No-Deportations - Residence Papers for All

                               News & Views Monday 8th December to Sunday 14th December 2014

Assessing Credibility of an Asylum Claim - Benefit of Doubt

(1) In assessing the credibility of an asylum claim, the benefit of the doubt ("TBOD"), as discussed in paragraphs 203 and 204 of the 1979 UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, is not to be regarded as a rule of law. It is a general guideline, expressed in the Handbook in defeasible and contingent terms.

(2) Although the Handbook confines TBOD to the end point of a credibility assessment ("After the applicant has made a genuine effort to substantiate his story": paragraph 203), TBOD is not, in fact, so limited. Its potential to be used at earlier stages is not, however, to be understood as requiring TBOD to be given to each and every item of evidence, in isolation. What is involved is simply no more than an acceptance that in respect of every asserted fact when there is doubt, the lower standard entails that it should not be rejected and should rather continue to be kept in mind as a possibility at least until the end when the question of risk is posed in relation to the evidence in the round.

(3) Correctly viewed, therefore, TBOD adds nothing of substance to the lower standard of proof, which as construed by the Court of Appeal in Karanakaran v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] 3 All ER 449, affords a "positive role for uncertainty".

(4) The proposition in paragraph 219 of the Handbook, that when assessing the evidence of minors there may need to be a "liberal application of the benefit of the doubt" is also not to be regarded as a rule of law or, indeed, a statement of universal application. As a reminder about what the examiner should bear in mind at the end point of an assessment of credibility, the proposition adds nothing of substance to the lower standard of proof. If, for example, an applicant possesses the same maturity as an adult, it may not be appropriate to resort to a liberal application of TBOD. (5) Article 4(5) of the Qualification Directive is confined to setting out the conditions under which there will be no need for corroboration or "confirmation" of evidence. Although (unlike the Handbook) Article 4(5) does set out conditions that are rules of law, properly read, it is not to be compared with the scope of TBOD as described above.


State Relies too Much on 'Quasi-Monopoly' of G4S and Serco
The Government has become too reliant on a small number of "quasi-monopoly" private sector contractors to provide a swathe of public services, spending watchdogs have warned. The Commons Public Accounts Committee said the GovernmentÕs dependence was shown by Whitehall departments continuing to hand work to Serco and G4S while they were being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) for over-charging by tens of millions of pounds.

Its report warned: ÒQuasi-monopoly suppliers are emerging who squeeze out competition, often from smaller companies with specific experience. Competition for Government business should bring with it a constant pressure to innovate and improve. But for competition to be meaningful, there must be real consequences for contractors who fail to deliver and the realistic prospect that other companies can step in.
Read more: Andrew Grice, Indpendent, 10/12/14


Appeal to Keep Murad Khan in the UK

A campaign is underway to prevent a young Afghan refugee who's made a new life here being deported back to his own country.

If ever there were a positive example of immigration to the UK, then Murad Khan would be it. An asylum seeker living in Suffolk, he is currently facing removal to Afghanistan, a place which he no longer considers his home and a place where he would still be in great danger were he to be forced to return there.

Murad arrived in the UK aged 14 following some terrible and traumatic personal experiences that no person, let alone a young child, should ever have to go through. Murad's father and uncle were both Police Officers with the Afghanistan National Police - this led to them being murdered by the Taliban in front of a young Murad. Deciding that it was not safe for him to stay in Afghanistan, he fled to the UK, arriving here in the back of a lorry and immediately, and legally, seeking asylum - which was accepted on a temporary basis until he turned 18. He has no surviving family that he is aware of.

Read more here . . . and to sign his petition go here . . . .


20 Longest Recorded Lengths of Detention Q3 2014

As at 30 September 2014, National Statistics show that of the 3,378 people currently detained solely under Immigration Act powers in immigration removal centres, short term holding facilities and pre departure accommodation, the 20 longest recorded lengths of detention were:

Length of detention days

Male detainees

1,701Days - 4.6 years

1

1,607 Days - 4.4 years

1

1,265 Days - 3.4 years

1

1,118 Days - 3 years

1

1,091 Days - 2.9 years

1

1,085 Days - 2.8 years

1

1,014 Days - 2.7 years

1

983 Days - 2.6 years

1

966 Days - 2.6 years

1

939 Days - 2.5 years

1

903 Days - 2.4 years

1

865 Days - 2.3 years

1

802 Days - 2.1 years

1

791 Days - 2.1 years

1

777 Days - 2.1 years

1

769 Days - 2.1 years

1

742 Days - 2 years

1

739 Days - 2 years

1

728 Days - 1.9 years

1

722 Days - 1.9 years

1

Figures exclude people detained under both criminal and immigration powers. They relate to the most recent period of sole detention. The period of detention starts when a person first enters the Home Office detetention estate. If the person is then moved from a removal centre to a police cell or Prison Service establishment, this period of stay will be included if the detention is solely under Immigration Act powers. They are provisional and may be subject to change.
An individual may be held and remain in immigration detention for a variety of reasons, including reasons within and outside the control of the Home Office. Those outside the control of the Home Office may include but are not exclusively: individual compliance with immigration procedures, including providing appropriate paperwork; and barriers to removal relating to the individual’s personal circumstances or circumstances related to the intended country of return. Reasons within the control of the Home Office include: where the Home Office has assessed it is not in the public interest to release the individual pending removal. The Home Office has a statutory duty to review detention at least every 28 days to ensure that the detained person continues to meet the published detention criteria and that detention is still the most appropriate course.


