A continuing backlog of asylum cases
April 12, 2010 by Webmaster · Leave a Comment
UK: Legacy cases and children
March 12, 2010 by Webmaster · Leave a Comment
New Zimbabwe – MANY of the so called “legacy cases” are being resolved by the United Kingdom Border Agency. Figures published this week show that the UKBA is dealing with approximately 5,000 cases per month.
Not all of the cases are resulting in the granting of leave to remain, but the vast majority are being granted Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK. (Please see previous posts on legacy cases).
With the granting of ILR comes a set of new challenges for many migrants living in the UK. Many people left Zimbabwe for political and economic reasons. It was difficult to travel as a family due to financial constraints or the uncertainty of life in the UK. As a result, many families were separated by the move to the diaspora in the early 2000’s.
The separation between parents and children has been heartbreaking for both parents and children. The purpose of this post is to highlight the difficulties that can be encountered in making an application for children to join their parents in the UK. It is not a straightforward issue.
The immigration rules in summary require that the applicant (child) meet the following criteria:
They must be under 18 years of age, and show that they cannot support themselves financially, are not married or in a civil partnership and are not living independently away from your parents.
A child cannot normally go to live in the UK if one parent is living abroad, unless the parent in the UK has sole responsibility for the child, or if there are special reasons why the child should be allowed to join the parent in the UK
Parents must live in the UK legally, with no time limit on their stay.
One parent is living and settled in the UK or is applying for settlement at the same time as applicant, and has had sole responsibility for looking after the applicant
Parents can support applicant without help from public funds
Parents have enough accommodation, which they own or live in, where you can live without help from public funds, and
The applicant is the child of those seeking to come to the UK.
The difficulties that may be faced by many parents will be that they may find it difficult to show that they can support their children without recourse to public funds. Many have been out of work for many years waiting for their cases to be resolved.
It is also difficult to obtain employment during this recession. It may, therefore, take several months for parents that have been granted Indefinite Leave to Remain to be reunited with their children.
The “sole responsibility” rule causes such applications to be very complex, as the meaning of the term cannot be precise. Every family’s situation is unique. For example, sole responsibility is not the same as legal custody, even though the question of who has legal custody will be a relevant consideration in deciding whether a parent has sole responsibility.
How is the term understood by the Border and Immigration Agency (BIA) of the Home Office, and by courts and tribunals in the UK?
The parent based in the UK is known as the “sponsor” of the application and will be the motivating force behind it. The child overseas is known as the “applicant”.
To meet the sole responsibility requirement, it is necessary to satisfy the Home Office that the sponsoring parent has, usually for a substantial period of time, been the chief person exercising parental responsibility for the child. This means that the sponsoring parent has had and still has the ultimate responsibility for the major decisions relating to the child’s upbringing and provides the child with the majority of the financial and emotional support it requires.
The sponsoring parent must show that he or she has had, and continues to have, care and control of the child.
It has been accepted by the courts that many parents would find it impossible to establish literal or absolute “sole responsibility”, since in the majority of situations the other parent has at least some responsibility for their child’s upbringing. Moreover, there will be many situations in which the parents are separated and the sponsoring parent has left their child in the care of other relatives and gone to the UK without the child.
The Home Office instructions to BIA caseworkers, in the form of internal guidance, states that they expect that where the child is being looked after by relatives, they should be the relatives of the sponsor rather than of the child’s other parent. In such a case, the sponsoring parent must still show that she or he has retained the ultimate responsibility for the child’s upbringing and provides the majority of the emotional and financial support needed.
The guidance to BIA caseworkers suggests that an application should normally be refused where, for example, the child is being cared for by the father’s relatives but it is the mother who has applied for the child to join her in the UK.
Church of England General Synod calls asylum seeker amnesty
February 14, 2009 by Webmaster · Leave a Comment
By Martin Beckford, Telegraph Religious Affairs Correspondent
The Synod, the governing body of the state religion, voted overwhelmingly in favour of an amnesty for those whose cases are still being decided on, and said all those who want to live here should be allowed to work.
It also said that a solution must be found to the “intolerable” situation of people who are refused leave to remain but cannot return to their home countries, and that children and families must no longer be detained in Immigration Removal Centres.
The Rev Ruth Worsley, a priest in the diocese of Southwell & Nottingham who tabled the motion on the subject, said: “The financial cost to our country, as well as the human cost which leaves people in limbo for years, not knowing what their future might hold, seems unconscionable.
“With the arrival of the credit crunch, the subsequent loss of jobs, the recent call for British jobs for British people, there is a danger that we become inward-looking and even xenophobic.
“But the Gospel tells us that we are not a tribal nation but a global family.”
