– Norwegian immigration policy at its most brutal – news Rogaland – Local news, TV and radio

– I really hope it is not intended that we throw out an 83-year-old lady in the middle of Christmas, says Tobias Drevland Lund. He is a parliamentary representative for Rødt, and is one of many politicians who are reacting to the news that Takako Ellefsen is being kicked out of Norway. She was married to a Norwegian man for 46 years until he died in 2009. Now the Immigration Board (UNE) has decided that she will not get the residence card she has applied for, and she cannot appeal the decision either. Tobias Drevland Lund, parliamentary representative for Rødt. Photo: Silje Rognsvåg / news – This is an example of discretion being exercised far too poorly. It is Norwegian immigration policy at its most brutal, he says. Several people have contacted him and asked that it be taken up in the Storting. – Like me, they cannot understand what has gone wrong here. When I saw the case, I was very upset and could hardly believe what I read, says Lund. Both Lund and Grete Wold from the Socialist Left Party are now sending written questions to Minister of Justice Emilie Enger Mehl about Takako’s case. They both want two answers to a clarification in the legislation. – We think this is absolutely incredible. It shows how badly this legislation can actually be practised, says Grete Wold (SV). news has contacted the Ministry of Justice and Emergency Management about the case, but they have not yet come up with an answer. – Grete Wold, parliamentary representative for the Socialist Left Party, needs to be cleaned up here. Photo: Silje Rognsvåg / news Wold asks the minister which legal authority is used, and whether there is an exception provision that could come into play in this case. – It cannot be the case that you cannot work in foreign service and be punished as this elderly lady is. She believes that common sense for most people dictates that this cannot be the case. – This needs to be cleaned up. Takako Ellefsen’s (83) last wish is to live the rest of her life in Norway, before she is buried together with her husband. Her husband of 46 years died of cancer in 2009. Now he rests in Revheim cemetery in Stavanger. She had intended to continue with the regular the visits before she was one day to be buried next to him. But the letter from the Immigration Board (UNE) states that she must return to Japan by 28 December. She will not be issued the residence card she has applied for, and she cannot complain about the decision. On 4 January 2021, Takako applied to the UDI for a so-called residence card as a family member of an EEA citizen, i.e. the daughter. On 26 November 2021, UDI rejected the application. Takako Ellefsen complained about the refusal, and the Immigration Board (UNE) was to assess the complaint. On Monday this week, the final refusal came from UNE, and the refusal is summarized as follows: She does not have the right of residence in Norway as a family member of an EEA citizen. She does not have a residence permit on any other basis. There is no basis for granting her a permit under Section 38 of the Immigration Act. She is not protected against returning to Japan. Not a free assessment Head of Communications at UNE, Bjørn Lyster, says the case is not about a free assessment of reasonableness and justice, but about the conditions for whether a certain type of permit has been met. – She has applied for what is called an EEA residence card. She has been refused because first UDI and then UNE have come to the conclusion that she does not meet the conditions for what she has applied for, says Bjørn Lyster. He says the decisive factor in the refusal is that her insurance is not good enough. Bjørn Lyster, director of communications at UNE. Photo: UNE Neither UDI nor UNE believes it covers what is called “all risks” – Such insurance must, among other things, cover all expenses that may arise from treatment in the Norwegian healthcare system. There are also doubts as to whether her insurance even applies outside of Japan, says Lyster. None of the other circumstances highlighted in her case have caused UDI or UNE to disregard the condition of adequate insurance.



ttn-69