PROCEDURE

The case originated in an applications (nos. 265/07) against the Kingdom of Norway lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Mr Louis Osaze Darren Omoregie, a Nigerian national; Mrs Elisabeth Skundberg Darren, a Norwegian national; and their daughter Selma, a Norwegian national (“the applicants”), on 13 December 2006.

The applicants, who had been granted legal aid, were represented by Mr A. Humlen, a lawyer practising in Oslo. The Norwegian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs F. Platou Amble, Attorney, Attorney-General's Office (Civil Matters).

The applicants alleged that the decision to expel the first applicant to Nigeria with a prohibition of re-entry into Norway for a period of five years constituted a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

By a decision of 22 November 2007, the Court declared the application admissible.

The applicants and the Government each filed further written observations (Rule 59 § 1).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The first applicant, Mr Louis Osaze Darren Omoregie, is a Nigerian national who was born in Sierra Leone in 1979. The second applicant is Mrs Elisabeth Skundberg Darren, a Norwegian national who was born in 1977. The third applicant is their daughter, Selma, who was born on 20 September 2006. The second and third applicants reside in Biri, Norway, as did the first applicant, before he was expelled to Nigeria on 7 March 2007.

The first applicant lived in Nigeria as from the age of 6 months until he went to Norway, where he arrived on 25 August 2001, without passport or other identity document. On the same date he applied for asylum.

In October 2001 he met the second applicant. The couple started cohabiting in March 2002.

A. Rejection of the first applicant's asylum application and related expulsion order and refusals

The first applicant's asylum application was rejected by the Directorate of Immigration on 22 May 2002. He appealed to the Immigration Appeals Board and, pending a decision of his appeal, he was granted a stay of execution of his expulsion and a temporary work permit.

The first and second applicants got engaged on 10 September 2002. On 11 September 2002 the Immigration Appeals Board rejected the applicant's appeal, stating inter alia “This administrative decision means that the appellant is obliged to leave the country voluntarily. If the appellant does not leave the country voluntarily, the police shall implement the decision; see sections 40 and 41 of the Immigration Act.”

Shortly thereafter the Implementation Group of the Oslo Police District sent a notification of the decision to the first applicant's lawyer, giving the first applicant until 30 September 2002 to leave Norway. The notification further stated: “Your client must contact the Implementation Group for Administrative Decisions as soon as possible to make arrangements for his departure from Norway. If we have not been contacted by the time the deadline expires, the decision will be implemented in accordance with section 41 of the Immigration Act. This could result in his arrest without further notice.”

On 1 October 2002 the first applicant requested the Board to stay his expulsion, which the Board refused on 7 October 2002.

No judicial appeal was lodged against the above decisions, which became final.

On 2 February 2003 the first and second applicants got married.

On 14 February 2003 the first applicant applied for a work permit on the ground of family reunification. The Directorate of Immigration rejected the application on 26 April 2003 and ordered him to leave Norway while indicating that the decision could be appealed against and that the police could set a time-limit for asking for respite of the expulsion. The decision was notified to him by local police on 7 May 2003 with an order to leave the country by 4 June 2003. The Directorate considered that the first applicant fell within a group of persons who were granted work permit for the purpose of family reunification under section 9 of the Immigration Act (and Article 23(1)(a) of the Immigration Regulation (Utlendingsforskriften)) but rejected the application on the ground that it was not documented that he had fulfilled the condition of ensured means of subsistence (Article 25 of the Regulation). In the view of the Directorate, there were no particularly strong human considerations warranting an exception being made from this condition in the instant case (Article 25(3)).

On 14 May 2003 the first applicant again appealed and requested stay of execution. The Directorate of Immigration rejected the request and local police notified him thereof on 19 October 2003 with an order to leave Norway by 30 October 2003.

B. Administrative sanction for failure to leave the country and ensuing judicial proceedings

Concurrently with the Immigration Appeals Board's examination of the first applicant's appeal of 14 May 2003, the Directorate of Immigration on 4 July 2003 warned him that it was contemplating to expel him pursuant to section 29(1)(a) of the Immigration Act. It referred to his registered gainful employment since 1 September 2002 and to his having worked in breach of section 6 of the Immigration Act since the rejection of his asylum application on 11 September 2002. Moreover, the Directorate referred to his defiance of his obligation to comply with the time-limit for leaving the country after the rejection of his asylum request. The Directorate considered that he had seriously contravened the provisions of the Act and had evaded implementation of the order to leave the country.

