Nationality and Borders Bill Disproportionately Disadvantages Women Seeking Asylum

Women for Refugee Women have published a legal opinion by four barristers from Garden Court Chambers which examines the implications of the Nationality and Borders Bill for women seeking asylum and international protection.

Stephanie Harrison QC says there is no doubt that the Nationality and Borders Bill fundamentally undermines the UK's obligations under international refugee law. The four Garden Court barristers state: "Our view is that the Bill, as currently drafted, runs contrary to the UK's obligations under international refugee and human rights law generally and for women and girls in particular; risks undermining the UK's reputation in terms of meeting its international obligations to refugees, and ultimately, is counter-productive to the Government's aim, because it will result in more not less litigation as the Courts try to grapple with the implications of these wide ranging changes to established protections."

The legal opinion highlights how clauses 31 and 32 of the Bill, in particular, will negatively impact women seeking asylum and protection. "Clause 31 aims to change the standard of proof and the evidence required in asylum claims, while Clause 32 seeks in subsections (2)-(4) to change the test for the definition of a 'particular social group' (PSG). These changes reverse longstanding principles and are a clear attempt to reinstate approaches which have been repeatedly and roundly rejected by the courts. These changes can and will have a disproportionate adverse impact on asylum seekers who are women and girls, as many women face persecution as a result of their sex or gender e.g. gender-based and sexual violence, discriminatory denial of education, access to political and civic equality," the opinion's summary explains.

Read more: Electronic Immigration Network, https://rb.gy/hmxmrs

Priti Patel Faces Three Legal Challenges Over Refugee Pushback Plans

Priti Patel is facing three legal challenges over her controversial plans to push back refugees on small boats in the Channel who are trying to reach the UK. Several charities including Care4Calais and Channel Rescue are involved in two linked challenges arguing that Patel’s plans are unlawful under human rights and maritime laws. Freedom from Torture is involved in a third challenge. The Guardian has revealed that government lawyers have warned Patel she is likely to lose any legal challenge against her pushbacks policy.

The first legal challenge, from Care4Calais and another charity, focuses on whether the Home Office has actually formulated a policy on pushbacks. It argues that if such a policy exists it should be published so it can be scrutinised. The second challenge, from Channel Rescue, a human rights organisation that monitors the situation for refugees crossing the Channel in small boats, focuses on alleged breaches of maritime law – the requirement under the UN convention on the law of the sea is for vessels to provide assistance to those in danger or distress at sea. The third argues that the turnback policy has no legal basis, authorises unlawful conduct by UK officials and is forbidden by the refugee convention.

Read more: Diane Taylor and Rajeev Syal, Guardian, https://rb.gy/8nkaxz

Meaning of “Admissible” in Statelessness Cases

In R (AZ) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (statelessness “admissible”) [2021] UKUT 284 (IAC), the Upper Tribunal addressed the issue of admissibility to the country of former habitual residence in the context of statelessness applications under Part 14 of the Immigration Rules. In particular, it considered whether the word “admissible” in paragraph 403(c) of the Rules means having the right to reside permanently rather than just temporarily. The tribunal concluded that it does not, the headnote reading:

1. The word “admissible” must mean in the context of paragraph 403(c) the ability to enter lawfully and reside lawfully. “Admissible” does not incorporate the concept of “permanent residence”.

2. The Statelessness Convention does not impose a requirement on contracting parties to grant either permanent residence or citizenship.

Read more: Freemovement, https://rb.gy/1kx85k

Two Thirds of People Who Apply for Asylum Are Now Getting it it First Time of Asking

Highest Number of Asylum Applications Since 2003 - Over 17,000 people applied for asylum in the UK between July and September, the highest quarterly total since 2003, new Home Office figures show. Year on year, there has been an 11% rise in applications to 44,000 in the 12 months to the end of September 2021. This includes dependants in both cases.

The rise has been driven by sharp increases in applications from Eritreans (up 97%), Syrians (74%), Vietnamese (44%), Iranians, Albanians and Afghans (all 39%). Almost 1,100 Afghan nationals applied for asylum in the third quarter of 2021.

Two thirds of people who apply for asylum are now getting it at the first time of asking.

Read more: Freemovement, https://rb.gy/eg4dhu

Highest Number of Asylum Applications Since 2003

Over 17,000 people applied for asylum in the UK between July and September, the highest quarterly total since 2003, new Home Office figures show. Year on year, there has been an 11% rise in applications to 44,000 in the 12 months to the end of September 2021. This includes dependants in both cases.

The rise has been driven by sharp increases in applications from Eritreans (up 97%), Syrians (74%), Vietnamese (44%), Iranians, Albanians and Afghans (all 39%). Almost 1,100 Afghan nationals applied for asylum in the third quarter of 2021.

Two thirds of people who apply for asylum are now getting it at the first time of asking.

Read more: Freemovement, https://rb.gy/eg4dhu

Freedom From Violence Against Women

The Council of Europe has published a new “Freedom from violence against women” section of its dedicated website highlighting the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights, as part of the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. The new section includes twelve case studies showing how judgments from the European Court of Human Rights, and their implementation by Council of Europe member states, have helped to change national laws and practices on violence against women, to the benefit of society as a whole.

Examples include the landmark Opuz v. Turkey case, which helped to inspire the Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention on violence against women, and cases leading to better protections for victims in Belgium, Italy and several other countries. The website on the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes over 150 case studies from across Europe, is available in English, French, German, Russian and Turkish.

Read more: Council of Europe, https://rb.gy/ifvhss

EU Law Still Applies In legacy Appeals Under the EEA Regulations

Geci (EEA Regs: transitional provisions, appeal rights) Albania [2021] UKUT 285 (IAC) is another appeal under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, but with “highly unusual” facts. Mr Geci had returned to the UK in breach of a deportation order (twice). Rather than seeking to enforce the deportation order, the Home Office decided to refuse to issue a residence card pursuant to regulation 24 of the EEA Regulations. The Upper Tribunal found that it had no power to do so.

Post-Brexit relevance of the EEA Regs

The Upper Tribunal helpfully explains the position with EU free movement law post-Brexit, which has left us all slightly adrift in recent times. (But see Iain’s briefing on the subject.)

The tribunal noted that the EEA Regulations were withdrawn under the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 on 31 December 2020. But parts were preserved for certain purposes by three separate instruments, as highlighted in paragraph 5 of the judgment:

Read more: Freemovement, https://rb.gy/xldeal