UK People Seeking Asylum Forced to Live on £8.24 a Week

People fleeing war and seeking safety in the UK are forced to live on £8.24 a week under government support allowances. Amid a cost of living crisis, and what will be the longest recession this country has ever faced, people in our communities are struggling to feed their families. In some areas of the country, those seeking refuge are having to choose between a bus ticket, non-prescription medicine, baby supplies and food.

Under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, those seeking asylum should receive £39.63 per week; however, those placed in hotel accommodation are not eligible for that amount.

Living on £8.24 a week
The Scottish Refugee Council has reported that people placed in hotels are receiving even less – just £8.24 a week to cover transport, clothing, non-prescription medicine and other essentials such as supplies for children and babies.

Read more: Emma Guy, Each Oother, https://rb.gy/remjw6

Crisis In Legal Aid Provision Leaving Asylum Seekers in LImbo

Jo Wilding (SOAS) finds continuing crisis in legal aid provision for asylum seekers is leaving half of main applicants without a legal representative. Based on a Freedom of Information (FOI) response received last month from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), Jo Wilding estimates that the deficit between provision and need has now reached at least 25,000. This would mean that nearly half of the main applicants who claimed asylum in the year ending June 2022 did not have a legal aid representative.

Wilding said: "[C]lients are losing representation, either because of firms withdrawing from legal aid altogether or because their representatives will not do appeals work, and having to find new representation in a 'market' which already can accommodate only half of the demand from new applicants."

She notes that one of the largest immigration legal aid firms in England and Wales has now informed clients it will not take on any new appeals work. A number of other firms are doing the same or are closing, with the blog post highlighting particular problems in Yorkshire and in Wales.

Read more: EIN, https://rb.gy/qq7ow7

Abdul Mateen Omar Ali - Immigration Detention Was Unlawful

This judgement addresses consequential matters arising from the main judgment in these proceedings which was handed down on 12 April 2022, [2022] EWHC 866 (QB). It relates to the Appellant's appeal from the Central London County Court's dismissal of his false imprisonment claim in respect of his immigration detention from 17 December 2014 – 24 March 2015.
In the main judgment I concluded that HHJ Baucher ("the Judge") had erred: in her self-directions when concluding that the Respondent had made sufficient enquiries into the suitability of the Appellant's asylum claim for the Detained Fast Track ("DFT") ("Ground 1"); her approach to the Respondent's failure to comply with the Detained Fast Track Processes ("the DFT Policy") in respect of supporting documentation supplied by the Appellant ("Ground 2"); and in the basis for her finding that it was open to the Respondent to conclude that the claim was suitable for the DFT ("Ground 3"). I also found that the Judge's alternative conclusion that only nominal damages were payable if the detention was unlawful was flawed ("Ground 4"). I went on to find that the Judge had applied the wrong test in deciding that the order setting aside the dismissal of the Appellant's First-tier Tribunal appeal did not render his detention unlawful from the date of the appeal decision (Ground 6).

Impact on the lawfulness of the Appellant's detention

As I have determined that no reasonable decision-maker could have concluded that the Appellant's asylum claim was suitable for the DFT once sufficient enquiries had been made, it follows that the entirety of his detention pursuant to the DFT and the related appeals process was unlawful. I have already indicated that if this conclusion was reached it would follow that the entirety of his detention was unlawful (para 90, main judgment). Mr Seifert has not taken issue with that proposition.

Overall substantive conclusions

It follows from my conclusions that the whole of the Appellant's time in immigration detention was unlawful and he is entitled to compensatory damages in respect of the same.

Read the full judgement, https://rb.gy/xseshj

Stronger Action Needed to End ‘Legal Limbo’ of Statelessness

Statelessness is “a pervasive and grave human rights violation”, “Deprived of the fundamental right to a nationality, those who have been born or left stateless face a devastating legal limbo. They are prevented from accessing their basic human rights and from fully participating in society. Their lives are marked by exclusion, deprivation, and marginalization.”

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, FilippoGrandi made the appeal as Friday marked the eighth anniversary of #IBelong, a campaign launched by the UN refugee agency, UNHCR, aimed at ending stateless within a decade, or by 2024.

Read more: UN News, https://rb.gy/zti36n

Home Office staffing shortage
Key to being able to make timely decisions is the recruitment and retention of well-trained asylum decision-makers. The more people able to make decisions, the more decisions should be made. In 2016, there was a significant fall in the number of people making decisions on asylum. For the financial year 2014/15, there were 409 Home Office civil servants carrying out interviews and making asylum decisions. But, according to the Home Office’s transparency statistics, this fell by more than a third over the following year to just 260 people. The Home Office’s statistics show the impact this had. In 2015 the department made 28,623 decisions on asylum applications. This fell by a quarter to 21,269 in 2017 and has never recovered to previous levels.

Dropping the Six Month Service Standard
Following a report by the Home Affairs Select Committee that was critical of the delays in asylum decision-making, in April 2014 the Home Office introduced a service standard that 98% of straightforward asylum applications should be decided within six months. Of the claims that were submitted from March 2014 to the end of the year (including those deemed non-straightforward), 8% received a decision within six months.

The six-month service standard was removed in January 2019, and Caroline Nokes, the Immigration Minister at the time, set out the reasons in a letter to the Home Affairs Select Committee. While there were many issues with the six-month service standard, especially for the increasing number of people whose claim was classified as “non-straightforward”, removing it had an immediate impact on the speed of decision-making. Of asylum claims submitted in the second quarter of 2018, 56% received a decision within six months. For those submitted in the next quarter, only 25.6% received a decision within that timeframe. That statistic has not risen above that level since.

Leaving the EU’s Dublin System
From the data, it’s quite clear that something happened around the time the UK left the Dublin system. This was set out in the Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules (HC 1043) that came into force at 11pm on 31 December 2020. These changes broadened the UK’s domestic legislation on when asylum claims could be treated inadmissible, in particular when the Home Office believes someone should and could have applied for asylum elsewhere.

Alongside the changes to the rules, there were new processes put in place and updated inadmissibility guidance was published. As part of this process, if it is believed someone’s claim could potentially be inadmissible, then the individual is given a “notice of intent” while the Home Office gathers more evidence and also tries to get an agreement with a third country for a transfer. An actual inadmissibility decision can only be served once that agreement is in place.

There is no set timescale in place for how long the Home Office has to seek this agreement.
Read more: Freemovement, https://rb.gy/zfdxpl

Record High Referrals for Potential Victims of Modern Slavery

On 3 November 2022, the latest quarterly release of statistics on modern slavery claims was published, covering 1 July to 30 September this year. During this period, 4,586 people were referred into the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) or via the Duty to Notify as potential victims of modern slavery.

This is a 38% increase from the same period last year (3,317), a 10% increase on the previous quarter, and the highest number of referrals since the NRM was introduced in 2009. Of those, 75% were referred to the Single Competent Authority (SCA) and 25% to the Immigration Enforcement Competent Authority (IECA). 79% of referrals were male and 20% female.

The top nationalities of people referred into the NRM in this quarter are Albanian, British and Eritrean. For Albanian nationals, 75% of referrals were for adults. For UK nationals, 80% of referrals were for children.

Read more: Freemovement, https://rb.gy/x0xmco