On 26 August 2003 the Directorate of Immigration decided to expel the applicant pursuant section 29(1)(a) of the Immigration Act. It found that the applicant's alleged ignorance of the unlawfulness of his gainful occupation was no excuse and that it would not be disproportionate to expel him despite his marriage with the second applicant. It decided to prohibit the first applicant from re-entry into Norway for five years, with a possibility of re-entry on application - normally only after two years.

On 21 July 2004 the Immigration Appeals Board upheld the Directorate of Immigration's rejection of his request for family reunification and its decision that the basic conditions for expelling the first applicant under section 29(1) of the Immigration Act were fulfilled; for more than a year he had been in gainful occupation without a work/residence permit. The Board also noted that he had avoided the implementation of the decision refusing him asylum and obliging him to leave the country. The Board found that his expulsion would not be disproportionate or otherwise contrary to Article 8 of the Convention. It also dismissed his appeal against the Directorate's rejection of his application for a work permit.

By a judgment of 15 February 2005 the Oslo City Court quashed the Immigration Appeals Board's decision of 21 July 2004 as being invalid.

In its judgment the City Court observed that it found it obvious that the basic condition for expelling the first applicant – that he had seriously or repeatedly violated the Immigration Act or had defied implementation of the decision that he should leave the country – had been fulfilled. The question then was whether expulsion would be a disproportionate measure vis-à-vis the first applicant and his close family.

In this regard the City Court observed that, although the first applicant had failed to comply with one of the conditions for contracting marriage in Norway, namely lawful residence in the country (sections 5(a) and 7 (k) of the Marriage Act 1991), he had had reason to believe (as from February 2003) that he had a right to stay and to apply for a work permit and a residence permit. While he had failed to respect two time-limits for leaving the country (30 September 2002 and 4 June 2003), he could not be criticised for having exceeded such deadlines after 26 April 2003 as the information furnished to him by the Directorate of Immigration had been unclear as to the time-limits set for his leaving the country compared to those set for asking respite and the replies given to his requests for respite. He had worked unlawfully for nine months and had resided unlawfully for four and a half months. This was, relatively speaking, not a very serious offence, which fact counterbalanced his relatively weak links to Norway. To impose a prohibition on re-entry for five years would constitute a disproportionate measure towards the applicant and his family in the sense of section 29 of the Immigration Act. It could easily lead to the dissolution of the family. The second applicant would presumably have great difficulties of adaptation in the first applicant's home country. Even if the first applicant could apply for re-entry after two years, he would most probably only be granted permission to come for shorter visits. The City Court found it unnecessary to examine whether the disputed decision violated Article 8 of the Convention.

On an appeal by the State against the City Court judgment, the High Court reached a different conclusion. By a judgment of 27 February 2006, it found that the first applicant's omission to leave the country voluntarily, although not the same as going under ground, meant that he had avoided compliance with the order to leave the country, meaning that the basic conditions for his expulsion under section 29 of the Immigration Act were fulfilled.

The High Court noted from the outset that the first applicant had acknowledged that he had seriously or repeatedly infringed the provisions of the Immigration Act and that the formal conditions for expulsion were fulfilled. The first applicant disputed that he had evaded a decision to leave the country and had only omitted to voluntarily comply with the decision. However, the High Court considered that also such an omission constituted evasion for the purposes of the act, although it was less serious than going under ground.

The High Court found it established that the applicant had stayed lawfully in Norway from 25 August 2001 to 30 September 2002. It was undisputed that his stay was unlawful from 30 September or 1 October 2002 until 14 February 2003 when he applied for family reunification. It was further undisputed that he had worked unlawfully without a work permit for 9 months, from 30 September/1 October 2002 until early July 2003, when the Directorate of Immigration warned him about expulsion. Thus the formal grounds for expulsion according to section 29 of the Immigration Act (as defined in Circular 03-25) were fulfilled.

