Student visa – What does it mean? 

​S. Aditya, Flywork.io TeamFlywork.io.

What is a student visa?

The residence of an individual in a country is based upon their nationality or is authorized by the hosting nation by providing a visa that is attached to the passport. A valid passport and visa are mandatory for any foreign national in order to reside in another nation. The absence of such documents might land an individual in legal trouble. Governments after analyzing the intentions and the financial capability of the applicant permit them a visa for a limited time duration. This also helps in differentiating between illegal immigrants and legal travelers or visitors.

Visas range from tourist visas to student visas, where the former authorizes an individual to visit a foreign nation for tourism purposes, the latter allows an individual to pursue their academic interest in the institutions of high repute in a foreign land. The idea of visas fundamentally aims to balance the interests of various foreign nationals intending to pursue education in another nation and the issue of unchecked migration overpopulating such nations.

When is a Student Visa required?

As the name suggests, a student visa is issued to students intending to pursue academic education in a foreign nation taking into consideration their intention to pursue a better quality of education, career opportunities, or learning better skills, etc. Irrespective of the field of study, ranging from engineering, law, medical, etc., a student needs to receive their visas from the consulates of the respective host nations located in their own nation. 

A student visa is issued by the authority of the hosting nation once they are convinced that the intention of the student is to gain better education and not to settle in the hosting nation, they also take into consideration various factors such as the financial capacity of such students to sustain in the hosting nation, their language efficiency, and in many cases medical insurance are also taken into consideration while issuing such visas. Even UNESCO takes a special interest in this event of migration for education and has termed these students as Internationally mobile students where it takes into consideration the mutual benefit harvested by the hosting nation and the individual by this exchange. There has been a dedicated Education at Glance report published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) which takes into consideration the various facets of international education and standards.
The most popular education destinations opted by the Indian students are the USA, Canada, Germany, UK, Australia, Singapore, France, and New Zealand.

How To Get a Student Visa?

It is pertinent for a student to be selected by an Educational institute in the hosting country which issues an admission letter in the name of the student which can then be used by such student to approach the consulates of the hosting country in India to get a visa. Let us first understand the process of getting a student visa in the United States of America. This visa is called the F1 visa in the United States and the fundamental requirement for issuing an F1 visa for a student by the consulate/embassy of America situated in India is simply the verification of the intention of the student for visiting the United States. Therefore the interview questions probe into the facets like the return of the applicant to India, their statement of purpose or the objective with which they want to pursue their academics in the United States, etc, apart from taking into consideration the issues like financial capability, language proficiency, and medical fitness.

In the United Kingdom, these student visas issued to the Indian students intending to pursue their studies in the UK are known as Tier 4 general student visas. In Canada, there is a practice of taking a Guaranteed Investment Certificate (GIC) Worth 10 thousand Canadian dollars before issuing the visas in order to ensure that the visa candidate can support himself in Canada. There are various Student Partnership Program (SPP) where the formalities involved in the process of government approval have been made a little lenient but such processes have been availed by very few educational institutions of Canada and therefore Non-Student Partnership Program  Visa is also very common.
The student visa issued by the respective consulates of the hosting countries is a limited-term document authorizing the Indians to pursue their academic objective which could be for an undergraduate degree, postgraduate degree, or for doctoral studies, etc. in such a hosting country. The visas must be renewed by such students before their expiry which could otherwise result in strict penalties and in the worst-case scenario, deportation. It is advisable to renew the visa one month prior to the date of expiry so that no difficulty is caused to the applicant.

Let the qualified curated professionals at Flywork.io assist you to resolve any legal and allied issues. For more details visit us at Flywork.io.

 

How to Protect a Trademark Internationally ?

By Karan Shukla, Flywork.io Team, Flywork.io.

How does the concept of trademark works internationally? This is one question that many of the businessmen having businesses in more than one country asks. Read on to find out more.

What is a trademark?

The Cornell University defines Trademark as

A trademark is any word, name, symbol, or design, or any combination thereof, used in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from those of another and to indicate the source of the goods.

Trademark is a symbol, often bearing distinctive imagery and quality, which denotes a business or company, as it’s legal mark. This imagery could be in the form or as a mix of images, texts, numbers, colours; the point being it’s distinctiveness. Use of trademarks can be dated back to the times of the Indus Valley Civilization, where traders used ‘terracotta seals’ to mark their products, so as to make it easy for them to differentiate between each others’ goods. The trademark found it’s way to the world with the vast extent of merchant navy in the early 18th century 1 and was slowly embossed within the colonies.

