UK changes to asylum claim procedures

THE UK Border Agency (UKBA) has announced changes to the way it registers further submissions and initial in-country asylum applications.

Beginning on Wednesday, October 14, the UKBA is requiring that any further submissions in an asylum case must be made in person by appointment.

Further to that, all initial claims for asylum made inside the UK (rather than on arrival at port) must be made at Croydon. It is no longer possible to claim asylum in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, it would seem.

Where an individual whose appeal rights against a decision refusing them asylum have been exhausted asks to have their claim re-examined, owing to a change in their circumstances, this must be done in person rather than by post.

The following arrangements will be in place:

• Those who claimed asylum before March 5, 2007, and whose case is being managed by the Case Resolution Directorate, will be required to make any further submissions by appointment and in person at the Liverpool Further Submissions Unit (formerly the Asylum Screening Unit).

• Those who claimed asylum on or after March 5, 2007, are required to make any further submissions in person at a specified reporting centre in their region.

In addition to these changes, it will no longer be possible for initial asylum applications to be made in Liverpool, and anyone wishing to make an initial asylum application in country will be required to do so in person at the asylum screening unit in Croydon.

It means that if there is a change in circumstances in the country of origin and the asylum claimant wants to make submissions on it, he or she has to travel to Liverpool. If the asylum claimant receives new documents from abroad, it means a trip to Liverpool to hand it in.

It appears that the new policy does not obviously apply to Article 8 claims based on UK relationships or similar, as it specifically refers to asylum cases.

The new rules may result in fewer fresh claims being made as many people will not be able to travel to Liverpool. As a result, there is likely going to be fewer claims for Section 4 support.

This new policy is bizarre, and it appears to be more of an attempt to deter people from making fresh asylum claims in order to cut the budget for Section 4 support.

The new system may also result in more people being detained and removed. The congestion at the Asylum Screening Unit in Croydon will become worse as people from all over the UK can now only claim asylum at one location.

The new system may have some positive effects especially for applicants from countries where there are currently no removals. It may result in the claims being dealt with more quickly.

The other advantage may be that it will ensure that the claim has in fact been received by the UKBA. We have had many instances where we have submitted fresh claims on behalf on clients and the UKBA have stated that they have not received any fresh submissions.

This new system will not leave any doubt in the applicant’s mind that the application has been received. The new system will also assist asylum seekers who have stayed in the UK for many years and who come from countries such as Zimbabwe and Somalia where it is almost impossible to enforce removals.

Last week, the Daily Telegraph claimed that there is a new policy that asylum seekers may be granted settlement after a wait of four to six (or possibly eight) years following a quiet change to immigration policies.

The policy is allegedly set out in a memo the paper claims to have seen from Matthew Coates, a very senior figure at UKBA, which was signed off by Immigration Minister Phil Woolas. It concerns Legacy Cases.

The Telegraph states that Coates rejects the idea of a sort of formal amnesty but instead recommends changing the current guidance to make it easier for immigration officials to allow up to 40,000 to stay in the UK.

He suggests they could be allowed to stay here after having been in the UK for as little as four years, in the most difficult cases, or around six to eight years – rather than 10 to 12 years as the rules stated.

He adds: “We do not believe the rule itself needs amendment. We do, however, need to make some amendments to the underpinning operational guidance to give caseworkers the necessary latitude to deal with this cohort.”

There has been no formal change to Immigration Rule 395C, which lists compassionate circumstances to be considered in removal cases. However, there was a recent change to the Enforcement Guidance and Instructions on rule 395C (chapter 53.1.2), which now includes the following examples of cases that should be considered sympathetically:

• An initial application or an ‘in-time’ application for further leave (an application made before the individuals leave to enter/remain had expired) was submitted some time ago. A significant delay in such cases considered as being between 3-5 years.

• ‘Family’ cases where delay by UKBA has contributed to a significant period of residence (for the purposes of this guidance, ‘family’ cases means parent as defined in the Immigration Rules and children who are emotionally and financially dependent on the parent, and under the age of 18 at the date of the decision). Following an individual assessment of the prospect of enforcing removal, and where other relevant factors apply, a 3 year period of residence may be considered significant, but a more usual example would be 4-6 years. Family units may be also being exceptionally considered where the dependent child has experienced a delay of 4-6 years whilst under the age of 18.

• Any other case where delay by UKBA has contributed to a significant period of residence, Following an individual assessment of the prospect of enforcing removal, and where other relevant factors apply, 4-6 years may be considered significant, but a more usual example would be a period of residence of 6-8 years.

The government has responded to the Telegraph’s claims. Phil Woolas, the Border and Immigration Minister, said: “There is no amnesty. Our guidelines were updated to provide case workers with a simple framework to judge cases, and to avoid long drawn out court battles.

“No lawbreaker will be allowed to stay, and each case is still decided on its individual merits. The UK Border Agency continues to ramp up performance and is concluding several thousand cases a month.“

Although there is no official amnesty, we have seen many liberal and compassionate decisions being made by the UKBA. In recent weeks, I have seen many positive decisions being made by for applicants who have been waiting for many years for decisions in their fresh asylum and human rights claims. It appears that the UKBA are implementing the new guidance in a liberal manner.

It is advisable for failed asylum seekers from countries such as Somalia and Zimbabwe to take advantage of the new guidance and lodge fresh claims before the UKBA changes their policy again.