The High Court observed that the central issue was the one of proportionality. In this regard it noted that the first applicant's links to Norway were very limited. He had arrived in Norway aged 22 years, without any links to the country. At the time of the impugned decision he had lived there for less than three years, parts of the time unlawfully. Already after less than two years he had been warned of expulsion. His stay in Norway had been very short and could not have given him any legitimate expectation of being able to live there. This was not significantly altered by his marriage to the second applicant, which had been entered into shortly before the disputed decision and in breach of the provisions on marriage. It was not uncommon for a person whose expulsion had been decided to marry a Norwegian citizen and use this as an argument to have the expulsion order invalidated. In such a situation expulsion would inevitably interfere with an established family situation. In this case there was no indication that expulsion would entail extra burdens of any kind beyond what followed from the separation.

The High Court also found that the first applicant's links to Nigeria were particularly strong and far more so than his links to Norway. In Nigeria he had lived from the age of six months until the age of 22, had studied at university for four years, and had three brothers with whom he was still in contact. Nor were there any concrete factors suggesting that, because he sought asylum in Norway, he would encounter particular problems with the Nigerian authorities upon return.

As regards the second applicant, the High Court observed that at the time that they married she must already have been aware of the uncertainty of the first applicant's stay in Norway. Moreover, she was used to living abroad, having lived for several periods in South Africa. English was also the official language of Nigeria. In the view of the High Court, she would not face insurmountable problems by settling in Nigeria for a shorter or longer period, should she so wish.

As to the first applicant's violations of the Immigration Act, the High Court found them to be of a certain degree of seriousness but did not find them particularly aggravated. However, having regard to the tenuous character of his links to Norway, the High Court considered that the balance of interest was not in his favour. Were it to be otherwise, expulsion would be possible only in very rare cases, with the consequence that this would have for the implementation of adopted immigration policies. The only countervailing consideration was his marriage to the second applicant. However, this could not be decisive; otherwise it would leave open a practice which would completely undermine the authorities' implementation of the Immigration Act.

Relying essentially on the same considerations as mentioned above, the High Court, taking into account the Strasbourg Court's case law, did not find that the disputed decision would be incompatible with Article 8 of the Convention.

On 14 June 2006 the Appeals Leave Committee of the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal, finding it obvious that the appeal had no prospects of success.

In the meantime, on 15 February 2005 the first applicant had submitted a new application for a work permit on the ground of family reunification with the second applicant. The Directorate of Immigration rejected his application on 21 July 2006.

C. Birth of the third applicant and renewed requests by the first applicant

On 20 September 2006 the couple had a child, Selma, who is the third applicant.

On 31 October 2006 the Immigration Appeals Board rejected an appeal by the first applicant against the Directorate of Immigration's refusal of 21 July 2006. The Board found that quashing the refusal of re-entry was not required in the interest of the third applicant, inter alia noting that the child had been conceived after a final expulsion order and referring to the circumstances of the entry into marriage. It would be possible for the second and third applicants to live with the first applicant for shorter or longer periods in his home country. Although the fact that the first and second applicants had had a child together substantially altered the assessment of the proportionality of the prohibition of re-entry, the Board still did not find that the measure would be disproportionate. Neither Article 8 of the Convention nor the United Nations Children Convention could imply a different solution.

On 2 November 2006 the Directorate of Immigration refused to stay the applicant's expulsion.

On 13 December 2006 the applicants, represented by a lawyer, submitted an application under the Convention, which was received at the Registry on 3 January 2007. They complained that the first applicant's expulsion would entail a splitting of the family in breach of Article 8 of the Convention. It would not be possible for the second and third applicants to accompany him to Nigeria. They submitted that, having regard to the minor character of his breaches of the Immigration Act, the enforcement of the expulsion order would constitute a disproportionate interference with the applicant's family life. Any such enforcement should await a final decision by the Court.

On 5 January 2007 the President of the Section decided, in the circumstances, not to indicate to the Government of Norway, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the interim measure requested. The circumstances underlying the application were not of the kind to which, in the Court's practice, Rule 39 was applied. On 19 January 2007 the applicants' lawyer informed the Court that they wished to maintain their application notwithstanding the refusal to apply Rule 39.

On 30 March 2007 the Immigration Appeals Board dismissed an appeal by the first applicant against a rejection by the Directorate of Immigration of 30 October 2006 of a renewed request by the first applicant for family reunion with the third applicant. The request had been made on the basis of a provision in the Immigration Regulation which was applicable to cases of unmarried parents and therefore did not cover the applicants' case. Nor did the Board see any other reason for altering its earlier decision in the case.

