UK Immigration Rules and Policies do not Respect the Right For Families to be Together

The House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee yesterday published an important new report following its inquiry into family migration in the UK.

For its inquiry, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee said it looked at family migration policies in the widest possible sense, including the general trends in the design of family immigration pathways, similarities and discrepancies across them, how migration policies affect families, and how family migration policies affect society.

The report presents the results of the inquiry. It is highly critical of the Government's current family migration policies, finding them to be overly restrictive, complex and inconsistent. The Committee says the policies fail both families and society.

Read more: EIN, https://rb.gy/attoio

Home Office’s Ineffective Performance in Family Reunions

A new inspection report by David Bolt, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI), was published last week. It examines the Home Office's management of refugee family reunion applications, specifically applications made between 1 January 2022 and 30 September 2022.

The headline finding from the report is that Home Office's performance in the area of family reunion is ineffective and is failing applicants and refugees. David Bolt said the inspection revealed a "system beset with delays and a team ill-equipped to manage the complexity and volume of applications awaiting consideration" leading to "unacceptable waiting times for applicants". Bolt added that the effectiveness of the family reunion route had deteriorated since the ICIBI's last inspection in 2019.

Read more: EIN, https://rb.gy/ijhwu6

Home Office Paying Asylum Seekers £1 an Hour to Clean Detention Centres

The Home Office has paid asylum seekers £1 an hour to carry out more than a million hours of work in the past five years, openDemocracy can reveal. The government has been accused of exploitation after documents seen by this website showed detainees in immigration centres run by Home Office contractors are working hundreds of thousands of hours a year for meagre wages. Detainees’ roles vary, but include cleaners, welfare buddies, kitchen assistants, barbers, laundry orderlies, painters, gym orderlies and shop assistants.

One person who works in an immigration detention centre told openDemocracy that the centre he is being held in is reliant on this low-paid work. The Home Office and the private firms running the centres claim work is offered to relieve detainees’ boredom and is popular. But experts say that such poor wages, which have not been raised in 15 years, can “never be ethical”.

Read more: Jack Barton, Open Democracy, https://rb.gy/756bm9

Asylum Seekers Expected to Complete Complex Questionnaire In English In 20 Days

Leaked documents show new government plans to reduce the asylum backlog by emailing questionnaires to refugees instead of performing formal interviews. The forms would require applicants to respond in English within 20 working days, or face rejection. Rishi Sunak’s strategy is set to reduce the “legacy backlog”, targeting 12,000 persons from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. In December, Rishi Sunak pledged to “stop the boats” from crossing the English Channel and that he would do so by the end of 2023. The Home Office has around 10 months to process the 92,601 asylum requests in the system as of the end of June 2022.

The questionnaire, which the Guardian viewed, has more than 50 complex questions that must be completed in English, according to the instructions, and if required, proposes utilising online translation tools. The British Red Cross’ executive director of strategy and communications, Christina Marriott, expressed the organisation’s worry of the idea that applications would be withdrawn if refugees were unable to complete the form by the deadline. We know from experience that government communications with asylum seekers often falls short – translations are rarely provided, and forms are lost in transit. This time limit could have devastating impacts on people who need protection,’ Ms Marriott added.

Immigration lawyer and author Collin Yeo said that given the reductions in legal aid and the strains on the profession, applicants would not be able to get specialised assistance within the 20-day timeframe; ‘because of the backlog, there is no way that there are enough lawyers to meet the demand in such a short time,’ he commented. One of the question reads as: ‘If you do fear officials in your country, is it possible to email or telephone family members or friends in your country of origin to request [identity documents] without placing yourself or them at risk?’ Asylum applicants are also questioned about whether they entered the UK via a third country and whether their home country has a history of persecution or discrimination.

Dyana Parmar, Justice Gap, https://rb.gy/fvcxq9

Upper Tribunal’s Refusal to Recognise Applicant’s Claim - Quashed

The main issue in this appeal is whether the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) ("UT") was entitled to reach the conclusion that the Appellant's claim for international protection failed because of his lack of credibility. At first sight such appeals are unlikely to succeed before this Court; indeed it is unlikely that permission to appeal would be granted. On closer analysis, it will become apparent that this was not a typical case about credibility. This was not a case which turned, for example, on the UT's observation of the Appellant's demeanour when giving live evidence before it, although there can be dangers with over-reliance on such observation anyway; or on the inherent implausibility of the Appellant's evidence; or on the fact that he had told lies or given inconsistent accounts at different times. The reason why the Appellant was not believed by the UT was that it considered that there were further steps he could, and should, have taken to adduce evidence which would corroborate his account.

The Appellant appeals against the decision of the UT, comprising UT Judge Norton-Taylor and Deputy UT Judge Jarvis, promulgated on 17 September 2021. In her order granting permission to appeal dated 28 July 2022, Nicola Davies LJ noted that the UT accepted significant aspects of the Appellant's case before finding against him on the issue of credibility on three core matters. She considered that the reasoning of the UT, which led to those adverse findings, required the scrutiny of this Court. There was therefore a compelling reason to permit the appeal to proceed.
At the hearing before this Court we heard submissions from Mr David Jones, who appeared with Mr David Sellwood for the Appellant, and from Ms Kathryn Howarth, who appeared for the Respondent. I express the Court's gratitude to them all for their written and oral submissions.

