Haitians breached Immigration Act, deemed “prohibited” by giving false information – AG

It has been argued over the past week that the 26 Haitians Government was blocked from deporting should have been taken to a magistrate, but according to Attorney General Anil Nandlall, the Haitians voided this protection by lying to immigration officials.

Nandlall’s arguments are contained in his submissions as a respondent in the case of applicant Allandres Archer v Attorney General. At the heart of this case are attempts to block the State from enforcing the deportation orders granted by Chief Magistrate Sherdel Issacs-Marcus.
The Haitians were in protective custody at the Hugo Chávez Centre since last month and the Chief Magistrate had granted an order to deport them after being approached by the Immigration Office.
However, the Association of Haitian Nationals in Guyana successfully approached acting Chief Justice Roxane George on December 3, to block the deportation until the constitutionality of their detention comes up for the hearing of arguments on December 18.
In his submissions, Nandlall noted that 13 of the Haitians were first picked up by Police acting on reasonable suspicion and information, at a hotel on South Road. He made it clear that the Haitians were not arrested, but rather were interviewed by agents of the Trafficking In Persons (TIP) unit.
The remainder were picked up on November 8 after being intercepted at a Police roadblock in Linden. At the time, the Police became suspicious that they were being smuggled to Brazil through the Georgetown-Lethem route. It was while being questioned by the TIP unit that incorrect information was first given.
“Whilst in protective custody… it was discovered that Maudalissa Methelus and Marshall Methelus, minors aged 13 and nine years respectfully, are Haitian nationals who arrived in Guyana on the 7th November 2020 at the Eugene F Correia Airport in the company of a female Myriame Vieux, aged 33, also a Haitian national. Vieux said that she is the aunt of the two children she travelled with her to Guyana and they were travelling with her on vacation.”
But Nandlall noted that in a statement to a female Police Corporal, Vieux had said that the first time she met the two children was when she received them at the airport in Haiti. According to her, she received the children with signed travel documents and authorisation to travel.
“The guardians travelling with the Haitian national children when questioned provided copies of authorisation for the children and indicated that the children are related to them. However, on examination of the authorisations produced by Sonise Pierre who is travelling with Juldat Francois, aged 17 years, Jeff-Nerline Francois, 7 years old, and Jonathan Francois 13 years old, it was observed that the authorisation was given to Mr Luckner Francois to travel with the child and not Sonise Pierre.
“It was also observed that the name of the mother was spelt and signed differently on the authorisation when compared to the spelling featured on the passport of the child. The passport number featured on the authorisation for the child and the date of departure do not correspond with that on the child’s passport.”

More misinformation
But more misinformation was to follow. According to the AG in his submission, every single one of the Haitians lied about where they were staying in Guyana. He noted that all but one of the Haitians provided an address in Barrack Street, Kingston, but upon investigation it was revealed that the property was demolished months ago.
On the other hand, one of the Haitians provided an address in Kitty, but when the occupants of the premises were contacted, they denied knowledge of the Haitians or their impending arrival. Nandlall noted that lying to immigration is a breach of Section 9 (1a) of the Immigration Act Chapter 14:02. And if they are in breach of this section, Section 9 (2) deems them prohibited immigrants.
Section 9 of the Immigration Act Chapter 14:02 states; “Every person who enters Guyana by sea, air or land shall (a) answer truthfully to the best of his ability all proper questions, in so far as is necessary for the purposes of this Act, put to him by an immigration officer. (2) Any person who contravenes, or fails to comply with, any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed to be a prohibited immigrant.”
Section 15 meanwhile states; “Except as otherwise provided by this Act, no person (a) who is a prohibited immigrant; or (b) who being deemed under this Act to be a prohibited immigrant, is dealt with as such, shall enter or remain in Guyana.”
Nandlall noted that as such, deportation orders were sought and granted by the Chief Magistrate. The AG also contended that by law, there is a distinction between persons deemed to be prohibited immigrants and persons who are prohibited as a result of a decision by an immigration officer.
“Thus, it is respectfully submitted that the Haitian nationals having been deemed to be prohibited immigrants were not required to be taken before a Magistrate at the time that the applications for orders of deportation were granted. Since, by operation of law, they were deemed prohibited immigrants having failed to answer truthfully the place of their residence during their stay in Guyana,” the AG said.
Nandlall’s other submissions in the case relate to the contention of the applicant that the matter is one of a breach of fundamental rights. He noted that the detention of the Haitians was within the law, pursuant to the Combating of Trafficking in Persons Act Chapter 10:06. He also noted that no evidence has been provided that the Haitians were discriminated against based on nationality.
“It is respectfully submitted that the respondent has been able to definitively show that the Haitian nationals were untruthful on their immigration forms. They were granted permits for a stay of six months in Guyana; however, the 26 Haitian nationals were untruthful in their disclosure of their place of residence while in Guyana.”
“This coupled with the discovery of 13 of the Haitian nationals proceeding to Linden and the Border of Guyana and Brazil aroused suspicion of trafficking in persons/smuggling, which is prohibited by the Laws of Guyana. Moreover, no evidence has been submitted to show that the Haitian nationals were discriminated against based on nationality. The orders prayed for by the applicant ought to be refused and the referral to the Caribbean Court of Justice denied,” Nandlall submitted.