal have also been proposed by the Commission but they have not yetbeen implemented.

The article was first published by Statewatch here.
Original image by Andy Lamb, CC BY 2.0

Contribution by: EDRi member, Statewatch