Who Decides the Expulsion Issue
Before appealing an expulsion it is essential to understand who decides it and on which grounds. Under Article 52 of the Law on the Legal Status of Aliens, where the grounds are entry without a lawful basis or the disappearance of a lawful basis for stay, decisions on expulsion are taken by the authorised organ of the Ministry of Internal Affairs; on the remaining grounds — security, protection of health, systematic violation of legislation, forged documents, sentences — the decision is taken by a court.
The basis for initiating a court case is a submission of the authorised organ of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. State institutions are obliged to provide that organ with all information at their disposal on the existence of a ground for expulsion — the case is thus built by the state with its full arsenal, and the defence must work at the same level.
The Examination Period and the Form of the Decision
Article 53 of the law determines the manner of adopting the decision. The authorised organ of the Ministry of Internal Affairs examines the expulsion issue within 10 working days of discovering the ground and adopts one of three decisions: on expulsion, on refusal to expel, or on postponement of expulsion. The court adopts its decision in the manner prescribed by Georgian legislation.
The deciding organ is obliged to present a reasoned decision to the alien to be expelled. In adopting the decision it takes into account the duration of the alien's lawful residence and his personal, social, economic and other ties with Georgia; the principle of family unity and the consequences expected for the family or other persons permanently living with the alien; and the alien's socio-economic and other ties with the receiving state. These three factors are the main argumentative pillars of the defence.
Each of the three decision variants — expulsion, refusal, postponement — also has its own place in defence tactics: refusal ends the matter completely, while postponement buys time and at the same time leaves the question open. Where the organ chooses postponement, the defence must know that the ground for expulsion has not been satisfied but merely deferred — and that difference becomes the foundation of the argumentation at the next stage.