Migration Watch UK: News

Legal Aid in Immigration and Asylum Cases

As always with these legal briefing papers it is stressed that they are not published as authoritative legal advice but for general guidance and information for users of the Migration Watch website.

Restrictions on the availability of legal aid are imposed by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. the provisions of which on legal aid were brought into effect in early April 2013. This is a substantial enactment dealing with three major subjects. Of its 154 sections 62 relate to legal aid, which is made the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor (otherwise the Secretary of State for the Justice Department), who is required by section 4 of the Act to appoint a civil servant as Director of Legal Aid Casework. Section 8 defines the general scope of civil legal services, including providing advice and representation in relation to legal proceedings.

To see the full Briefing Paper No 8.70 click here.

UNHCR Guidelines – Sexual Orientation

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) published on 23 October 2012 a new set of Guidelines on International Protection relating specifically to claims to refugee status based on sexual orientation under the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees.  These Guidelines supplement the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status issued for the guidance of decision takers in countries which are signatories to the 1951 Convention.  The Handbook does not have the force of law but in practice is heavily relied on by civil servants and judges taking decisions on asylum applications and appeals….

To see the full Briefing Paper No 8.67 click here.

An African War Criminal

An appalling case is reported today, 8 October 2012, in the Daily Mail Online. It is the story of a Sudanese African whose identity is not disclosed, who in the course of a number of BBC interviews said that he was between 2003 and 2006 a fighter in the Janjaweed militia which was responsible for the slaughter of an estimated 300,000 people during the war in Darfur. In 2006 he deserted and came to Britain to claim asylum but his case was not decided until 2011. In 2008 he gave interviews to The Times and to BBC’s Newsnight, in which his anonymity was preserved, and claimed to have shot large numbers of innocent people.  His claim for asylum was rejected on the ground that he was a war criminal and therefore in accordance with the provisions of Article 1(F)(i) of the Refugee Convention was not entitled to international protection. Also he could take advantage of what is known as “internal flight” by moving to another part of the Sudan where his identity would not be known.  His first appeal was allowed, but when the Home Office appealed to the Upper Tier of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber the asylum claim was dismissed but his appeal succeeded on human rights grounds. 

The Senior Immigration Judge who disposed of the appeal ruled that his identity could well have become known because of his appearance on Newsnight and he was therefore protected by Article 2 of the ECHR which protects the right to life and prohibits killing without exceptions other than in self-defence, effecting a lawful arrest or in the course of lawful action taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or disturbance.  By contrast, Article 8, the right to family life, does allow in general terms of lawful exceptions.  The scope of these in relation to deportation decisions on cases of convicted criminals has now been clarified by recent amendments to the Immigration Rules which are explained in Briefing Paper 8.39

The UKBA has expressed its frustration at this result and has had to accept that the man will now be allowed to remain in the UK indefinitely but states that he cannot lawfully claim benefits, work or study but can be subjected to regular reporting requirements. 

Harry Mitchell QC
Honorary Legal Adviser
Migration Watch
8 October 2012

Recent Supreme Court Cases

In its judgment in the case of RT (Zimbabwe) and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 38 delivered on 25 July 2012 the Supreme Court gave an important ruling in relation to asylum appeals. The four parties from Zimbabwe were asylum seekers claiming that if they were returned to Zimbabwe there was a reasonable degree of likelihood that they would face persecution on account of their lack of political views.

Read the full Briefing Paper No 8.66

60,000 Bogus Students Could Have Entered the UK Last Year - Government “have bottled out on bogus students"

As many as 60,000 bogus students could have entered the UK in 2011 alone.

This is the conclusion of a study by Migration Watch, based on the findings of a Home Office pilot scheme which were published last week.  Under the pilot scheme applicants for student visas were interviewed to determine whether they were genuine. This involved two tests – whether they were genuine as students and whether they intended to return home after their studies. The Home Office found that the highest percentage of bogus students came from Burma, where 62% would have been refused a visa on doubts about their credibility. In Bangladesh, India and Nigeria, 59% of students were considered as likely to be bogus. When these proportions were applied to the number of applicants from each country in the pilot, it emerged that the total came to 63,000 potentially bogus students in just one year.

Of those who were potential refusals on credibility grounds, 61% were applying for privately funded colleges, 17% for a publicly funded college and 14% for a university.

Following this pilot, the Home Office has introduced plans to interview 10,000 students a year and has set out the criteria on which they will be judged. But it is now clear that the government has lost its nerve and has dropped the second test (intention to return) from the student interview scheme which comes into force as the end of July.

The Australian authorities – often quoted by the university lobby as a good example of student immigration control – have this very test.   Their recent major review considered it to be “The first item of business in assessing a student visa application.”

As for the scale of interviews, 10-14,000 a year have been mentioned but this is only about 10% of the number of applicants from the countries of immigration concern.

Commenting, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migration Watch UK said, “We now have clear evidence of abuse on a major scale. Bogus students come here to work illegally and thus take jobs from British workers. If it is clear from the circumstances that a student is unlikely to go home, the visa should not be granted in the first place. After all, many of the advantages claimed for foreign students depend on their going home after their studies.

“These half measures simply will not do. The government have bottled out on bogus students.  If they are serious about immigration they must face down the self interested demands of the Higher Education sector and pursue the public interest.”

Referring to the letter to the Sunday Times signed by 37 business leaders calling for students to be taken out of net migration, Sir Andrew Green said:

“It is, in fact, impossible to take students out of net migration because, unlike the US and Australia, we still have no exit checks so nobody knows how many who came as students have actually left the UK. It seems that business leaders are clueless about immigration policy and will sign whatever is put in front of them.”

