A Few More Nails in the Coffins for Refused Asylum Seekers
Reforming support for failed asylum seekers and other illegal migrants
The Government is seeking your views on how to further torture de-humanize any one whom the UK Government does not recognize as a refugee; they want and will!
Abolish completely: Section 4(1)(a) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 allows support to be provided to persons placed on temporary admission and section 4(1)(b) allows support to be provided to those released from immigration detention.
Severely restrict: Section 4(2) of the 1999 Act
17. Section 4(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 allows support to be provided to failed asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute and who meet conditions set out in regulations.5 The regulations allow the provision of support if the person is destitute and temporarily unable to leave the UK.
Amend Section 95 so as to starve children out of the UK
Section 95 of the 1999 Act allows section 95 support to continue after the asylum claim has been finally determined if the asylum seeker has with them a dependent child (who was a child at some point prior to the asylum claim being finally determined).6 As of 31 March 2015, an estimated 2,9007 families (around 10,100 people; approximately 33 per cent of the total on section 95 support) were supported on this basis. In 2014-15, such support cost an estimated £45 million.
This is unsatisfactory. Continuing to provide the same level of assistance once the asylum claim has been refused and this refusal has been upheld by the courts, regardless of whether the failed asylum seeker and their dependants can leave the UK, is wrong in principle. It creates an incentive to remain in the UK unlawfully. It provides no incentive to comply with the law.
Failed asylum seekers should be expected to leave the UK where it is possible for them to do so. We are otherwise providing a form of public subsidy for illegal migrants who could and should leave the UK. This should end.
You can download the consultation <>here . . . .
Continuing Conflicts that Create Refugees - July 2015
Deteriorated Situations: Cameroon, Chad, Egypt, Kashmir, Turkey, Yemen
July saw a worsening of the situation in Yemen, where nearly 2,000 civilians have been killed since the war started in March, while in Turkey a dramatic escalation in violence led to the collapse of the state's two-year-old ceasefire with Kurdish insurgents, and the launch of attacks on Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIL) positions in Syria. Meanwhile, a surge in clashes in Kashmir aggravated tensions between India and Pakistan, attacks by IS-linked militants escalated in Egypt, and Cameroon and Chad were both targeted by deadly and potentially destabilising Boko Haram raids and bombings. In contrast, the Colombian government and FARC rebels took steps to bring the peace process back on course after a series of setbacks, and South Sudan is faced with a unique chance to negotiate an end to its devastating conflict. Lastly, the nuclear agreement reached between the P5+1/EU3+3 and Iran in mid-July, provided it is approved by lawmakers on all sides, could mark a historic victory for diplomatic efforts in the face of entrenched global security challenges.
The conflict in Yemen deepened despite hopes for a Ramadan ceasefire. The UN-announced civilian death toll approached 1,900 as of 28 July, with 202 deaths in the previous twelve days and humanitarians warning of an impending famine. In mid-July, anti-Huthi/Saleh fighters backed by the Saudi-led coalition launched a major military offensive, retaking Aden and surrounding areas. In turn, the Huthis threatened a significant military operation in response to increased airstrikes. Absent a concerted diplomatic push for compromise between the warring parties, this latest offensive risks fuelling and prolonging Yemen's violent war.
The fragile 2013 ceasefire between Turkey and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) collapsed following a dramatic increase in violence in Kurdish areas in the south east, and on 24 July Ankara started bombing PKK positions in northern Iraq. After a suicide bomb attack in Suruç near the Syrian border on 20 July, which left 32 people dead and was blamed on the Islamic State, Ankara launched airstrikes on IS positions in Syria on 25 July. Framing its actions against the PKK and IS as a "synchronised fight against terror", the government, which also opened its bases to U.S.-coalition led forces fighting IS, has significantly scaled up Turkey's involvement in the Syrian conflict, while PKK-related violence looks likely to worsen. ?