D. Implementation of the first applicant's expulsion

In the meantime, on 7 March 2007 the Implementation Group of the Oslo Police District expelled the first applicant back to Nigeria.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-88012_a8_e1
001-88012_a8_em1
CODE
DIRECT
265/07
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-88012_a8_e2
001-88012_a8_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Kingdom of Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e3
001-88012_a8_em3
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Louis Osaze Darren Omoregie
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e4
001-88012_a8_em4
DEM
QUASI
Nigerian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e5
001-88012_a8_em5
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs Elisabeth Skundberg Darren
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e6
001-88012_a8_em6
DEM
NO_MASK
Norwegian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e7
001-88012_a8_em7
PERSON
QUASI
Selma
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e6
001-88012_a8_em8
DEM
NO_MASK
Norwegian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e8
001-88012_a8_em9
DATETIME
QUASI
13 December 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e9
001-88012_a8_em10
PERSON
QUASI
Mr A. Humlen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e10
001-88012_a8_em11
LOC
NO_MASK
Oslo
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e11
001-88012_a8_em12
ORG
NO_MASK
Norwegian Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e12
001-88012_a8_em13
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs F. Platou Amble
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-88012_a8_e13
001-88012_a8_em14
ORG
NO_MASK
Attorney-General's Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-88012_a8_e14
001-88012_a8_em15
LOC
QUASI
Nigeria
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-88012_a8_e15
001-88012_a8_em16
LOC
NO_MASK
Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e16
001-88012_a8_em17
DATETIME
NO_MASK
five years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e17
001-88012_a8_em18
DATETIME
QUASI
22 November 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e3
001-88012_a8_em19
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Louis Osaze Darren Omoregie
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e4
001-88012_a8_em20
DEM
QUASI
Nigerian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-88012_a8_e18
001-88012_a8_em21
LOC
QUASI
Sierra Leone
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e19
001-88012_a8_em22
DATETIME
QUASI
1979
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e5
001-88012_a8_em23
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs Elisabeth Skundberg Darren
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e6
001-88012_a8_em24
DEM
NO_MASK
Norwegian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e20
001-88012_a8_em25
DATETIME
QUASI
1977
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e7
001-88012_a8_em26
PERSON
QUASI
Selma
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e21
001-88012_a8_em27
DATETIME
QUASI
20 September 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e22
001-88012_a8_em28
LOC
QUASI
Biri, Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e14
001-88012_a8_em29
LOC
QUASI
Nigeria
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e23
001-88012_a8_em30
DATETIME
QUASI
7 March 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-88012_a8_e14
001-88012_a8_em31
LOC
QUASI
Nigeria
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-88012_a8_e24
001-88012_a8_em32
DEM
NO_MASK
age of 6 months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e15
001-88012_a8_em33
LOC
NO_MASK
Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e25
001-88012_a8_em34
DATETIME
QUASI
25 August 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e26
001-88012_a8_em35
DATETIME
QUASI
October 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e27
001-88012_a8_em36
DATETIME
QUASI
March 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e28
001-88012_a8_em37
ORG
NO_MASK
Directorate of Immigration
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e29
001-88012_a8_em38
DATETIME
QUASI
22 May 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e30
001-88012_a8_em39
ORG
NO_MASK
Immigration Appeals Board
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e31
001-88012_a8_em40
DATETIME
QUASI
10 September 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e32
001-88012_a8_em41
DATETIME
QUASI
11 September 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e30
001-88012_a8_em42
ORG
NO_MASK
Immigration Appeals Board
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e33
001-88012_a8_em43
DATETIME
QUASI
30 September 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e15
001-88012_a8_em44
LOC
NO_MASK
Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e15
001-88012_a8_em45
LOC
NO_MASK
Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e34
001-88012_a8_em46
DATETIME
QUASI
1 October 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e35
001-88012_a8_em47
DATETIME
QUASI
7 October 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e36
001-88012_a8_em48
DATETIME
QUASI
2 February 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e37
001-88012_a8_em49
DATETIME
QUASI
14 February 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e28
001-88012_a8_em50
ORG
NO_MASK
Directorate of Immigration
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e38
001-88012_a8_em51
DATETIME
QUASI
26 April 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e15