Just 23,430 people applied for asylum in Britain in 2007 after fleeing war or persecution overseas, the lowest number for more than a decade.
But hundreds of thousands more remain lost in the system, some of whom have been waiting years to find out if they can settle in the country. Until their claim has been decided they are unable to work and only receive 70 per cent of the benefits to which refugees or indigenous residents are entitled.
In 2006 it was announced that there were 450,000 of these “legacy” cases, of which about 100,000 have now been processed.
Meanwhile, the Church claims many failed asylum seekers are left destitute because it is unsafe for them to return home yet they are unable to claim benefits or get a job.
Mrs Worsley told of an Iranian man who was refused asylum in Britain, Afshin Azizian, after the Home Office took five years to decide on his case.
“Unable to work and preferring destitution in the UK to the threat of persecution in Iran, Afshin lived rough, scavenging through rubbish bins and sleeping in a launderette.
“He suffered mental health problems and despite twice attempting suicide was subsequently released with no one taking responsibility for his welfare.”
The Rev William Raines, of Manchester diocese, said: “The asylum system could have been designed by King Herod after reading Kafka.”
Synod voted by 242 votes to 1, with 1 abstention, in favour of calling upon the Government to “ensure that the treatment of asylum seekers is just and considerate”, and to consider its suggestions.
Article first published Friday 13, February 2009 Telegraph
Asylum system not coping with backlog of cases-NAO
January 24, 2009 by Webmaster · Leave a Comment
The asylum system is developing a backlog of new cases that threaten to undermine efforts to clear an existing bank of more than 200,000 “legacy cases”, some dating back more than 10 years, a Whitehall spending watchdog warns today.
It reveals that the new system is “struggling to cope”, and although new asylum claims are being dealt with much more quickly, it discloses that a fresh backlog is building up. The number of cases awaiting an initial decision doubled last year from 4,200 in June 2007 to 8,700 last July and continues to grow.
The National Audit Office (NAO) says the new asylum model, which was introduced in 2006, under which a single immigration official manages an application from start to finish, has led to more claims for refugee status being settled more quickly. However, the new system is still not working at optimum efficiency. The auditors say a full screening interview is not taking place in a quarter of all cases, with the result that key information is being missed. Some people are being detained pending their removal who should not be and some who should be detained are being released. Fewer than one in 10 of those who are being refused asylum under the new process have been removed.
But the National Audit Office is also critical of the Home Office’s attempt to clear a backlog of 400,000 to 450,000 legacy cases that were unresolved before the introduction of the new asylum system in June 2006. The auditors estimate that this backlog cost nearly £600m in housing and welfare support in 2007-08 while the asylum seekers and their families waited for a decision.
The NAO report says the UK Border Agency (UKBA) estimated in December 2007 that these outstanding case files included some 60,000 to 70,000 dependents and so revised the figure to 335,000 outstanding case files.
These were allocated to 61 new teams of asylum caseworkers who made some inroads into the backlog mountain with nearly 90,000 cases concluded by May last year – about 4,000 a month. But the NAO says 20% of the remaining cases cannot be resolved because of “external factors” that mean they can neither grant asylum nor remove the individuals. Higher than expected “data errors” have also contributed to the problem.
The auditors say these difficulties mean the Border Agency will not be able to resolve more than 6,700 legacy cases a month when they need to deal with 10,000 a month to hit their target of clearing this huge backlog by 2011.
NAO head Tim Burr said the new asylum model had delivered some improvements but there was a risk that the new backlog of unresolved cases was adding to the existing backlog of legacy cases.
The UKBA chief executive, Lin Homer, said the report acknowledged their improved “grip” on asylum claims: “However, we will not rest on our laurels. We are strengthening our checks on decision-making, recruiting more staff and are committed to conclude 90% of new asylum cases within six months by 2011,” she said.
“In the latter half of 2008 we concluded an average of 10,000 legacy cases per month, and have already cleared 155,000 cases to date.
“I am confident that we will clear all of these cases by 2011.” – guardian.co.uk
Permission to work for Legacy cases?
December 12, 2008 by Webmaster · Leave a Comment
An interesting judgment has just come out in which the High Court has held to be unlawful the policy of a blanket denial of right to work for those caught in the Legacy backlog. It is called Tekle v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWHC 3064 (Admin).
This does not mean that those in the Legacy will be granted the right to work. It means that the Home Office have to go away and re-think their policy. It would be open to them to maintain a selective ban on employment in certain cases or even perhaps to maintain a blanket ban, if they put forward better justification and some evidence. They have approximately three months to comply, otherwise there will be further legal action.
Given appalling and very damaging recent Home Office tardiness over Metock and Baiai, it would not be at all surprising if the three month deadline slipped. The Home Office are not good losers. – Free Movement
