I M M I G R ATIO N L AW, L EG AL STAT US, AND D O C U MENTATI O N Despite this, however, he remained jailed until the High Court’s judgment on 31 May 2017, which ordered he be immediately released to the custody of UNHCR. AP PL ICAB IL IT Y TO RO H I NGYA The Court’s ruling in this case provided important interpretation of, among other things, the rights of Rohingya detained in Bangladesh as governed by the Constitution, the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the CrPC, 1898. P ROTECTIO N N OT ES In this case, the defendant pleaded guilty to illegal entry since he had arrived prior to the 2017 influx. His circumstances of entry are therefore fundamentally differentiated from refugee influxes into Bangladesh from Myanmar since 2017, to which the Section 10 exemption under the Foreigners Act appears to have been applied. Most significantly, in its ruling, the Court observed that the “[Refugee] Convention by now has become a part of customary international law which is binding upon all the countries of the world, irrespective of whether a particular country has formally signed, acceded to or ratified the convention or not.” The Court observed that to keep a Rohingya man in jail even after the expiry of his prison term would contravene Article 32 of the Constitution, which guarantees to every person, including non-citizens, the right to life and liberty. This judgment upholds the principle that no person should be kept in detention after the completion of a sentence or term of imprisonment for any criminal offence and confirms its applicability to non-citizens, including Rohingya individuals. Detained Rohingya should therefore be released to their normal place of residence—that is, to the camps in Cox’s Bazar or elsewhere. In its ruling, the Court held that return of released Rohingya to Myanmar was not possible in light of Bangladesh’s non-refoulement obligations. (The international law principle of non-refoulement forbids countries from returning individuals to a country where they would be in danger of persecution based on “race, religion, nationality, or membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”) Any sentence to be served for conviction of an offence should thus be adjusted (reduced) based on time served in pre-trial detention, as per Section 35.a of the CrPC 1898. Passport Act, 1920; and Rules, 1955 S UMMARY Provides the Government with the authority to issue Rules requiring passports of persons entering Bangladesh and to make arrests and remove offenders in accordance with such rules. The Rules provide that any individual entering Bangladesh must hold a valid passport and, where applicable, a valid visa. The penalty for contravening such an order is imprisonment for a term of up to three months, or a fine, or both. AP PL ICAB IL IT Y TO RO H I NGYA This Act applies to the whole of Bangladesh without reference to citizenship. Therefore, Rohingya in Bangladesh are covered by this Act. P ROTECTIO N N OT ES Given the discretionary authority exercised under Section 10 of the Foreigners Act to exempt Rohingya from being prosecuted for unlawful entry and allowing Rohingya legal status to lawfully reside in Bangladesh, and in light of the circumstances of Rohingya arrival in Bangladesh, Rohingya should not be prosecuted for violation of the Passport Act in the course of entering Bangladesh to seek refuge. 14 BE YOND REFU GE: ADVANCING LEG AL PROTECTIONS FOR ROHINGYA C OMMUNITIES IN BANGL ADESH