001-88012_a8_em52
LOC
NO_MASK
Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e39
001-88012_a8_em53
DATETIME
QUASI
7 May 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e40
001-88012_a8_em54
DATETIME
QUASI
4 June 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e41
001-88012_a8_em55
DATETIME
QUASI
14 May 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e28
001-88012_a8_em56
ORG
NO_MASK
Directorate of Immigration
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e42
001-88012_a8_em57
DATETIME
QUASI
19 October 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e15
001-88012_a8_em58
LOC
NO_MASK
Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e43
001-88012_a8_em59
DATETIME
QUASI
30 October 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-88012_a8_e30
001-88012_a8_em60
ORG
NO_MASK
Immigration Appeals Board
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e41
001-88012_a8_em61
DATETIME
QUASI
14 May 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e28
001-88012_a8_em62
ORG
NO_MASK
Directorate of Immigration
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e44
001-88012_a8_em63
DATETIME
QUASI
4 July 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e45
001-88012_a8_em64
DATETIME
QUASI
1 September 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e32
001-88012_a8_em65
DATETIME
QUASI
11 September 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e46
001-88012_a8_em66
DATETIME
QUASI
26 August 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e28
001-88012_a8_em67
ORG
NO_MASK
Directorate of Immigration
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e15
001-88012_a8_em68
LOC
NO_MASK
Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e16
001-88012_a8_em69
DATETIME
NO_MASK
five years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e47
001-88012_a8_em70
DATETIME
NO_MASK
two years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e48
001-88012_a8_em71
DATETIME
QUASI
21 July 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e30
001-88012_a8_em72
ORG
NO_MASK
Immigration Appeals Board
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-88012_a8_e28
001-88012_a8_em73
ORG
NO_MASK
Directorate of Immigration
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e49
001-88012_a8_em74
DATETIME
QUASI
15 February 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e50
001-88012_a8_em75
ORG
QUASI
001-88012_a8_em78
Oslo City Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e30
001-88012_a8_em76
ORG
NO_MASK
Immigration Appeals Board
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-88012_a8_e48
001-88012_a8_em77
DATETIME
QUASI
21 July 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e50
001-88012_a8_em78
ORG
NO_MASK
City Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e50
001-88012_a8_em79
ORG
NO_MASK
City Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e15
001-88012_a8_em80
LOC
NO_MASK
Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e51
001-88012_a8_em81
DATETIME
QUASI
February 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e33
001-88012_a8_em82
DATETIME
QUASI
30 September 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e40
001-88012_a8_em83
DATETIME
QUASI
4 June 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-88012_a8_e38
001-88012_a8_em84
DATETIME
QUASI
26 April 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e28
001-88012_a8_em85
ORG
NO_MASK
Directorate of Immigration
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e52
001-88012_a8_em86
DATETIME
NO_MASK
nine months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e53
001-88012_a8_em87
DATETIME
NO_MASK
four and a half months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e15
001-88012_a8_em88
LOC
NO_MASK
Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e16
001-88012_a8_em89
DATETIME
NO_MASK
five years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e47
001-88012_a8_em90
DATETIME
NO_MASK
two years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e50
001-88012_a8_em91
ORG
NO_MASK
City Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e50
001-88012_a8_em92
ORG
NO_MASK
City Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e54
001-88012_a8_em93
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e55
001-88012_a8_em94
DATETIME
QUASI
27 February 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e54
001-88012_a8_em95
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e54
001-88012_a8_em96
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e54
001-88012_a8_em97
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e15
001-88012_a8_em98
LOC
NO_MASK
Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e25
001-88012_a8_em99
DATETIME
QUASI
25 August 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e33
001-88012_a8_em100
DATETIME
QUASI
30 September 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e56
001-88012_a8_em101
DATETIME
QUASI
30 September
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e34
001-88012_a8_em102
DATETIME
QUASI
1 October 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e37
001-88012_a8_em103
DATETIME
QUASI
14 February 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e57
001-88012_a8_em104
DATETIME
NO_MASK
9 months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-88012_a8_e58
001-88012_a8_em105
DATETIME
QUASI
30 September/1 October 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-88012_a8_e59
001-88012_a8_em106
DATETIME
QUASI
July 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e28
001-88012_a8_em107
ORG
NO_MASK
Directorate of Immigration
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e54
