HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"resource_uri": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"id": 156102,
"site_url": "https://fragdenstaat.de/dokumente/156102-2009-annual-risk-analysis-report-part-1/",
"title": "2009 Annual Risk Analysis Report - Part 1",
"slug": "2009-annual-risk-analysis-report-part-1",
"description": "",
"published_at": null,
"num_pages": 28,
"public": true,
"listed": true,
"allow_annotation": false,
"pending": false,
"file_url": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/2009-annual-risk-analysis-report-part-1.pdf",
"file_size": 9056218,
"cover_image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p1-small.png",
"page_template": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p{page}-{size}.png",
"outline": "",
"properties": {
"title": "",
"author": "",
"_tables": [],
"creator": "Canon iR-ADV C5550 ",
"subject": "",
"producer": "Adobe Acrobat Pro 2020 20 Paper Capture Plug-in",
"_format_webp": true
},
"uid": "df82dc68-e709-41ab-8b30-3476d1ff91c7",
"data": {},
"pages_uri": "/api/v1/page/?document=156102",
"original": null,
"foirequest": null,
"publicbody": null,
"last_modified_at": "2022-05-09 16:28:56.957944+00:00",
"pages": [
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 1,
"content": "(Except for the Executive Summary on page 3) * ** FRONTEX LIBERTAS SECURITAS JUSTTTTA European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States oft he European Union Annual Risk Assessment 2009 Risk Analysis Unit Reference: R022 (Rev. 1) Copy Number: Warsaw, 26 March 2009",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3507,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p1-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 2,
"content": "Document saved on 06/04/09 2 of 80 Annual Risk Assessment 2009",
"width": 2487,
"height": 3511,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p2-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 3,
"content": "The number of persons detected staying illegally also increased across Member States, by 13% based on data provided by 27 Member State The number of refusals of entry decreased by 17% over the same period, mostly due to a reduction in regular traffic of third country nationals as a result of the introduction of more stringent visa requirements in new Schengen Member States. Although there is no precise estimate on the extent of trafficking in human beings across the EU external border, recent reports suggest that the phenomenon is on the increase. The economic differences between Member States and third countries will remain the main driver for illegal migration towards the EU. While local and temporary political and/or humanitarian crises have important impact on regional migration flows, they appear to have limited influence on illegal migration to the EU . the flow of illegal migrants to the EU will continue to be governed by factors beyond Member States' control. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the growing uncertainties linked with the global economic recession, a slowdown of the increase in the flow of illegal migrants to the EU is expected in 2010. This trend is anticipated from the reduction of the overall air passenger flows, the weak labour demand, the lower asylum recognition rates and the introduction of strengthened border control measures like the VIS. This assum tion will, however, not be verifiable because estimates on the undetected flow of In 2010, Member States would benefit most from operational cooperation at the external borders areas with currently high detections of ille al border crossin border where migrants' life is also most at ris At the air borders the focus should be on those airports combinin rge numbers of non-EU passengers with particular emphasis on assessing the entry crite 1 showing large numbers of detections for illegal stay in the EU. In general, Member States would benefit from increased operational cooperation tackling trafficking in human beings, visa issues, and contributing to the investigation of cross-border crimes. With its growing operational experiences and increased risk analysis capacities, Frontex should increasingly contribute to EU border management policies. Justification 4 3 of 80 Annual Risk Assessment 2009",
"width": 2486,
"height": 3513,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p3-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 4,
"content": "(This page has been intentionally left blank for double-sided printing) 4 of 80 Annual Risk Assessment 2009",
"width": 2494,
"height": 3516,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p4-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 5,