Goodbye CIGs/ OGNs - Hello Thematic Documents
To streamline the process for the provision of country information and policy guidance, the existing country of origin information reports and operational guidance notes are being phased out and replaced by separate thematic documents providing both country information and guidance on the most common categories of claim from the countries which attract the most applications.
James Brokenshire: Hansard page 57, Wednesday, 10 December 2014


ILPA Immigration Update 64 and Latest Information Sheets
Immigration Act - Some of the more controversial provisions of the Act were brought into force in late October, including the new provisions restricting appeal rights and on removal. However these provisions will only apply to selected groups, namely "foreign criminals" as defined and students (and their families). There is no indication when the provisions will be rolled out more generally. New procedure rules have been issued for the Immigration Tribunal, which take account of the changes. A code of practice for landlords, who are now, if resident in particular regions, required to carry out immigration checks on tenants, has also been issued. These housing checks were commenced in parts of the West Midlands (Birmingham, Walsall, Sandwell, Dudley and Wolverhampton) on 1 December 2014, with no date set as yet for when the checks will become nationwide.
Read more: <> Update 64

British citizenship may be granted, and may be taken away. Prior to coming into force of the Immigration Act 2014, the government was prevented from stripping a person of British citizenship if this would leave the person stateless, i.e. without a nationality (see further ILPA's recent Information Sheet: Statelessness 2). The Immigration Act 2014 has changed that position.

The new power - By section 66 of the Act, the Home Secretary can deprive someone of their British citizenship, even if this would leave the person stateless, if s/he has acted in a manner that is "seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom."

This new power was the subject of much controversy and lengthy debate in Parliament, which resulted in the power being slightly tempered by the concession that the Home Secretary must have "reasonable grounds" for believing that the person could avail of another country's citizenship before she could strip them of their British nationality. However this begs the question of what are "reasonable grounds for belief"; the requirement falls short of the Home Secretary needing to be certain that the person will be able to obtain another nationality.
Read more: · <> Immigration Act: Deprivation of Citizenship

Article 8 provides that everyone has a right to family life and to a private life. It encompasses relationships with family members, social and cultural life, friendships, and so on. Article 8 protects these rights by limiting the State's power to interfere with them, for example by preventing someone from living with their family members by removing them from the jurisdiction. It stipulates that any interference must be for a specified aim, necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the aim in question.

This Article frequently comes into play in immigration cases where there is a balance to be struck between the State's right to control its borders and the rights of those who have family or private life connections within the UK. Over the past decade, the UK Courts have frequently found the Home Office to be acting in breach of this Article, by separating families and thereby breaching their human rights. For example, by denying a person leave to remain in the UK without having due regard to the effect that this would have on the person's UK-based children.
Read more: · <>Immigration Act: Article 8

Kind regards, Shauna Gillan / Legal Officer
Immigration Law Practitioners' Association                  
Website: <> www.ilpa.org.uk


Judge Resigns After Making Racist Remark About Victim
Richard Hollingworth sitting as a district judge, was hearing a case of harassment at Preston magistrates court when he told officials to bring the victim, Deepa Patel, to court because he wanted to complete his sentencing that afternoon. The prosecutor, Rachel Parker, said she thought it was too short notice and didn't know whether Patel could get the time off work.

Hollingworth asked where she worked, and Parker said she did not know. The judge replied: "It won't be a problem. She won't be working anywhere important where she can't get the time off. She'll only be working in a shop or an off-licence." Parker asked what he meant, and Hollingworth replied: "With a name like Patel, and her ethnic background, she won't be working anywhere important where she can't get the time off. So that's what we'll do." At that point Parker withdrew from the case, telling the judge: "I am professionally embarrassed. I cannot prosecute this case."
Read more: Nigel Bunyan, Guardian, <>07/12/14


IPCC Investigating Conduct Of Immigration Enforcement Officers
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is undertaking a criminal investigation into the conduct of three immigration enforcement officers during an operation and subsequent trial into alleged sham marriages. At a trial at Inner London Crown Court on 22 October this year a judge dismissed the charges against all seven defendants on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to disclose material to the defence and that three officers had acted in 'bad faith'. The judge said he was satisfied that officers at the heart of this prosecution had deliberately concealed important evidence and lied on oath.

The Home Office referred the matter to the IPCC and an investigation is under way. The IPCC will be examining the actions of officers during the course of the operation, which began in 2011, and during the trial, including their handling of exhibits and documentation, the disclosure of investigative material and evidence given at Inner London Crown Court. Investigators are going through over 100 boxes of material, gathering correspondence, trial bundles and transcripts, and considering relevant Home Office policies.

IPCC Commissioner Jennifer Izekor said: "We will be conducting a thorough, independent investigation into the serious matters the collapse of this trial has raised. We are assessing a substantial amount of material as part of our initial enquiries.



Last updated 12 December, 2014