Human Rights Report – 962 News
Prepared by: Dr. Thamer Al-Abadi
Official Media Spokesperson – Youth for Human Rights International™️
Amman –
As procedures for the regularisation of the status of non-Jordanian workers enter a new phase, and deportation flags begin to appear in official systems in relation to individuals who have not completed the required regularisation procedures, a number of legal and human rights questions arise concerning the manner in which deportation decisions are made and the extent to which the different circumstances and legal statuses of the persons concerned are taken into account.
The issue is not about questioning the State’s authority to regulate its labour market or enforce its legislation. That authority is recognised. The issue concerns the adequacy of the procedures and safeguards accompanying such decisions, particularly where deportation may have direct consequences for residence, employment and the ability to return to Jordan.
According to statements issued by the Ministry of Labour, the regularisation process covers non-Jordanian workers of different nationalities, with the regularisation period ending on 30 September 2026 and deportation measures applying from 1 October to workers who have not regularised their status. The Ministry has also indicated that deportation may result in a five-year restriction on returning to Jordan.
Under Jordanian legislation, Article 12 of the Labour Law provides the Minister of Labour with powers concerning the deportation of non-Jordanian workers in circumstances specified by law, including working without a permit, working for an employer other than the one authorised, or working in a profession different from that authorised.
However, the broad scope of the measures raises a question that merits examination:
To what extent is each individual case subject to an assessment that establishes the person’s status, legal position, reason for being in Jordan and the nature of the alleged violation?
Not every foreign national present in Jordan is necessarily a worker, and the legal position of individuals may differ according to the purpose of entry and residence, the nature of their activities, permits and other relevant documents.
This issue becomes particularly relevant in light of Ministry statements referring to individuals of different nationalities who had entered Jordan at earlier stages without the intention of working.
This raises the need to examine how cases are distinguished where an individual’s status or purpose of stay differs from that addressed by labour-market regularisation measures.
A deportation decision, regardless of its legal classification, may have consequences extending beyond the termination of employment. It may affect residence, future employment opportunities, family circumstances and the possibility of returning to Jordan.
From a human rights perspective, Article 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Jordan is a State Party, is relevant in this context. It provides procedural safeguards concerning the expulsion of aliens lawfully present in a territory, including an opportunity to submit reasons against expulsion and to have the case reviewed by a competent authority.
This does not mean that international law prevents a State from deporting a person where the legal grounds for deportation have been established. Rather, it raises an important question concerning the manner in which the decision is made and the procedural safeguards available to the person concerned.
Accordingly, the existence of collective lists or unified electronic procedures does not, by itself, answer another important question: whether every individual has been given an opportunity to understand the reason for being listed, provide documents or information that may affect their legal status, and request a review where they believe that the information or assessment is inaccurate.
Different Nationalities and International Relations
The application of measures to persons of different nationalities also raises questions concerning the different legal positions and the relevant relations and agreements between Jordan and the countries concerned.
This does not mean that the Ministry of Labour should apply the laws of other countries within Jordan. Each State has its own legal jurisdiction. However, deportation decisions affecting nationals of different countries may, depending on the circumstances, intersect with immigration and residence rules, international agreements, consular considerations, bilateral arrangements and other applicable legal frameworks.
The principle of reciprocity should also be approached with legal precision. It cannot automatically be assumed to apply to every situation. Its relevance depends on the existence of a specific treaty, legal framework or established bilateral arrangement and on the circumstances of the particular case.
This makes legal review of the procedures particularly relevant—not with the aim of preventing lawful enforcement, but to ensure that differences in nationality, legal status or purpose of residence do not result in identical treatment of cases that may be legally different.
Objections, Review and Financial Requirements
Another issue that merits clarification concerns the mechanisms available to challenge deportation decisions, including whether an objection can be submitted and reviewed before the decision is implemented, as well as the nature of any financial amounts associated with cancellation of deportation or regularisation.
The Ministry of Labour has announced various exemptions during the regularisation period concerning work-permit fees and previous penalties, and has also provided arrangements under which workers who choose to leave Jordan permanently during the regularisation period may benefit from specified exemptions, subject to the applicable conditions.
However, further clarity may be useful regarding the procedure available to a person who disputes the basis of the deportation decision itself or challenges the accuracy of the information recorded against them.
Legally, there is a distinction between addressing an established violation and addressing a situation in which the person concerned maintains that the violation does not apply to them in the first place.
This therefore raises a practical question:
Is there a clear and timely mechanism enabling an individual to demonstrate that their circumstances differ before deportation is implemented?
Such a mechanism would not only protect the rights of the individual concerned; it could also assist the administration in identifying and correcting potential errors in records or decisions.
Review Does Not Mean Suspending the Law
Raising these questions does not amount to a call to suspend deportation procedures, exempt persons who violate labour legislation from its consequences, or challenge the State’s authority to regulate its labour market.
The objective is to review the procedures accompanying deportation decisions and ensure that each decision is based on accurate information, that the person’s status and legal position have been properly examined, that the reasons for the decision are clear, and that a practical mechanism exists for review where relevant facts or documents warrant reconsideration.
Such a review could include the preparation of deportation lists, the accuracy of official data, the distinction between workers and other categories of foreign nationals, differences between individual cases, the nature of residence and nationality, the person’s legal status, and the clarity and accessibility of objection and review procedures.
Enforcement of the law is not incompatible with human rights, just as subjecting administrative procedures to review does not weaken the authority of the State. On the contrary, it may contribute to strengthening the legality of administrative decisions and public confidence in institutions.
Ultimately, the question that deserves consideration is not only how many deportation decisions have been issued, but whether the procedures preceding each decision are sufficiently robust and whether individuals have a genuine opportunity to seek review where there is a dispute concerning the facts or their legal status.
From this perspective, a review of the current deportation procedures—particularly the use of collective lists, the treatment of different nationalities and the assessment of different legal statuses—would merit institutional legal and human rights consideration, with the aim of maintaining an appropriate balance between the State’s legitimate authority to enforce its laws and the safeguards arising from the rule of law and human rights.
Dr. Thamer Al-Abadi
Official Media Spokesperson – Youth for Human Rights International™️
عن المؤلف