"content": "Table of contents Executive summary ................................................................................................................. 3 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 7 2. Methodology .................................................................................................................... 8 3. Situation at the external borders .................................................................................. 11 3.1. Detections of illegal border crossing ........................................................................ 11 3.2. Refusals of entry ...................................................................................................... 17 3.3. Illegal stay ............................... .. ... ........... ............. ....... ... ... ....................................... 22 3.4. Asylum applications ............................................ ................... .................. ................ 25 3.5. Detections of false documents ................................................................................. 28 3.6. Detections of facilitators ........................................................................................... 32 3. 7. Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 34 4. Illegal migration routes to the EU ................................................................................. 36 4.1. West African route ................................................................................................... 36 4.2. Western Mediterranean route .............. .. ..................... .. ...... ..................................... 37 4.3. Central Mediterranean route .................................................................................... 38 4.4. Eastern Mediterranean route ................................................................................... 42 4.5. Western Balkan route .............................................................................................. 44 4.6. Eastern European route ........................................................................................... 45 4.7. Air routes .............. ........... .................................................... ..... ............. .. ......... ....... 47 5. Trafficking in human beings ......................................................................................... 50 6. Environmental scan ....................................................................................................... 52 6.1. Illegal migration to the EU as a part of international migration system .......... ........ .. 52 6.2. Economic downturn and Member States .... ............................................................. 53 6.3. Economic downturn and third countries ................................................................... 56 6.4. Geopolitical factors .................................................................................................. 58 6.5. Legal factors ............................................................................................................ 61 7. Outlook for 2010 ............................................................................................................ 66 8. Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 72 9. Annexes .......................................................................................................................... 77 5 of 80 Annual Risk Assessment 2009",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3507,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p5-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 6,
"content": "(This page has been intentionally left blank for double-sided printing) 6 of 80 Annual Risk Assessment 2009",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3507,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p6-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 7,
"content": "1. Introduction Frontex' Annual Risk Assessment (ARA) 2009 has been developed in view of the planning of the coordination of operational activities at the external borders of the EU in 2010. The ARA combines an assessment of threats and vulnerabilities at the EU external borders, weighing their impact and consequences so that the Agency is better equipped to balance and prioritise the allocation of resources against identified risks. Frontex' operational activities aim at strengthening border security by ensuring the coordination of Member States' actions in the implementation of Community measures relating to the management of the external borders. The coordination of operational activities also contributes to better allocation of Member States' resources and protection of the area of freedom, security and justice. The ARA 2009 concentrates on the current scope of Frontex operational activities, which is mainly limited to illegal migration at the external borders of the EU and the Schengen Associated Countries. As the concept of integrated border management recommends, border management should however cover all security threats present at the external borders. A full chapter is devoted to the phenomenon of trafficking in human beings (THB) with which Frontex was tasked with in the EU action plan (2005/C 311/01 )on best practices, standards and procedures for combating and preventing THB. The assessment is developed in the following sequence: (1) a description of the situation as reported by Member States through a set of six indicators on illegal migration, (2) an analysis of the dynamic at play along the main routes of illegal migration to the EU (3) an scan through the factors most likely to influence illegal migration to the EU in the near future, where the emphasis is placed on the impact of the economic crisis, (4) a description of the situation regarding THB, (5) and recommendations derived from the previous chapters. Frontex Risk Analysis Unit would like to thank all FRAN members and in particular the staff in Member States for their efforts in providing data and information, as well as Europol which for the first time contributed to the ARA 2009, and colleagues at Frontex involved in the preparation of the report. 