Article -> Article Details

Deportation orders, officially referred to as removal orders, are hefty legal tools pursued under the Australia Migration Act 1958. They force a non-citizen out of the country, normally off visa cancellation or expiry. 

But in some cases such orders are not implemented in months or even years. When that occurs, issues of complicated legal, administrative, and human rights emerge.

Section 198 of Migration Act states that once an individual has become an illegal non-citizen (someone with no valid visa), the Minister or the home affairs department has to help remove him/her as quickly as possible. This is not optional and expulsion is a legal requirement.

The term reasonable practicability however brings about flexibility. It acknowledges that there are logistical, diplomatic or humanitarian reasons which can postpone the issue of deportation defenses which include:

Absence of legitimate traveling documents;

In instances where a deportation order cannot be executed promptly, the targeted individual will tend to be in immigration detention. Australia is a system that permits indefinite detention in such a situation, which has been a domestic and international bone of contention.

In the case of extended detention, the courts can be requested to find out whether the further detention is still legal. According to the case of Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004), the High Court decided that indefinite imprisonment of an individual awaiting the deportation is legal under Migration Act even when there is no realistic chance of deportation in the near future.

In the case of the unenforcement of deportation orders, the Department will have to revise the case on a regular basis. Nevertheless, these reviews frequently result in hard balancing actions between the national security, the immigration control, and the humanitarian matters.

In other instances, people on unenforced orders are given bridging visas, which are temporary permits that they are permitted to release into the community whilst the government progresses towards the removal. These visas are associated with rigid conditions e.g. mandatory reporting and a restriction of work.

In the human rights sense, long term detention with no or unseen likelihood of deportation may cause alarm to the international law, especially under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The UN Human Rights Committee has criticized Australia on the issue of indefinite detention.

The unenforced deportation orders may be challenged by the affected persons in the form of:

Such avenues can hardly reverse the removal order itself but can result in temporary relief, bridging visas, or re-evaluation of the circumstances of the individual.

There is a conflict between human rights and border control in the immigration system of Australia, which is distinguished by unenforced orders of deportation. Although the law is obviously mandated to be removed, the realities on the ground usually ensure that this is not achievable. This results in a legal gray area in which people stand to be removed but without any legal ability to be stayed or to be expelled.

Laws and policy discussions over the last couple of years have revolved around the issue of whether there should be any limitation on the length or whether there should be a review mechanism of indefinite detention- whether the practice of enforcing deportation orders is lawful and humane in Australia.

The issue in Australia where the deportation orders are not enforced is at the borderland of morality, law, and policy. Although the Migration Act offers a rigorous legal framework to removal, it is not always possible to enforce it in practice and on the basis of humanitarian concerns. 

As a person with such conditions, it is important to learn about their rights, consult with a lawyer, and find out possible solutions to this unstable legal situation. For affected individuals, understanding their rights, seeking legal advice, and exploring available remedies are crucial steps in navigating this uncertain legal landscape.