For the reasons set out in this judgment I have come to the conclusion that the UT erred in its approach to this case, in particular by applying what in substance was too high a standard of proof, when the law requires no more than a "reasonable degree of likelihood"; that in substance it required the Appellant to produce corroborative evidence to support various aspects of his account, when there is no requirement in law that there must be corroboration; and that, accordingly, the only conclusion that was reasonably open on the evidence before the UT, and this Court, is that the Appellant's claim to qualify as a refugee must succeed.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2023/216.html

Shamima Begum Immigration Status Ruling a Dark Stain on the UK Justice System

Although she was only 15 years old when she left the UK for Syria to join the Islamic State (ISIS), and despite finding there was “credible suspicion” that she was groomed and trafficked to Syria for sexual exploitation, yesterday the UK justice system upheld the government’s decision to strip Shamima Begum of her citizenship. When the Special Immigration Appeals Commission rejected Begum’s appeal, it was only the latest time British authorities failed to protect Begum. This includes the fact that authorities let her leave the UK.

The Commission ruled that the UK Home Secretary’s power to strip Begum of her citizenship was not limited by her likely being a child victim of trafficking, or that it leaves her de facto stateless. The Commission also acknowledged that “reasonable people will profoundly disagree with the Secretary of State,” but dismissed their objections as “wider society and political questions.”

Its decision comes roughly a year after the UK Supreme Court denied Begum the right to return to the UK to contest her citizenship revocation, despite being unable to have a fair hearing while detained in northeast Syria.

This leaves Begum in one of two detention camps holding thousands of women and their children as ISIS suspects without charge or trial. The dire conditions often amount to inhumane treatment and have reached the level of torture.

Read more: Yasmine Ahmed, Human Rights Watch, https://rb.gy/vr6moq

Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls

Suella Braverman, Home Secretary: Violence against women and girls (VAWG) are despicable crimes that must be tackled with a whole-of-society approach. These crimes are deeply harmful, not only because of the devasting impact they can have on victims, survivors, and their loved ones, but because of the harm they inflict on wider society. Domestic abuse alone affects 2.4 million adults every year. One in five cases of murder and manslaughter is domestic abuse-related, and a Home Office funded project found that there were 64 victim suicides following domestic abuse in the year to March 2022, although this is likely to be an underestimate. Families should never have to grieve loved ones who have lost their lives through domestic abuse-related murder, manslaughter and suicide.

This Government have made tackling violence against women and girls a key priority. The 2022 cross-Government tackling domestic abuse plan committed to investing over £230 million over three years. The plan complements the tackling violence against women and girls strategy, published in 2021, which committed to supporting victims and survivors with more than £300 million being invested in that year. The strategy aimed to ensure that women and girls are safe everywhere—at home, online, at work and on the streets. Together these commitments aim to transform the whole of society’s response to these crimes with actions to prevent abuse, support victims and pursue perpetrators, as well as to strengthen systems to respond to violence against women and girls.

But the fact remains that these crimes are still far too prevalent, and we need to go further.

Today, Monday 20th February, we have announced a package of measures that will bolster the work to hold perpetrators to account and better support victims. It is completely unacceptable that women and girls are still subject to these crimes and I am committed to tackling offenders and providing victims with the support and justice they deserve. I believe this type of crime can be prevented and I am taking action to reduce the terrible harm it causes. I want to ensure the publoc we are managing and targeting the most dangerous offenders.

Read more: Suella Braverman, Home Secretary, https://rb.gy/uwnlyg

Mueen-Uddin (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales)

The Appellant was born in Bangladesh (known at the time as ‘East Pakistan’) and later naturalised as a British citizen. During violence in 1971, when Bangladesh achieved independence from Pakistan, 18 intellectuals were murdered in Dhaka. In 1996, allegations were made in a channel 4 documentary accusing the Appellant of being involved in those murders. Later, in 2013, the Appellant was convicted in absentia and sentenced to death by the International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh of crimes against humanity. The Appellant did not take any part in that trial. He has always denied the allegations made against him and maintained his innocence.

In October 2019, the Commission for Countering Extremism Commission (a non-statutory body expert committee for the Home Office) published report entitled ‘Challenging Hateful Extremism’. The Report contained a footnote which referred to the Appellant’s conviction and suggested he had links with violence in 1971. The Appellant sued the Secretary of State for the Home Department for libel and infringement of Articles 5, 6 and 10 GDPR. At the preliminary hearing it was held that the Report contained defamatory allegations of fact and personal data. The High Court struck out the Appellant’s claim as an abuse of process. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision. The Appellant now appeals to the UK Supreme Court.

The issues are: This case is about whether the Court of Appeal was correct to strike out a defamation claim as an abuse of process. The UKSC is asked to decide:

1. Whether a foreign criminal conviction which a claimant did not have a full opportunity to contest was a relevant factor in showing that English proceedings which require determination of the same issues as those before the foreign criminal court are an abuse of process?

2. Are prior press publications of defamatory allegations admissible evidence of bad reputation in this context if such publications have taken place some months prior to the publication complained of and are uncontradicted by a successful claim for libel?

3. Can potential difficulties which the Respondent may have in proving the truth of the allegations which it had published about the conduct of the Appellant some 50 years ago be a relevant factor supporting a finding of abuse?

4. Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that a combination of partial aspects of the Hunter and Jameel abuse jurisdictions, none of which necessarily amount to abuse on its own, can properly ground a finding of abuse of process?

Permission to appeal be Granted