Trademarks internationally

The opening up of International Markets and the liberalisation of International Trade made it all the more important to register a trademark internationally. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPTO), more than 4 million new trademarks2 are registered all around the world, every year. Emerging markets such as India and China contribute to over 50 percent of them. A large number of trademarks present internationally makes it very difficult for an enterprise to enquire about every single trademark infringement. It is impossible to single out an infringement, especially if the country is not native to the owners of the trademark or if the trademark is not very widely known.
Every single infringement of a trademark, however minute it may be, is a direct attack on a brand’s goodwill and it’s market presence. Even if the brand can not single out every trademark infringement, it can still stamp it’s legal authority by getting a trademark registered. A registered trademark becomes legally binding and thus serves as a caveat, deterring it’s misuse and/or infringement.

International Trademark and WIPTO

The World Intellectual Property Organisation is a specialized agency of the United Nations. It was formed so as to provide for the protection of Intellectual Property Rights across the World. It was under the umbrella of the WIPTO that the Madrid Protocol was formulated in 1989. 
The Madrid Protocol3 formulated the process of obtaining a Trademark in over 90 countries, at once. The system makes it possible to protect a mark in a large number of countries by obtaining an international registration that has effect in each of the designated Contracting Parties.  The Madrid system is a convenient and hands-on solution for registering trademarks worldwide. The applicant can just file a single set of application and get the mark registered in upto 124 states around the world. It makes it convenient to modify, expand or renew a global trademark portfolio through a single centralized system4.

Ways to register a trademark globally

•    Single individual registration method

The applicant for the trademark must visit the registration offices, either by himself or through an attorney, in all the states, he wishes to register his trademark. This is usually done by big brands, who have a lot of presence of teams for the same purpose and cannot afford to lose brand identity. The process is usually the same in all countries. It usually includes an application to the registrar or notary, getting a mark approved and the payment of registration charges.

•    Madrid System

The Madrid system is an international solution for the registration and management of trademarks worldwide. Under this system, the applicants can submit a single application to protect their mark in the states who have ratified the Madrid Agreement, (currently 113 in number). The applicant can apply for international trademark protection by filing an MM2 form, readily available on WIPO website5. After the due process, the applicant has to submit a copy of the same to their local Registrar/Notary. There is a processing fee for registering a trademark with the WIPO, but it’s considerably less than filing individual applications within each country. 

Legal Protection after registration

A trademark registration –

1.    Provides Prima facie evidence of ownership and validity
2.    Provides Legal protection in a country
3.    Deters others from using the same or almost same mark
4.    Provides Legal grounds for a suit of infringement of trademark to be brought in case of a dispute
5.    Is a caveat against misuse or defamation of a brand name or trademark

Let the qualified curated professionals at Flywork.io assist you to resolve any legal and allied issues. For more details visit us at Flywork.io.

Footnotes

1.    18th century marked the start of merchant relations between the West and the East and started a trade war between many European Nations.
2.    52 thousand of these new trademarks are registered under the WIPO
3.    The Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks is governed by the Madrid Agreement, concluded in 1891.
4.    Sometimes contracting states refuse to register the mark under the Madrid System.
 

 

 

INVEST WISELY – in terms of TIME and MONEY – SECURE YOUR CHILD’S FUTURE WITH EB-5 – IMMIGRANT VISA PROGRAM BY INVESTMENT to U.S. (Green Card)

International students with millions of American dreams in their eyes prepare for their higher education journey to U.S., way before their actual departure, but little do they know how uncertain their journey is once they pass out of the University after completion their degree.

International students embark on their US journey with F1 Visa (International student Visa) and after passing out they are eligible for OPT (meaning “Optional Practical Training”) which is defined by USCIS as “Temporary employment that is directly related to an international F-1 student’s major area of study” which is a period of 12 months, but if the students degree is related post completion of OPT is a Bachelor’s/ Master’s/ Doctoral degree in Science, Technology, Engineering or Mathematics [STEM] program than the International student may be eligible for additional 17 months extension.

The International student has to secure a job which needs to be sponsored by the employer. The employer will apply for the H-1B petition with USCIS. The journey from H-1B visa to GREEN CARD will take years due to the waiting period of each country.