7 of 80 Annual Risk Assessment 2009",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3507,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p7-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 8,
"content": "2. Methodology Data collection plan The backbone of the ARA 2009 is the Member States' monthly statistics provided within the framework of the Frontex Risk Analysis Network (FRAN). This regular data collection exercise was launched in September 2007 and refined through 2008. Thanks to the FRAN members' efforts, a much larger statistical coverage was achieved in 2008 concerning six key indicators on illegal migration: detections of illegal border crossing, refusals of entry, detections of illegal stay, asylum applications, detections of facilitators, and detections of forged documents. Member States were not addressed specific questions for this assessment. Rather, Member States' bi-monthly analytical reports and incidents reports collected regularly through the FRAN, and Member States contributions to several Tailored Risk Analyses conducted in 2008 have been important sources of information especially when analysing routes and modi operandi. Evaluation reports of the Frontex coordinated Joint Operations in 2008 were also used. Open sources information, that is, reports issued by governmental agencies, international and non-governmental organisations as well as official EU reports, such as the Commission's reports on third countries, and main stream news agencies were exploited, especially when outlining the main push and pull factors for illegal migration to the EU . The outlook for 2010 was based on the analysis of the state of play regarding illegal migration at the external borders of the EU, push and pull factors as well as factors impacting routes and modi operandi. Statistics were collected by Frontex from the national border control authorities by border types- land, air and sea-and for land borders by borders sections with neighbouring third countries. For illegal border crossing, detections at the air borders were not included because of the different reporting practices of Member States. Cases of illegal border crossing at the air border being limited this omission does not affect the overall analysis and for a description of the situation at the air borders, refusals of entry are a better indicator. The data collected by FRAN is compiled and analysed every quarter. Priority is given to the use of the data for management purpose and its rapid sharing among Member States' border control authorities. Member States' data processed by Frontex is not meant to be official statistics, and thus may vary from data finally published officially by national authorities. In the course of 2008, some FRAN Members updated their statistics for 2007. These updates have been taken into account in this document, and thus the data presented here sometimes differ from the data presented in the previous Annual Risk Assessment. EUROPOL contributed for the first time to the ARA 2009, by providing information on facilitated illegal migration and trafficking in human beings. Quality of the available data Like other law enforcement indicators, variations of the administrative data related to border control (detections of illegal border crossing and refusals of entry) depend on several factors, in this case on the one hand of the efforts to detect migrants and the other hand on the flow of illegal migrants to the EU. Increased detections of illegal border crossing might be due to an increase flow of illegal migrants and/or to more resources made available to detect migrants. In extreme cases, it might happen that increased detections are due to increased resources allocated, while the flow of migrants actually decreased because migrants are deterred to cross. Thus, explaining the reasons behind statistical variation is not easy without estimates on the actual flow of migrants (detected and undetected) and the resources available at the border 8 of 80 Annual Risk Assessment 2009",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3507,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p8-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 9,
