04/03/2025 : The case of L., detained in the closed centre of Bruges
Previously, L. lived in Switzerland. He was born in Congo but for many years his whole family has lived in Belgium. He held a residence permit until 2021, he lived with his wife and daughter in the commune of Alost where he started family reunification proceedings in 2020.
The application was rejected due to lack of documents – the documents had remained in Switzerland and COVID prevented them from going there at that time. He was not recognised as the father of the child, though the child had been previously recognised in Switzerland. Agents from the municipality came by their house, met with the family and said that L. “did not have an affective relationship* with the child”.
Following a simple visit of the municipal officials, the Immigration Office was able to judge the link between a parent and his child, and to decide on their separation. These are very violent administrative procedures, which go against the best interests of the child. It is hard to imagine that the authorities would inflict similar treatment on people to people that were not born in a different country.
A new application was then made, which was rejected with an order to leave the territory (OQT). The lawyer then advised L. to do a DNA test but before that was done, L. was arrested and taken to the closed centre of Vottem in February 2024, where he stayed for two months. Upon release, the DNA test was performed and proved the existence of a biological link between L. and the child. However, as the OQT was still valid, L. was again arrested and detained this time in the closed centre of Bruges.
There, a collective flight to Congo was organized.*
Many Congolese detainees in closed centres have been threatened with expulsion, by surprise. The public prosecutor said that it would not be a problem for L. to continue his procedure on Congolese territory as part of a “temporary return”. However, at that time the DNA test was already positive. L. therefore made a claim for asylum to avoid this expulsion at all costs. There were two “return coaches“* in Bruges, working for the Immigration Office, who advised him to accept this “temporary return”.
Only in December, the significant judgment attested that L. was the child’s father. However, today, no decision has been made regarding his detention.
Note that the laissez passer was valid until March 14. Since then, no LP has been used to deport L., However, detention in closed centres is a measure that is supposed to exist “for the purpose of forced return”, at least legally. In the absence of Pass, there is reason to question the objectives of prolonged detention.
Today L. ’s daughter is undergoing psychotherapy because of the effects her father’s prolonged detention has on her. She is in a lot of distress and not yet able to understand what is happening: her father is being treated criminally and it is her stability, too, that is in danger.
L. tells us: “The Immigration Office separates families. If one of the parents is a foreigner, they use this as a tool to separate children. That way, the children will grow up without both parents, with social assistance, the help of CPAS. So the child will be limited.”