Students who want to pursue their higher education in U.S., should consider EB-5 Immigrant visa program as this program leads way to Green Card, if the investor is found eligible by the USCIS and it gives an upper hand for International students to be Resident students giving benefits like:

1] Secured pathway to career success with Green Card

2] Higher admission acceptance to U.S. Universities

3] Direct benefits for In-State tuition fees

4] Higher rate of ACCEPTANCE for jobs with Green Card

5] Career UNCERTAINTY with regards to H1B lottery program can be eliminated

6] U.S. based business opportunity pathways can be followed.

If your Son/Daughter is on F1 visa then to get a Green Card through normal course of time will take at least a decade for Indians, as per current waiting period status.

Invest wisely for your child’s future, consult an immigration lawyer before investing in EB-5 program, to plan and understand the legal formalities.

 

 

 

Turning the Heat Down

From Lima to Paris:

Global warming has been on the rise. Many fear that the implementation of the 2° C limit of temperature rise that was set in the Cancun summit in 2010 might not be realised any time soon if the global participation continues to be minimal and ineffective.

This fear was confirmed when the 20th Conference of Parties (COP 20) to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was held during 1-12 December last year[1]. The COP was held in the Peruvian capital, Lima and was attended by a host of delegates from across the world. The Lima Conference was supposed to roll out a basic architecture for the crucial COP 21 in Paris scheduled to be held in December this year. However, despite the sprawl and the pomp that usually accompanies any international conference, the corpus failed to arrive at a comprehensive binding climate change agreement and fell short of safeguarding in concrete terms any of the goals laid out in its agenda.[2]

The primal aim of the agreement that is sought to be ready by the time COP 21 takes place, is “another protocol”, that is, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the UNFCCC. The purpose of the protocol as expounded by the phraseology used in the decision of COP 17 (2011) in Durban—is to limit carbon emissions from all countries in order to prevent the globe from breaching the guardrail temperature increase of 2° C by the turn of the century, a limit arrived at in the Cancun summit in 2010. An Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) was created in 2011 in pursuance of this goal.[3] Its mandate involved framing a protocol that would be put to vote in Paris and would enter into force in 2020. If there was any misplaced hope that COP 20 in Lima would take forward this task of creating a formal and satisfactory legal structure to achieve the goal laid out in Durban, it was belied.

The phrase "another protocol" is a reference to the only binding international treaty on cutting down carbon emissions that has hitherto been in place, that is, the Kyoto Protocol. It was framed in 1997 and entered into force in 2005, and its provisions and targets were based on some fundamental tenets of  UNFCCC, which required parties to protect the climate system for present and future generations, by adhering to the principles of CBDR (Common But Differentiated Responsibilities).

CBDR in essence means that all countries share a common responsibility of averting dangerous climate change; yet this responsibility is differentiated by capacity (technologically and financially) of several countries. Hence, developed countries have a greater responsibility to mitigate the effects of climate change, as they are primarily responsible for causing it and they have the capacity (greater than developing countries) to develop clean technology, to focus on cutting down emissions rather than development and helping developing countries to pursue sustainable development.

Accordingly, the Kyoto Protocol was organized such that member states were divided into Annex I (developed) and non-Annex 1[5] (developing) countries. While the former were required to commit to binding emission cuts with respect to their 1990 emission levels, the latter were not. The first commitment period ended in 2012, wherein many countries failed to meet their respective targets except for those in the European Union (E.U.), which in fact over-achieved their targets. The COP 18 Summit in Doha, 2012 recommended a second commitment period which would run up to 2020.[6] It was recommended therein that a second round of binding reduction targets ought to be imposed on 37 countries, based on historical and present-day levels of emissions. This round would act as a precursor to the major 2020 phase commencing in Paris, such that the 2° C goal could be attained in the long run.

The USA, which usually surges to get take leadership on any global issue, has in fact been the cog in the wheel when it comes to the global climate change regime. Despite being the second highest carbon emitter in the world, the USA has consistently rejected any binding commitment on the subject. It repudiated the Kyoto Protocol, which was then followed by many developed countries who also argued on the US lines that they would not accept binding commitments unless major emitters among the developing countries accepted likewise. In essence, developed countries do not wish to accept their historical responsibility of being the major cause of the present global warming and are against this differentiated emission reduction targets mandated by the protocol.

The developing bloc under the leadership of China and India has been arguing for differentiated standards for rich and poor countries, while the developed bloc has been pulling in the exact opposite direction. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the parallel exercise at climate summits to arrive at further commitments for exclusively Annex 1 countries has lost all its meaning. At Lima, too, there was not much headway on this front, and the protocol hangs in limbo today. Hence the principle of common but differentiated responsibility has been severely weathered down, thanks to the USA.