"content": "Justification 4 (staff and equipment). This le suffers exc the border ille all Conservative estimates of the stock of illegal migrants within the EU vary between three and six million, according to the latest results of Clandestino, an EU sponsored project implemented by the ICMPD, but other estimates indicate eight million illegal migrants, of which 80% inside the Schengen area and half of them having entered legally. However, there is currently no estimate for the annual flow of illegal migrants crossing the border illegally. Information on the total resources for border control authorities at the national level and their allocation is known only partially through answers provided by Member States within the Schengen evaluation mechanism or to the External Borders Fund. Without systematic collection of information on resources for border control and on estimates of illegal migration flow, it is not possible to assess the performance and impact of the border controls put in place, and the analysis of the situation at the EU external borders is limited to the description of the administrative data provided by Member States. As highlighted in the Schengen Catalogue, the quantity of passenger flow is an important factor to be taken into account for the allocation of border control resources. However, regular flows of passengers across the EU external borders are currently not recorded systematically. The Commission, in its communication related to the new tool for integrated European Border Management Strategy, estimated the regular flow of passengers across the external EU border (in and out movements of EU citizens and third country nationals) to range from 300 million based on travellers' overnight stays, to 880 million based on Member States' own estimates derived from samples. Most external border crossings take place at the airports, with Eurostat estimating at about 271 million the number of passengers from non-EU flights, follow by land and sea border crossings (no estimates available). The quantity and place of the issued EU visas would also contribute to refine the profile of the third country passengers flow. However this information, collected within the Council Visa Working Party, is not immediately available for risk analysis, and thus was not used in this document. At the other side of the spectrum of border management indicators, statistics on 1 readmission, a strong deterrent for illegal migration, is collected by CIREFl , but results for 2008 are not yet available and could thus not be analysed in relation to detected flows of illegal border crossing. 1 Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the Crossing of Frontiers and Immigration 9 of 80 Annual Risk Assessment 2009",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3507,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p9-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 10,
"content": "Table 1: 2008 Indicator factsheet Total in 2008 Per cent change Indicators (for 27 Member States compared to 2007 and 2 associated countries) Detections of Illegal Border +24 per cent 174,800 Crossing* (comparison for 27 MS) -17 per cent Refusals of Entry 129,500 (comparison for 28 MS) +13 per cent Detections of Illegal Stay 411,800 (comparison for 27 MS) +17 per cent Asylum Applications 248,200 (comparison for 28 MS) Detections of Persons using Forged +16 per cent 20,700 Documents (comparison for 25 MS) -18 per cent Detections of Forged Documents 24 ,500 (comparison for 20 MS) -9 per cent Facilitators 9,200 (comparison for 23 MS) * Limited to detections at the land and sea borders. Source: FRAN data as of 9 March 2009 10 of 80 Annual Risk Assessment 2009",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3507,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p10-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 11,
"content": "3. Situation at the external borders The purpose of this section is to describe the situation at the EU external borders through the annual statistics for six indicators collected within Frontex Risk Analysis Network (FRAN) for 27 Member States as well as for Iceland and Norway as Schengen Associated Countries. The indicator of illegal border crossings and the indicator of refusals of entry relate directly to the border guard activities of border surveillance and border checks performed in and between the 1,792 border crossing points (BCPs) along the EU external borders (871 at sea borders, 665 at air borders, and 246 at land borders). They are complemented with statistics on asylum applications and illegal stay, which provide for information on the final destinations of illegal migrants, and also help to establish trends and patterns in illegal migration not necessarily detected at the borders. The detections of facilitators and forged documents offer indications on the modi operandi for illegal migration. Statistics are collected by border types-land, sea and air-and for land borders by borders sections with neighbouring third countries. For illegal border crossings, detections at the air borders were not included because of Member States' different reporting practices. Cases of illegal border crossing at the air border being limited, this omission does not affect