At the border

5. Procedure for entry refusal
the procedures and quoting specific regulations
were not enough. The respondents continued
to return to Terespol without the documents,
despite using the newly acquired
knowledge and demanding that their rights
be respected, which they assured the researchers
they had done. The researchers were under
the impression, however, that at least some of
the foreigners were reluctant to appeal against
the decision or argue with the officials for fear
of provoking negative consequences, which in
their opinion was a likely scenario. From a lot
of conversations in Brest it transpired that
foreigners would avoid at all cost situations in
which they could antagonise the guards. They
try to “ingratiate” themselves with the officials,
trusting that the subdued approach towards
the authority will get them further than
the execution of their rights.
In the end, only three people decided to appeal
against the negative decisions to allow
entry on the territory of Poland. In the first
case, the officials of the Border Guard accepted
the appeal document but refused to confirm
its occurrence, despite the foreigner demanding
it. The information about lodging the appeal
was also passed on to the representative
for UNHCR in Poland, and the Chief of the
Border Guard in Terespol, as well as the Chief
of the Foreigners’ Authority of the Border
Guard Headquarters were informed about the
refusal to issue the confirmation that the document
had been lodged. Further investigation
revealed that the files of the foreigner lacked
the information about the appeal he’d filed.
Upon his request for explanation, the Chief
of the Border Guard in Terespol informed the
foreigner in a letter dated 21 April 2016 that in
the time specified by him there was no appeal
against the decision to refuse his entry, nor any
other document concerning his case. SIP will
undertake an intervention in this case, to clarify
the situation in detail.
In the second case Border Guard officials in
Terespol, according to information supplied
by the foreigner, refused to accept her appeal
against the decision to refuse entry to
the Republic of Poland, claiming no responsibility
of this sort and informing her that
she could send it by post to Brest. Such a situation
is unacceptable in the light of the existing
law. Finally, the appeal was sent from
Biała Podlaska by one of SIP’s researchers on
25 March 2016, after the foreigner entered
Poland. She is still awaiting the decision of the
appeal authority. In the light of the knowledge
we have, the appeal is awaiting the ruling in
the second instance, therefore the procedure
would seem to be in accordance with the existing
regulations 55 . It is difficult not to doubt
55 From the data obtained under the Access
to Public Information Act it transpires that in
the first quarter of 2016 no appeal against the
decision about refusing entry into the territory
of Poland was lodged with the Border Guard
outpost in Terespol. The files of the foreigner
that the researchers analysed contained no
documents pertaining to the decision against
which n appeal was lodged. However, the
researchers were informed by a Border Guard
official that the foreigner’s files had been
Stowarzyszenie Interwencji Prawnej 80
Analyses, Reports, Evaluations Nº 2/2016