New Phraseology:

A new trend has developed since the developed versus developing bloc showdown in COP 15 (Copenhagen) in 2009. A bottom-up approach of “pledge and review” of mitigation commitments, based on voluntary emission reduction pledges made by countries, has arguably displaced the top-down legally mandated approach a la the Kyoto Protocol. The top-down approach wherein developed countries were mandated to commit to a minimum emission cut of 5% and anything above that voluntarily, was based on the principles of the convention and on what science says about emission pathways that the world needs to adopt to avoid exceeding the 2° C temperature rise limit. The new phrase in the negotiations glossaries that characterises this trend is known as “intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs)”, a term that was adopted in the COP 13 (Warsaw) in 2013.

As a result, the nature of the new protocol that delegates hope to finish drafting by COP 21 in Paris will be largely INDC-centric. It forms the core mitigation element in the draft text for the Paris negotiations and a complete abandonment of the common but differentiated standard.[7] It still remains a question as to how the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibility will be incorporated in the bottom-up-pledges-driven approach. Further, the Kyoto involved not just mitigation (emission cuts) but also adaptation, capacity-building, technology transfers from developed to developing countries (under the Clean Development Mechanism).[8] In the several COPs of the past, there has been contentious disagreement over the scope of INDCs. Developed countries wanted the scope of INDCs to be restricted to mitigation, while developing countries wanted the INDCs to include the related elements of financial contributions and technology transfer to assist them in their mitigation and adaptation actions in the post-2020 period.

Other controversial issues

Apart from the scope of INDCs, several issues regarding the new protocol remain either completely unaddressed or lacking consensus among member states. For instance, the issue of financing for the post-2020 period,[9] the inclusion of the issue of the “international mechanism for loss and damage” to least developed countries (LDCs) and vulnerable countries due to climate change,[10] which was mandated a COP 19 decision. In a similar vein, some developed countries (mainly among the EU) proposed a system for assessment and review of the INDCs by mid-2015;[11] this was to be done so as to see whether the mitigation commitments would in fact limit the temperature rise to below 2° C. The EU wanted the 2015 agreement to have a mechanism that allowed a revisit of the collective mitigation potential.

But these proposals were rejected by developing countries. They argued that an  assessment regime was beyond the Warsaw Mandate and therefore  did not need to be done under the convention. It was further argued that such an assessment might result in the developing countries being brought under greater pressure to enhance their commitments. As a result, the Lima Conference ended in a botched and hurried compromise agreement with many countries pulling in opposite directions instead of working together.

Commitments made by major emitters leading up to COP 21

The commitment of several countries toward climate change mitigation can be fairly gauged by their INDC targets. Unfortunately, the respective announcements of these two largest carbon emitters of the world, who account for nearly 44 per cent of global carbon emissions (China 27 per cent, the U.S. 17 percent) amount to only marginal improvements over their earlier stated positions. These will barely have any substantive impact on the long-term prognosis of climate change. China recently announced in a bilateral deal with the USA that its carbon emissions would “peak” around 2030 and that it would endeavour to cap emissions even earlier. It also announced that renewable energy would account for a 20% share of all energy produced. The US, on the other hand, declared that it would cut its emissions by 26-28% by 2025 relative to 2005, which is more than what it declared in Copenhagen in 2009 and in Cancun in 2010.

Although the US never embraced the Kyoto Protocol, the US did in fact meet its target in 2012. The US has been pushing for clean technology within its borders, however not with the same kind of vigour that is seen in the EU. Further, China’s declaration of a peak year, to which it had been steadfastly opposed until a few years ago, is new and extremely welcomed. However, a peak year between 2020-25 would have been an even more significant contribution on China’s part in the pursuit of limiting global emissions to 2° C. More pertinently, the rate of increase towards the peak, when the decline would start, and the rate of decline have not been indicated. The Chinese declaration does indicate a possible earlier peaking year; perhaps one has to wait until China announces its INDCs to see whether they are ready to hold themselves to more ambitious targets than indicated in the bilateral deal.