Elsewhere, militant violence in Egypt continued to escalate following the late June assassination of the general prosecutor, with authorities launching airstrikes in the aftermath of deadly attacks by IS-linked militants in Sinai. Also, Nigeria's Boko Haram (BH) militant sect launched several deadly attacks in neighbouring Chad and Cameroon, and the Line of Control dividing Kashmir and the Working Boundary dividing Pakistan and Indian-administered Kashmir witnessed a surge of clashes.
In a positive step forward, a conflict resolution opportunity emerged in South Sudan after months of stalemate. On 24 July, regional and international actors including IGAD, the African Union, the UN, China, and the U.S. endorsed a draft peace agreement for South Sudan's ongoing conflict. In a new report "Keeping Faith with the IGAD Peace Process", Crisis Group called for the international community to support a realistic, regionally centred strategy to end the war, underpinned by coordinated threats and inducements.
Meanwhile, Colombia's peace process re-emerged from its deepest crisis yet as the FARC announced a new temporary, unilateral ceasefire starting 20 July, and the government suspended its bombardments on guerrilla camps. This followed a joint announcement on 12 July to accelerate confidence-building measures and speed up the negotiations. In addition to these efforts, Crisis Group's new report argues that the government needs to broaden the social and political base of the talks, and reinforce the message that peace will benefit all Colombians.
After twelve years of crisis and 22 months of arduous negotiations, Iran and the P5+1/EU3+3 reached a historic agreement in Vienna on 14 July. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) establishes the most rigorous verification and inspection mechanism ever negotiated and rolls back one of the most extensive sanctions regimes ever imposed on any country. In a statement welcoming the agreement, Crisis Group calls for domestic parties in the U.S. and Iran to approve the deal, and to preserve momentum to ensure its implementation.
Improved Situations: Colombia
August 2015 Outlook
Conflict Risk Alert: Turkey, Yemen
Conflict Resolution Opportunity: Iran, South Sudan
Download the full report <> CW/July/144
|
We Are Going To Be Loud And We Will Shut It Down!
All Out to Surround Yarl's Wood IRC
Saturday 8th August - Assemble 1:00 pm
Twinwoods Business Park, Thurleigh Road, MK44 1
End All Immigration Detention
Stop the Scapegoating of Immigrants
Yarl's Wood detention centre is the central battleground in the fight for the rights of women and immigrant rights in Britain. It is the site of the most consistent and sustained struggle against the racism and inhumanity of immigration detention. Saturday's demonstration is the fourth since April, each one building a stronger movement inside and outside, determined to shut down Yarl's Wood. Our struggle is an inspiration to everyone who wants to see real action for justice and freedom and a real fight against racism, the divide-and-rule scapegoating of immigrants, and the politics of endless austerity.
Location: We are gathering at the entrance to Twinwoods Business Park - which houses Yarl's Wood (<http://files.ctctcdn.com/545e7db9001/b672a0ad-9b18-41be-b2ad-1490a606178e.pdf>useful map/directions) we will quite quickly be moving off to march around to the back of the business park where Yarl's Wood is located. If you arrive after we have marched, take the public bridleway to the left (when facing Twinwoods) of the business park and follow the fencing around to the back.
Timing: We will start the rally out front at 1pm; between 1.30pm and 2pm we will march via the public bridleway to the back of the centre where the women inside are ready to join our protest with theirs, where we can see and hear each other. We aim to be back out front to depart by 5pm at the latest.
Weather: Its set to be hot and sunny, there is very little/no shade where we are so take precautions. We are out in the heat for a long time, drink lots of water and take rests when you need to (plenty of grass to sit on)
Terrain: We will be walking around to the back of Yarl's Wood via a very pitted and bumpy bridleway, sometimes through tall grass. Luckily it looks set to be dry so no mud but high heals will still cause difficulty! It is not ideal terrain for somebody in a wheelchair but is possible with help and there will be lots of people willing to help if needed. Please keep an eye where you are walking, there are some deep holes hidden in the grass.
