US:
Coronavirus Economic Relief Package Excludes
Undocumented Workers
The United States government’s US$2 trillion
economic package passed in response to COVID-19
contains important protections but will leave
many low-income people unable to afford life
necessities, Human Rights Watch said today. The
urgency of the crisis demanded immediate if
imperfect relief, but Congress should address
these shortcomings in subsequent legislation.
The emergency Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security (CARES) Act, passed on March
27, 2020, includes more worker and family
protections than earlier proposals. However, the
relief is temporary, despite the expected
long-term impact of COVID-19 on the economy, and
excludes informal and undocumented taxpaying
workers. It also provides billions of dollars in
public support to large companies without
sufficient public oversight or restrictions.
“The CARES Act is an important step, but not
enough money will get to people who most need
it, and it may not tide people over for very
long,” said Lena Simet, senior poverty and
inequality researcher at Human Rights Watch.
“Congress should enact other measures to reduce
people’s bills, and extend these benefits to
informal workers, or many will struggle to keep
their families housed and fed.”
Read more: Human Rights Watch, https://is.gd/fpdmlf
You Can
Now Raise New Matters Before the Upper
Tribunal
In Birch (Precariousness and mistake; new
matters : Jamaica) [2020] UKUT 86 (IAC) the
Upper Tribunal looks at the “precarious leave”
provisions where a person wrongly believed that
they had indefinite leave to remain. It also
identifies a loophole – a term not used without
hesitation, but it is difficult to see the
legislative intention for the difference – which
allows appellants to introduce “new matters” in
appeals before the Upper Tribunal where this
would not otherwise have been possible before
the First-tier.
Precarious leave in human rights cases: Where a
person is relying on family or private life
rights in an immigration case, the general rule
is that those rights will carry less weight if
the person’s immigration status was “precarious”
at the time the private or family life was being
developed. This is now set out in primary
legislation at section 117B(5) of the
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002,
among a list of factors to which judges must
have regard in immigration appeals. What does
“precarious” mean? Anything less than settled
status, or indefinite leave to remain. So held
the Supreme Court in Rhuppiah v SSHD [2018] UKSC
58.
Relationships created and life lived whilst a
person is temporarily in the UK should therefore
be accorded less significance in the context of
a human rights claim than if they had no limit
on their leave to remain. But what if a person
thinks they have indefinite leave to remain, but
in fact hold a lesser more impermanent form of
leave?
Read more: Freemovement, https://is.gd/UHFiuH
European
Commissioner Calls For Release of
Immigration Detainees During Covid-19 Crisis
Dunja Mijatović, Commissioner for Human
Rights: “I call on all Council of Europe
member states to review the situation of
rejected asylum seekers and irregular migrants
in immigration detention, and to release them to
the maximum extent possible.
In the face of the global Covid-19 pandemic,
many member states have had to suspend forced
returns of persons no longer authorised to stay
on their territories, including so-called Dublin
returns, and it is unclear when these might be
resumed. Under human rights law, immigration
detention for the purpose of such returns can
only be lawful as long as it is feasible that
return can indeed take place. This prospect is
clearly not in sight in many cases at the
moment. Furthermore, immigration detention
facilities generally provide poor opportunities
for social distancing and other measures to
protect against Covid-19 infection for migrants
and staff.
Releases have been reported in several member
states, including Belgium, Spain, the
Netherlands and the United Kingdom, with the
latter country having just announced a review of
the situation of all those in immigration
detention. It is now important that this process
continues and that other member states follow
suit. The release of the most vulnerable should
be prioritised. Since the immigration detention
of children, whether unaccompanied or with their
families, is never in their best interest, they
should be released immediately. The authorities
of member states should also refrain from
issuing new detention orders to persons who are
unlikely to be removed in the near future.
Member states should also ensure that those
released from detention are given appropriate
access to accommodation and basic services,
including health care. This is necessary to
safeguard their dignity and also to protect
public health in member states.
The release of immigration detainees is only one
measure member states can take during the
Covid-19 pandemic to protect the rights of
persons deprived of their liberty more
generally, as well as those of asylum seekers
and migrants”
Council of Europe, https://is.gd/MNpEK7
Portugal to
Treat Migrants as Residents During
Coronavirus Pandemic
All migrants and asylum seekers currently living
in Portugal are to be treated as permanent
residents during the coronavirus crisis, the
government has announced.
The changes, announced on Saturday, will ensure
foreigners who are still in the middle of
applying for official documentation can still
access life-saving public services.
They will need only to provide evidence of an
ongoing residency request before they can use
the country’s health service, welfare system,
bank accounts, and work and rental contracts.
Claudio Veloso, spokesperson for the Ministry of
Internal Affairs, said the new rules would apply
from Monday.
"People should not be deprived of their rights
to health and public service just because their
application has not yet been processed," he told
the Reuters news agency. "In these exceptional
times, the rights of migrants must be
guaranteed."
Source: https://is.gd/Ixa9J1
|
Another
Cutback in the Rights of Migrant Victims Of
Domestic Abuse
The case of MY (refusal of human rights claim)
Pakistan [2020] UKUT 89 (IAC) represents yet
another cutback in the rights of migrant victims
of domestic abuse, and in appeal rights more
generally. The Upper Tribunal has ruled that the
Home Office can simply refuse to engage with a
human rights claim which is not made in the
particular way the department wants it made.