Given its track record, the EU’s declaration of its INDCs is meaningful and reasonable. It has committed a 40% reduction of its 1990 levels by 2030. The indications from other countries such as Japan (whose emissions are likely to significantly increase because of Fukushima), Australia and Canada, whose target is aligned with the 17 per cent reduction target of the US, are, however, hardly encouraging. India, too, has stated that it is working on appropriate INDCs, which it will submit to the UNFCCC sometime this year.[12]

In conclusion, a great deal of doubt and confusion looms large over the Paris Conference later this year. Will delegates engage cooperatively and enter into a deal that will save us from the disastrous effects of climate change? Will the developed and developing blocs reconcile their differences? Will the Paris agreement, (in whatever form it will come through) compromise on the basic tenets of the UNFCC Convention? Many questions need to be answered by the COP 21. One can hope that the Paris Accord is not fraught with lacunae and weaknesses, and that it actually reflects the needs of those who will bear the brunt of climate change to the maximum degree however play no part in its initiation. The turn of this century will bring with it many events, one can only pray that one of them is a deal in Paris that saved the world!

Photo courtesy: http://farrellfile.com/2016/02/poll-91-of-americans-arent-worried-about-global-warming/

………………………………………………………………..

[1] Micheal Jacobs, The Lima Deal Represents a Fundamental Change in the Global Climate Change Regime, The Guardian (December 15, 2014), available at: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/15/lima-deal-represents-a-fundamental-change-in-global-climate-regime

[2] Micheal Jacobs, The Lima Deal Represents a Fundamental Change in the Global Climate Change Regime, The Guardian (December 15, 2014), available at: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/15/lima-deal-represents-a-fundamental-change-in-global-climate-regime

[3] See UNFCCC Bodies, Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP), available at: http://unfccc.int/bodies/body/6645.php.

[4] UNFCCC, Article 3.1.

[5] http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/items/2704.php

[6] Famously known as the Doha Amendment. This Amendment has been ratified by only 23 countries (none of which are developed), while the Amendment requires 144 ratifications in order to enter into force.

[7] INDC Submissions of different countries (both developed and developing) building up to the Paris Agreement, available at: http://www.c2es.org/international/2015-agreement/indcs.

[8] INDC Partnerships, available at: http://www.mitigationpartnership.net/intended-nationally-determined-contributions-indcs.

[9] Nordic Council of Ministers, Accounting Framework for the Post-2020 Period, available at: http://climateobserver.org/reports/accounting-framework-for-the-post-2020-period/.

[10] See http://unfccc.int/adaptation/workstreams/loss_and_damage/items/6056.php.

[11] See http://www.cop21makeitwork.com/2014/12/lima-paris-beyond-options-ex-ante-assessment-intended-nationally-determined-contributions-unfccc/.

[12] For a detailed report on the different INDCs and India’s current potential: http://ceew.in/pdf/ceew-india-indcs-re-and-the-pathway-to-p.pdf.

Need for National Legislation on Refugee Law

By Saumya Kumar, Advocate, Lucknow

India has been a shelter for fleeing refugees right from the time of infiltration of the Zoroastrian community into the sub-continent. India has invariably been a safe haven for refugees and in the process, has enlarged its multi-cultural and multi-ethnic fabric. It is relevant to point out that since its Independence India has received expatriates not only from its neighboring countries but also from distant countries like Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan and Uganda.

India having one of the most stable political structures, and a long and porous boundary has often attracted aliens (foreign nationals) seeking refuge. Even with the massive inflow of refugees in India there is no legislation to regulate their movement. The movement of refugees has been controlled mostly by Executive orders. Although a majority of the European countries have utilized the 1951 Convention on Refugees, most of the South Asian countries including India have neither ratified the Convention nor have they incorporated it in their domestic legal framework. The debate for a national legislation for refugees has been raised by many and requires a proper assessment of the practice undertaken by the Indian Government in this area with the practical feasibility of such legislation. India has dealt with the issues of ‘refugees’ on a bilateral basis[i] with no formal policy on which the practice could be contoured.[ii] Even though there may be a case to distinguish them from the rest of the ‘foreigners’, the current position in India is that refugees are legally identified as foreigners.[iii] This is because there is no separate law to deal with ‘refugees’ and for this reason the refugee ‘status’ in India is determined on a case-to-case basis. Therefore to ascertain the need for the legislation for refugees the actual methodology of the Indian Executive must be examined.