001-88012_a8_em108
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e15
001-88012_a8_em109
LOC
NO_MASK
Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e15
001-88012_a8_em110
LOC
NO_MASK
Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-88012_a8_e60
001-88012_a8_em111
DEM
QUASI
22 years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-88012_a8_e61
001-88012_a8_em112
DATETIME
NO_MASK
three years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-88012_a8_e47
001-88012_a8_em113
DATETIME
NO_MASK
two years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e15
001-88012_a8_em114
LOC
NO_MASK
Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e6
001-88012_a8_em115
DEM
NO_MASK
Norwegian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e54
001-88012_a8_em116
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e14
001-88012_a8_em117
LOC
QUASI
Nigeria
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e15
001-88012_a8_em118
LOC
NO_MASK
Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e14
001-88012_a8_em119
LOC
QUASI
Nigeria
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-88012_a8_e62
001-88012_a8_em120
DEM
NO_MASK
age of six months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-88012_a8_e63
001-88012_a8_em121
DEM
QUASI
age of 22
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e64
001-88012_a8_em122
DATETIME
NO_MASK
four years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-88012_a8_e65
001-88012_a8_em123
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
three brothers
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e15
001-88012_a8_em124
LOC
NO_MASK
Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e4
001-88012_a8_em125
DEM
QUASI
Nigerian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e54
001-88012_a8_em126
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e15
001-88012_a8_em127
LOC
NO_MASK
Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e66
001-88012_a8_em128
LOC
QUASI
South Africa
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e67
001-88012_a8_em129
DEM
NO_MASK
English
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e14
001-88012_a8_em130
LOC
QUASI
Nigeria
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e54
001-88012_a8_em131
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e14
001-88012_a8_em132
LOC
QUASI
Nigeria
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e54
001-88012_a8_em133
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e15
001-88012_a8_em134
LOC
NO_MASK
Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e54
001-88012_a8_em135
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e54
001-88012_a8_em136
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e68
001-88012_a8_em137
DATETIME
QUASI
14 June 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e69
001-88012_a8_em138
ORG
NO_MASK
Appeals Leave Committee of the Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e49
001-88012_a8_em139
DATETIME
QUASI
15 February 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e28
001-88012_a8_em140
ORG
NO_MASK
Directorate of Immigration
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e70
001-88012_a8_em141
DATETIME
QUASI
21 July 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e21
001-88012_a8_em142
DATETIME
QUASI
20 September 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e7
001-88012_a8_em143
PERSON
QUASI
Selma
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e71
001-88012_a8_em144
DATETIME
QUASI
31 October 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e30
001-88012_a8_em145
ORG
NO_MASK
Immigration Appeals Board
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e28
001-88012_a8_em146
ORG
NO_MASK
Directorate of Immigration
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e70
001-88012_a8_em147
DATETIME
QUASI
21 July 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e72
001-88012_a8_em148
ORG
NO_MASK
United Nations Children Convention
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e73
001-88012_a8_em149
DATETIME
QUASI
2 November 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e28
001-88012_a8_em150
ORG
NO_MASK
Directorate of Immigration
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e8
001-88012_a8_em151
DATETIME
QUASI
13 December 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-88012_a8_e74
001-88012_a8_em152
DATETIME
QUASI
3 January 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e14
001-88012_a8_em153
LOC
QUASI
Nigeria
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e75
001-88012_a8_em154
DATETIME
QUASI
5 January 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e15
001-88012_a8_em155
LOC
NO_MASK
Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e76
001-88012_a8_em156
DATETIME
QUASI
19 January 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e77
001-88012_a8_em157
DATETIME
QUASI
30 March 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e30
001-88012_a8_em158
ORG
NO_MASK
Immigration Appeals Board
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e28
001-88012_a8_em159
ORG
NO_MASK
Directorate of Immigration
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e78
001-88012_a8_em160
DATETIME
QUASI
30 October 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e23
001-88012_a8_em161
DATETIME
QUASI
7 March 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e79
001-88012_a8_em162
ORG
QUASI
Implementation Group of the Oslo Police District
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-88012_a8_e14
001-88012_a8_em163
LOC
QUASI
Nigeria
Darren Omoregie
NOR
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Darren Omoregie