Facilities: There are no shops/conveniences close by - the nearest village is still a 30 min walk away, but we have hired a portaloo which will be located at the front of the business park. There are also toilets on the coaches.
Parking/Driving: There is no parking on site at all, the nearest village is Milton Ernest but there is limited parking there and its still a 30 min walk up a hill. We are advising people to Park in Bedford and get our Bedford coach (see point below) or cycle from Bedford.
Bedford Coach: We have a coach at Bedford train station for 12.30 that will take people to and from Yarls Wood (leaving YW at 5pm), if that coach fills and there are more people it will make a second trip - we just ask for donations on the day to cover the costs of this very necessary coach!
London Coach info: Meet at 10am, Euston station, on Eversholt street. When you get there go to Karen who will tick you off the list and give you your coach ticket (dont worry about printing the eventbrite tickets, we just need your name/the person who booked the tickets name). First coaches will leave at 10.30am.
London Waiting List/Overflow: If you or your friends want to come but don't have a ticket, tell them to come to Euston Station for 10.30am, we will have a large group of people going on from Euston to St Pancras to get the train to Bedford utilizing group save tickets (£9.50) and then getting our coach from Bedford - no one will be left behind!
Mini Bus/Coach Organisers: If you are organising a coach/minibus please take note of the parking difficulties, it may mean dropping people at Yarls Wood then the driver parking in Bedford and getting a taxi (£8/9). For coaches there is a layby close by where they can park. It's a really long, hot day so please make sure you have enough water/snacks for people. Make sure and get a phone number for your driver in case the demo finishes early. It's a good idea to label your coach and advise everyone to remember your driver because there will be many coaches on the day! Email us on mfj@ueaa.net if you need any support/information.
Police: There is likely to be a number of police there on the day, we advise people to not speak to them, you do not have to respond to any questions, the MFJ organiser dealing with the police on the day is Tony Gard, you can direct them to him.
Important MFJ contact numbers for on the day logistics (before the demo starts!): Antonia 07930 302 263 & Karen 07535 637 147
T-Shirts for Feedom!: Please bring along T-shirts to customize with freedom messages in solidarity with the women inside Yarl's Wood who are defying threats and intimidation and continuing to wear their T-Shirts and clothes demanding freedom. There will be fabric pens on the London coaches and at the start of the demo.
BRING: signs, drums, things to make noise with, banners, flags - things that can be raised up high are good because its easier for the women to see them.
The Facebook event has hit over 1000, the women inside have been organising and planning for the day, we know there are coaches from London, Manchester, Birmingham and minibuses from Notts, Leeds, Cardiff and car pooling from many other places so rest your voice -
We Are Going To Be Loud And We Will Shut It Down!
Movement for Justice...
We march today, we march tomorrow, and we keep marching to build a new Britain: diverse, integrated and equal. We aim to win. We tell the truth about racism, sexism and anti-gay bigotry and the growing inequalities within our society. We believe that every human being is entitled to a job, to education, to food, shelter and the other necessities of life, so that every one of us can live in dignity, proud to be who we are, encouraged and able to fulfil our hopes and aspirations.
Sender: Movement for Justice karen@movementforjustice-org.ccsend.com
How Abstruse Immigration Law has Become!
Iqbal & Ors, R (Application Of) v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 838 (30 July 2015): There are three interrelated appeals all concerned with the proper construction of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971. This section has the effect of automatically extending a person's leave to remain in the UK pending the determination of an application to vary the period of leave, but only if the application to vary is made before the original leave expires. In each case the appellant made an application before leave expired which was treated as invalid by the Secretary of State because not presented in accordance with the rules. In each case there was a further application made after leave had expired, which was unsuccessful. In each case, if the original invalid application had triggered the automatic extension, the application would have had to be considered differently and may well have succeeded. The appellants submit that on a proper construction of section 3C, leave had been extended notwithstanding that the original applications were invalid under the rules.