The influx of people from East Pakistan during partition was not considered as a refugee movement as the people were displaced from one socio-political environment to another.[iv] During the struggle over Bangladesh in 1961 a sea of people migrated to India which resulted in India issuing identity cards for the East Pakistanis and welcoming them with open arms. This was eventually discarded in March 1958, since by then there were already around 8 lakh refugees in some 150 camps across West Bengal. It was only after the number of refugees increased exponentially and posed a threat to the strained resources of the country that some focus was shifted in this direction which eventually materialized re-habilitation programs for the migrants already living in the camps in West Bengal.[v] From 1958, the scattered scheme of the Government was consolidated to arrive at a comprehensive regional development program. The Government focused on transferring the migrants to other states as a part of the rural assistance program which led to the Dandazkaranya Project. Over a period of time it has been accepted that the position of these individuals has ceased to be that of a refugee in the legal sense and in the material sense as well.[vi]

With regard to the Chakma Refugees, the Government of Assam provided shelter to them and then shifted them to Arunachal Pradesh where the Government eventually initiated the Chakma Resettlement Scheme. The presence of the Chakmas and their settlement schemes threatened the residents of Arunachal Pradesh supported by the State Assembly which passed a resolution demanding that the Chakmas must be removed from their territory which was not in consonance with the Central Government objectives.[vii]Consequentially, the Chakmas were not sent back and have been living in parts of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh ever since. In the meantime the Chakma refugees living and flourishing in Arunachal Pradesh have even tried to acquire Indian citizenship which was disallowed by the Indian Supreme Court but the Central Government refused to provide any guidelines about the status of these people.

For the Tibetan Refugee, the Indian Government much like the East Pakistani migrants, established a massive centre with adequate facilities. Something which was considered as a temporary affair at that time lasted for a very long duration which made the return of the Tibetan refugees to their homeland in the immediate future seem impossible.[viii] Where on one side the migrants of East Pakistan were ready if not eager to settle and blend into the Indian society, the Tibetan refugees insisted under the leadership of Dalai Lama that their cultural identity must be duly maintained.[ix] Since the Tibetan community has mostly refused to acquire Indian citizenship, the Indian Government has tried to assist them by providing them certificates of identity so that they can apply for jobs in the country.[x]

In Tamil Nadu, the Government has shown a more supportive role to the Tamilian refugees from Sri Lanka. It has been identified that Sri Lankan refugees have been given complete freedom with regard to movement in the country more like the mandate ascribed in the Convention.[xi] The Government has issued certificates to these refugees to facilitate admission process in colleges and universities and some places even provide special quotas for these refugees. Subsequently, with the assistance of the UNHCR, massive repatriation program under the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord was initiated which succeeded for some time but a new burst of ethnic clashes led to another round of migration and many safe havens were created for them.[xii]

It can be observed that the Indian Government has been very focused on the rehabilitation process of individuals moving across the borders even if the refugee status of the person is not determined. It is further observed that this helping hand is available only when there has been a substantial change in circumstance in the home country. The Executive does not limit its task to the establishment and rehabilitation of the refugees but focuses on the repatriation program as well. In this regard it is to be noted that the repatriation program has been initiated and pursued only where the support of the home country is available as extended by Sri Lanka and Bangladesh and nothing much could be done for the Tibetans as there was no consensus with the Chinese Government in this regard.

[i] Sarbani Sen, ‘Paradoxes of the international regime of care: the role of the UNHCR in India’, in Ranabir Samaddar (ed.) Refugees and the State: Practices and Asylum and Care in India, 1947-2000 (2003) p. 398

[ii] Ibid

[iii] Myron Weiner, Rejected Peoples and Unwanted Migrants in South Asia, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 28 (1993), pp. 1737-1746 at p. 1739.

[iv] US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, Country Report for India 2006, at http://www.refugees.org/countryreports.aspx/id=1558

[v] Ibid

[vi] Jacques Vernant, The Refugee in the Post-war World, (yale university Press, 1953) pp. 740

[vii] Supra note i

[viii] Ibid

[ix] Lousie W Holborn, Refugees: A Problem of Our Time (The Sacarecrow Press Inc.) Metuchen, New Jersey, 1975) p. 718

[x] Dawa Norbu, ‘Motivational Crisis in Tibetan Education System : Some Personal Reflections’, Tibetan Review (May 1994) pp.13-14

[xi]UNHCR, ‘Burden-Sharing- Discussion paper submitted by UNHCR Fifth Annual Plenary Meeting of the APC’, ISIL Yearbook of International Humanitarian and Refugee Law, Vol. 17 (2001), at http://www.worldii.org/int/journals/ISILYBIHRL/2001/7.html

[xii] Cornellis D.Jong de, “The Legal Framework: The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the Development of Law Half a Century Later” International Journal of Refugee Law, vol.10(1998),pp.688-99