the overall analysis. For the description of the situation at the air borders, refusals of entry serve as a better indicator. The data collected within the FRAN are compiled and analysed every quarter. Priority is given to the use of the data for management purpose and its rapid sharing among the Member States' border guard authorities. FRAN data is not meant to be official statistics, and thus the officially published national statistics may vary from the FRAN data. Justification 4 3.1. Detections of illegal border crossing In 2008, border guard authorities reported at the se total of 174,800 detections of illegal border er ng. This represented a 24% increase from 2 2007, based on the corn arisen for 27 Member States out of 29 for which data was available for the two years. lllland 85% of the detections were reported from just three southern European countries- Greece, Italy and Spain-highlighting the importance of illegal migration through the southern borders of the EU. Most of the increase between 2007 and 2008 was due to lar er detections in ltal 11 of80 Annual Risk Assessment 2009",
"width": 2486,
"height": 3513,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p11-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 12,
"content": "Table 2: Detections of illegal border crossings at external land and sea EU borders by Member States in 2007 and 2008 - N 0 c.-.o 0 Trend over 2007• 00 0 I Total I [)(] □ DB [)□ DOT LOOB )> ::::, ::::, C tll ;;o iii\" -;,,;;- )> en en (l) en en 3 (l) ;:?. N 0 0 (0 i Comparable total** I[Bo,soo I 174,soo I 24% !Rounded Total I 114,aoo l Comparab.1e chang_e** -4% 70% Rounded Total I 82,600 92,200 Percent of total 47% 53% : = not available; n.a. = not applicable; * > 10% Increase; +/-10% Stable; < -10% Decrease ** = excluding MS without data for 2007",
"width": 3521,
"height": 2501,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p12-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 13,
"content": "c,.) Table 3: Top ten nationalities detected for illegal border crossings at external land and sea borders in 2008 a ex, 0 All borders Nationality Total reported % of total I MS highest share Albania 44,144 25% Afghanistan 19,473 11% Morocco 12,685 7% Somalia 11,620 7% Iraq 9,159 5% Tunisia 7,744 4% )> Nigeria 7,11 2 4% ::, - -- ::, Eritrea 5,087 3% C Ill Palestinia 4,549 3% :::0 ui\" Algeria 4,464 I 3% 7' )> Others ( 122 nationalities) 48,763 28% (/) I (/) CD Rounded Total 174,800 I 100% (/) (/) 3 CD Land borders Sea borders ;:l.. Total %of Total %of \"' 0 Nationality MS highest share Nationality 0 re orted total re orted total (!) Albania 41,261 50% Afghanistan 18,229 20% Morocco ----- 6,309 8% Somalia 11,034 12% lra_g 6,1 86 7% Tunisia 7,661 8% ._ C Syria 2,905 4% Nigeria 6,935 8% ,... V, Palestinia 2,750 3% Morocco 6,376 7% 3 n Pakistan 2,657 3% Eritrea 4,953 I 5% ,... OJ 5· Serbia 2,561 3% Algeria 3,804 4% ::, .i:,. Ukraine 2,472.__ 3% Iraq 2,973 3% - - Other (not specified) 1,562 2% Albania 2,883 3% Myanmar 1,340 2% Egypt 2,600 3% 'others (107 Others (104 12,590 15% nationalities nationalities Rounded Total 82,600 100% Rounded T Source: FRAN data as of 9 March 2009",
"width": 3513,
"height": 2486,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p13-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 14,
"content": "14 of 80 Annual Risk Assessment 2009",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3507,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p14-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 15,
"content": "Illegal border crossing and border length With the entry of Switzerland in the Schengen area on December 2008, the total length of the EU external land borders was reduced by about 1,800 km to 9,200 km, the eastern land border totallin 5 700 km and the land border with Western Balkan countries 2 700 km. The eastern land borders had fewer detections per km than other land borders regions and two hypotheses may be put forward to explain th is situation: (i) the actual low flow of illegal migrants as a result of low pressure for illegal migration and efforts to detect migrants that worked as deterrent; (ii) the difficulty to conduct surveillance activities over vast areas. While the first hypothesis is the most likely, the lack of estimate on the undetected flow of migrants does not permit to rule out the second. ~ Justification 4 - -",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3507,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p15-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 16,
"content": "Justification 4 All Member States neighbouring Belarus and Russia had a similar and low ratio of detections •• •:.111,1,1,1,::11-.u.:i;:.l-'l::1.11ia~=:.•:.u.1o1:,w:na:ia.r.:·:.i..•:1.:·•.:1o:•:.&&1u.aa::.i::.i:a1:1.::J • •• • •• Nationality The analysis of the 2007-2008 trends of detected nationalities was not possible because 2007 data was only broken down for the top 10 nationalities. etections for illegal border crossing tal with 44,200 detection 'h Justification 4 16 of 80 Annual Risk Assessment 2009",
"width": 2487,