When refusing to engage with a human rights
claim submitted in the “wrong” format, the Home
Office is not refusing that claim, and therefore
there is no right of appeal. Some migrants will
have to make very difficult decisions as a
result.
Who has a right of appeal? Before diving into
the case and its consequences, a quick recap on
section 82 of the Immigration Act 2014. Pursuant
to that section: (1) A person (“P”) may appeal
to the Tribunal where— (a) the Secretary of
State has decided to refuse a protection claim
made by P, (b) the Secretary of State has
decided to refuse a human rights claim made by
P, or (c) the Secretary of State has decided to
revoke P’s protection status
It is also worth reiterating that the Home
Office does not consider an application for
leave to remain on the basis of domestic abuse
to be a human rights claim.
Read more: Freemovement, https://is.gd/zFXamz
High
Court Orders Home Secretary to House Asylum
Seeker Due to Covid-19
The High Court has ordered the Home Secretary to
give a homeless former asylum seeker
accommodation and support to self-isolate during
the coronavirus pandemic.
The urgent injunction came after an Asylum
Support Tribunal judge urged the Home Office to
house the young man who was sleeping in a park
and begging to survive. She had asked the Home
Office how destitute asylum-seekers could be
refused accommodation when they cannot travel or
leave the UK because of Covid-19. Despite the
pandemic, Home Office officials have not
announced that denials of accommodation to
destitute asylum-seekers are suspended.
The injunction was granted to a young man from
the Horn of Africa. After months of
homelessness, Duncan Lewis helped him ask the
Home Office for temporary accommodation. We
argued that as a former asylum-seeker he needed
to be housed to help him prepare fresh
representations to stay in the UK. Immigration
officials refused on the grounds that he needed
to make the asylum submissions first. By the
time he appealed to the Tribunal, the Government
had called on everyone to stay at home. Asylum
Support Judge Verity-Smith directed that that
the appeal would be allowed because the Covid-19
pandemic meant the asylum-seeker could not
travel or leave the UK, and should instead be
socially isolating. The judge gave the Home
Office a few days to defend the case.
The Home Office immediately withdrew their
decision, but still did not accommodate the
young man. He was forced to go on sleeping in
the park. So a claim for judicial review was
launched, with an urgent request for an order to
the immigration officials to find him a place to
stay. Yesterday 26 March 2020, Lieven J granted
that request, saying that our client “is in a
desperate situation with the onset of Covid-19.
He cannot return to [his country of origin] and
he is supposed to be socially isolating. The
balance of convenience plainly lies in granting
interim relief.”
This case is helpful to show that given the
current Covid-19 pandemic, destitute failed
asylum seekers are eligible for Section 4 Asylum
Support, even those without outstanding further
submissions.
Dunvsn Lewis: https://is.gd/LJ6dLj
Home Office
Put Hold on Evicting Asylum Seekers During
Lockdown
The Home Office will stop evicting asylum
seekers from government accommodation for the
next three months while the UK remains in
coronavirus lockdown, the British Red Cross has
said. Home Office minister Chris Philp wrote to
the charity on Friday to confirm that people
would not be asked to leave their asylum
accommodation once their claim or appeal had
been decided.
The move, which will be reviewed in June this
year, comes in response to measures introduced
this week ensuring people do not leave their
homes unnecessarily to prevent the spread of
Covid-19. In a letter to the charity, Philp
said: “The practical outcome is that those who
would ordinarily have their support stopped
because their asylum claim or appeal has been
rejected, will remain accommodated.” He said
that those who had been granted refugee status -
and so would normally be required to make their
own arrangements - would also be able to remain
in their current accommodation. “I expect this
decision to considerably relieve pressures on
local authorities,” he added.
Read more: Aaron Walawalkar, Guardian, https://is.gd/bc7FKO
Upper
Tribunal Says No Duty of Candour on Home
Office in Statutory Appeals
In Nimo (appeals: duty of disclosure : Ghana)
[2020] UKUT 88 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal,
consisting of Mr Justice Lane and Mr Ockelton,
has held that the duty of candour applying to
parties in judicial review proceedings does not
apply in statutory appeals and there is no
obligation in marriage of convenience cases for
the Home Office to disclose Form ICD.4605, which
sets out the interviewer’s comments: (1) In an
immigration appeal, the Secretary of State’s
duty of disclosure is not knowingly to mislead:
CM (EM country guidance; disclosure) Zimbabwe CG
[2013] UKUT 59, citing R v SSHD ex parte
Kerrouche No 1[1997] Imm AR 610. (2) The Upper
Tribunal was wrong to hold in Miah
(interviewer’s comments; disclosure; fairness)
[2014] UKUT 515 that, in every appeal involving
an alleged marriage of convenience, the
interviewer’s comments in the Secretary of
State’s form ICD.4605 must be disclosed to the
appellant and the Tribunal. No such general
requirement is imposed by the respondent’s duty
of disclosure or by rule 24 of the Tribunal
Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and
Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014.
Although the tribunal does not say so (rather
unhelpfully) there is still surely an obligation
on the Home Office to serve verbatim interview
notes, as had occurred in this case. The common
law system of case precedence does not formally
apply in tribunal proceedings but judges are
normally loathe to simply reverse an earlier
decision just because they disagree with it.
Apparently the McCloskey Exception applies here.
Read more: Freemovement, https://is.gd/kLp6fC
|