All three appeals failed, however Lord Justice Elias had this to say:
I cannot, however, leave this judgment without observing how abstruse the law has become in this area. That is always a weakness but particularly so when so many immigrants are litigants in person with precious little, if any, understanding of English law. It is telling that in this case the Secretary of State had changed her view as to the proper interpretation of section 3C, an important provision which affects the legal rights of immigrants in numerous ways. Also it is difficult to identify precisely which laws were in force at any particular time. We were told that the website will now reveal an up to date set of rules, and that is an important and welcome development. But without analysing the relevant changes, it can be hard to discern which rules were in place at an earlier stage when particular disputed decisions were taken. The overriding impression given is that the rules are changed in a piecemeal way to deal with particular problems as and when they arise. But firefighting is not the way to produce a rational or consistent set of rules; and the process does not sit easily with the rule of law, and in particular the principle that litigants should be able to discover the laws applicable to their circumstances. There is an overwhelming need for a rationalisation and simplification of this area of law.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/838.html
Ahmed, R (on the application of) v SSHD
(EEA/s 10 appeal rights: effect (IJR) [2015] UKUT 436 (IAC) (24 July 2015)
[Obiter: (1) The fact that P (who is not an EEA national) has a right of appeal under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 against an EEA decision to refuse P a residence card does not have the effect of precluding the Secretary of State from removing P under section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
(2) Section 92(4)(b) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (as it was before the changes made by the Immigration Act 2014) does not afford P an in-country right of appeal against the section 10 decision, where the issue of whether P is a member of the family of an EEA national is a matter of dispute.
(3) The factual issue of whether P is a family member falls to be determined by the First-tier Tribunal on appeal by P against the EEA decision and/or the section 10 decision, whether or not P may by then be outside the United Kingdom. A judicial review by P of the decision to remove and/or the setting of removal directions will not succeed where P's application is based on marriage to an EEA national, if the Secretary of State reasonably suspects P of being a party to a marriage of convenience.]
A. The scenario
1. A scenario currently encountered with some frequency by the Upper Tribunal in the course of its immigration judicial review work is as follows. P, who is not an EEA national, and who is in the United Kingdom with limited leave granted by the respondent under the Immigration Acts (or whose leave has already expired) marries Q, an EEA national who is in the United Kingdom exercising Treaty rights (or purporting to do so). Relying on the marriage, P applies to the respondent for a residence card under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, as confirmation of a right of residence in the United Kingdom as the family member of Q. At some point, P's limited leave has expired, with the result that, so far as the respondent is concerned, P is an overstayer. This may have happened before or after the marriage and/or P's application for a residence card.
2. Having interviewed P and Q on separate occasions, the respondent considers that the marriage is "a marriage of convenience", with the result that, so far as the respondent is concerned, P is not a family member of Q because regulation 2 of the EEA Regulations provides that a "'spouse' does not include a party to a marriage of convenience". The respondent therefore refuses P's application for a residence card.
3. Since P is an overstayer, the respondent makes a decision under section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (as it was before amendment by the Immigration Act 2014) to remove P from the United Kingdom. The section 10 decision can occur before or after the refusal of P's application. The respondent sets directions for P's removal.
4. P brings judicial review proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of removal on the basis that P has a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal under the EEA Regulations, which is suspensive of P's removal. P may also contend that there is a separate right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the section 10 removal decision, which P says is also suspensive of removal.
5. As can be seen, there is scope in this scenario for a number of variants (including some that we have not mentioned). The central questions, however, remain the same; namely (a) whether a right of appeal against the refusal of the residence card and/or or against the section 10 decision is suspensive; and (b) whether P's contention that the marriage is not one of convenience is a "precedent fact" to be determined by the Upper Tribunal in the judicial review proceedings, particularly if the answer to (a) is in the negative and it is intended to remove P before the issue of the marriage has been decided by the First-tier Tribunal in the course of P's appeal.
Decision
55. For these reasons, this application is dismissed.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2015/436.html
|