Notes to Editors:

Genuine Temporary Entrant Requirement to Australia, URL: http://www.immi.gov.au/students/_pdf/2011-genuine-temporary-entrant.pdf

Home Office Analysis of Pilot Scheme on Student Credibility, URL: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/immigration-asylum-research/occ104?view=Binary

Before entry Student Visa Grants by Country, 2011, URL: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/immigration-asylum-research/immigration-tabs-q1-2012/before-entry-q1-2012-tabs?view=Binary

Asylum and Temporary Admission

For a general discussion of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees together with the New York Protocol of 1967, (together referred to in this paper as “the Convention”) you are referred to Legal Briefing Paper 8.32 “Asylum Seekers – a serious case of misunderstanding” and also to the definitions of “asylum”, “asylum seeker”, “humanitarian protection” and “refugee” in Legal Briefing Paper 8.0.

See the full Briefing Paper No 8.61

Family migration; overwhelming support for reform

The public overwhelmingly support the government’s key proposals for the reform of family migration. That was the result of an opinion poll published by Migration Watch UK today.

83% supported the suggestion that British immigration officers should interview applicants in their own country to make sure that the relationship is a genuine one. The poll found strong support for this policy, across all three major parties voters – Conservatives 88%, Labour 81%, Lib Dem 81%. It was also the case across social grade and region. Only 8% of British adults oppose.

Asked about raising the required level of English language so that applicants would have to show that they could understand everyday English, there was even stronger support. 93% were in favour and only 4% opposed. Again, strong support was consistent across all three major party voters, social grade and region with 93% of Lib Dem voters from the 2010 general election in favour.

Respondents were also asked whether they favoured increasing the minimum income before a person in the UK may bring in a partner from overseas from the present level of £5,500 a year to £18,000 a year. 80% favoured this policy with 13% opposed. Again, strong support was found consistently across all three political parties, and across social grades and regions.

The poll was based on a robust sample of over 2,000 respondents and was conducted by YouGov between 29 February and 2 March.

Commenting, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migration Watch UK said, “These are stunning results. They are a huge public endorsement of the proposals that the government has put forward”.

Notes to Editors All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2,287 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 29th February - 2nd March 2012. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+).

Nearly two-thirds of asylum seekers turned out to be bogus - but Britain ended up with £10 billion bill anyway, says report 24 August, 2011

The UK’s asylum system has been costing taxpayers on average more than £2 million a day since 1999 and, once anyone has set foot on British soil, they have a 77% chance of staying – whatever the merits of their case

That is the conclusion of a study by think-tank Migration Watch UK of the outcome of the asylum system over the period 1997 - 2010 published today in advance of the latest statistics due on 25 August.

The study found that only a quarter of those who sought asylum in the UK between 1997 and 2010 were granted asylum, including those granted on appeal. A further one in seven were granted other forms of protection so 60% were eventually refused altogether.

Of those refused only just over one third were removed with the result that anyone claiming asylum in Britain had a 77% chance of staying here - more often than not illegally. The study also found that, in recent years, the majority of applications (59%) were lodged only after the applicant had been detected.

The cost to the tax payer, including the cost of legal aid and the cost of the immigration courts was close to £10 billion or nearly £2.3 million a day over the period.

The proportion of asylum seekers granted protection in France was found to be significantly lower than in the UK.

Said Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migration Watch UK: ‘The asylum system has proved to be a £10 billion shambles. Those who, like ourselves, are serious about protecting genuine refugees should be no less serious about removing bogus claimants and, better still, deterring them in the first place.  The system needs to be much faster. Delays in the system leave the door open for appeals based on the right to family life without any consideration for the rights of society in general’

‘It also needed to be much tougher on the bogus. It is absurd, for example, that we should allow people who have been in Britain illegally for years to claim asylum so as to delay or prevent their removal; this now applies to almost 60% of claimants.

‘It is a pity that the lawyers have been so remarkably silent all these years. The failure of the UK Border Agency to implement the decisions of the immigration appeal courts reduces their activities to a charade and brings the rule of law into disrepute,’ he said.

60th Anniversary of the Refugee Convention

The following comment can be attributed to Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migration Watch UK.

 

"The situation has changed beyond recognition since the Refugee Convention was signed 60 years ago. There is now widespread abuse. Over half of all applicants in the UK only claim when detected. Nearly two thirds (60%) of all cases decided in the last five years were rejected after a long and expensive legal process but less than half of them are being removed. Those, like ourselves, who are serious about genuine refugees must be equally serious about removing asylum seekers who turn out to be bogus if public support for the system is to be sustained."

 

Notes to Editors:

1  Claims when detected

2  Outcome of cases

3  Numbers Removed

A Quarter of a Million Failed Asylum Seekers Granted Amnesty

Summary

1 The latest (and largest) exercise in granting settlement to failed asylum seekers is the continuation of a sorry tradition of amnesties that has resulted in over 250,000 failed asylum seekers being granted settlement since the early 1990s. Once settlement is achieved additional dependants can then join the person in the UK so the total number is likely to be much higher. It is now essential for the integrity of the immigration system that no more backlogs are allowed to develop.

Current Amnesty

2 During the late 1990s and early 2000s the Home Office allowed the build up of a backlog of around 400,000 cases. The exercises to clear these legacy cases resulted in 161,000 grants of settlement (ILR)…

See the full Briefing Paper No 11.25.