"height": 3511,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p16-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 17,
"content": "3.2. Refusals of entry In 2008, border guard authoriti · t the EU external borders. This represented a ~ - - - - - - IIJustification 4 Refusals of entry split roughly equally between land (56,300) and air (66,500) borders, with sea borders well behind (6,700). This pattern follows the distribution of regular flow of passengers that is considered larger at the air and land borders then at the sea borders. However, data on regular passenger flow through the EU external borders is not yet collected systematically, and thus it is not possible to compare the rate of refusals of entry against the number of passenger ~ - - ':a.....- - - - ~ checks performed at the three border types. The comparison of number of passengers checked on arrival and refusals of entry at the air borders across all Member States shows that Member States had different refusal rates. ~ - - - - - - l lJustification 4 The difference may be explained by (i) the nature of the passenger flows, with some Member States being especially targeted by passengers not meeting EU entry requirement; (ii) the nature of the airports, with some Member States having airports specialised in transit flights;",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3507,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p17-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 18,
"content": "(iii) the resources available at the border checks; and (iv) the use of pre-boarding checks with some Member States being able to rely on Immigration Liaison Officers in the countries of departure. Comparison between Member States needs to be better and more precisely assessed, but different refusal rates suggest it is paramount to collect alerts and intelligence and spread it through Europe ._- - --- - I - l I ~ Justification 4 Justification 4 18 of 80 Annual Risk Assessment 2009",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3507,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p18-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 19,
"content": "a ._/. ?: t -\\ NTEX ,,u, .. J 1Q_.,, -'),.,_\\ U1 -,.-.,;r ,r ::c j I r,, _;, 11111111 Data collection on the reasons leading to a refusal of entry was put in place in 2009 by the FRAN as a part of the new regulation on Community Statistics on migration (Regulation EC 862/2007). For 2008, only the numbers of detections of forged documents provided some indication on the possible reasons for refusals of entry. However, data for two indicators have been collected separately, and thus are only indirectly linked. Bearing in mind this limitation, 20,700 forged documents were detected, representing 16% of the refusals of entry. Therefore, more than three-quarter of the refusals of entry were issued for other reasons than forged documents, such as the lack of appropriate documentation justifying the purpose of stay in the EU- mostly believed to be the case for Latin American nationals being refused entry at the air borders. Nationality Justification 4",
"width": 2486,
"height": 3513,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p19-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 20,
"content": "I\\.) Table 4: Refusafs of entry at external EU borders by Member States in 2007 and 2008 - 0 0 00 0 Member State Land Air Sea )> ::::J ::::J C: Q) ;:o oo· ;:,;- ~ en CD en en 3 CD ~ I\\.) 0 0 co Comparable change** 0 ::::J Round-ed Total I sG,300 I 66,500 I 6,700 .j::,, Percent of total 43% 51% 5% : = not available; n.a. = not applicable * >10% Increase; +/-10% Stable; <-10% Decrease; **=excluding MS without data for 2007 Source: FRAN data as of 9 March 2009",
"width": 3516,
"height": 2494,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p20-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 21,
"content": "Table 5: Top ten nationalities refused entry at external EU borders by border type in 2008 HI Nationality All borders Total re orted %of total Land border Land borders Total reported %of total Ukraine ,- - - - - 15,426 12% Ukraine 14,391 I 26% Brazil 11,166 9% Russia 6,431 11% Other (not ~pecified) 9,033 7% Croatia 5,441 10% Russia 7,901 6% Serbia 5,080 9% Croatia 5,707 4% Moldova 5,008 9% - -- Serbia 5,542 4% Belarus 4,239 8% )> Moldova 5,514 4% Turkey 3,195 6% :::, China 5,162 4% FYROM 1,866 3% :::, C Turkey 4,943 4% Other (not specified) 1,664 3% ~ ;o Bosnia and ui\" Morocco 4,877 4% 1,510 3% 7' ---- Herzegovina -- )> Others (160 Others (119 CJ) 54,229 42% 7,475 I 13% CJ) CD nationalities nationalities) CJ) CJ) Rounded Total 129,500 100% Rounded Total 56,300 I 100% 3 Air borders HI Brazil Nationality Other (not specified) Total re orted 10,870 6,946 %of total 16% 10% Nationality Morocco _Qther_Ln!)t specified) Total reported 2,933 418 %of total 44% 6% China 4,784 7% Turkey 322 5% United States 2,648 4% Albania 234 3% Nigeria 2 ,610 4% India 220 3% Paraguay 2,465 4% Ukraine 214 3% Venezuela 1,726 3% Russia 181 3% Senegal 1,587 2% Brazil 181 3% Turkey 1,422 2% Philippines 125 2% Russia 1,289 2% Algeria 123 2% Others (155 Others (115 nationalities 30,153 45% nationalities) I 1,749 I 26% Rounded Total 66,500 100% Rounded Total 6,700 I 100% Source: FRAN data as of 9 March 2009",
"width": 3513,
"height": 2486,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p21-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 22,
"content": "Justification 4 3.3. Illegal stay The detections of illegal stay, broken down by Member States and nat ality, are an important indicator for illegal migration. They should however, not be co sed with the size of the population of illegal migrants in the EU, because many illegal 1grants are not detected and others may be detected several times over the year. etections for illegal stay offer nevertheless some indication on the destinations and sec dary movements of illegal migrants within Member States FRAN data suggests that the number of per ns detected staying ille~ally within the EU totalled 411,800 in 2008. Based on the comg 1son for 27 Member States for which data was available for both 2007 and 2008 this re sented an increased by 13%; 22 of 80 Annual Risk Assessment 2009",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3507,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p22-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 23,
"content": "Table 7: To ten nationalities detected as il/e al sta in 2008 Total %of Nationality re orted total Other (not specified) 35,974 9% Albania 32 ,964 8% Morocco 29 ,639 7% Brazil 29 ,119 7% Afghanistan 28,064 7% Iraq 27,482 7% Bolivia 16,379 4% Eritrea 15,293 4% India 13,935 3% Algeria 13,030 3% Others (154 169,921 41 % nationalities) Rounded Total 411,800 100% Source: FRAN data as of 9 March 2009",
"width": 2486,
"height": 3513,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p23-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 24,
"content": "-~-----~ -- -- ~~~~~~~ 111111111•11•111111111111111 I Justification 4 24 of 80 Annual Risk Assessment 2009",
"width": 2487,
"height": 3511,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p24-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 25,
"content": "3.4. Asylum applications Data on asylum applications is a useful indicator on the trend on migration and, in some cases, on the countries of origin. As a proportion of asylum applicants crossed the EU borders illegally, asylum applications also offer indications on the routes taken by illegal migrants. According to the UNHCR, after reaching a peak over 400,000 applications in 2002, asylum applications in the EU substantially fell after 2002, and since 2005 have stabilised below 250,000 per year. Figure 3: Asylum applications 1998-2008 500,000 7 400,000 300,000 100,000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Source: UNHCR data, January 2009 FRAN data suggests that there altogether 248,200 applications were filed during 2008 in the 10 29 Member States which is an increase of 17% corn ared to 2007 for 28 Member States for which data was available for the two ears. tan ■Justification 4 25 of 80 Annual Risk Assessment 2009",
"width": 2486,
"height": 3513,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p25-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 26,
"content": "Table 8: To ten nationalities re for as /um in 2008 Total % of Nationality* MS highest share re orted total Iraq 29,100 12% Gv, .. 1any (24%) Other (not specified) 20,707 8% Sweden (43%) Russia 19,716 8% Poland (39%) Somalia 13,401 5% Netherlands (30%) Afghanistan 12,011 5% United Kingdom (29%) Serbia 10,613 4% France (29%) Pakistan 9,956 4% Greece (68%) Iran 6,431 3% United Kingdom (35%) Nigeria 5,876 2% Ireland (17%) Sri Lanka 5,470 2% France (42%) Others (138 nationalities) 114,919 46% France (29%) Rounded Total 248,200 100% Source: FRAN data as of 9 March 2009 26 of 80 Annual Risk Assessment 2009",
"width": 2487,
"height": 3511,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p26-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 27,
"content": "Justification 4 -",
"width": 2486,
"height": 3513,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p27-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/156102/",
"number": 28,
"content": "3.5. Detections of false documents Third country nationals using false documents The detections of false documents are an important indicator on the modus operandi for illegal migration . During 2008, border guard authorities reported a total of 20,700 persons detected using false documents at the EU external borders. This represented an increase of 16% from 2007 based on the corn arison for 25 Member States for which data was available for the two 13 ears . The use of false documents is one of the reasons stated by the Schengen borders code for refusal of entry at the entry of EU. As mentioned in the refusal of entr section so far onl a coarse link exits between the two indicators. Justification 4 28 of 80 Annual Risk Assessment 2009",
"width": 2494,
"height": 3516,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/df/82/dc/df82dc68e70941ab8b303476d1ff91c7/page-p28-{size}.png"
}
]
}
