Asylum
Seekers Endangered By Coronavirus Lockdown
Asylum seekers are still being required to go to
Liverpool to hand in documents despite official
guidelines advising people to avoid travel
during the coronavirus outbreak. Currently,
anyone seeking asylum in the UK is required to
lodge their submissions at the Liverpool Home
Office – a process that can take as little as
five minutes. Campaigners are now demanding
these requirements are lifted while the outbreak
is ongoing, warning that lives are being risked
every day the current arrangement remains in
place. Positive Action in Housing, the refugee
and migrant homelessness charity, warned that
failing to take immediate action to protect
asylum seekers was “a public health disaster
waiting to happen”.
Robina Quereshi, the charity’s director, said:
“"One of our service users, Nadiyah, 48, is
travelling to Liverpool by train today to lodge
her new asylum application at the Liverpool Home
Office. She has serious health problems and is a
high-risk category. “This is the third time she
has made this journey. Her lawyer phoned the
Home Office in Liverpool and suggested that, at
least while the coronavirus epidemic was in
progress, clients should be allowed to post
their documents. The Home Office categorically
refused to consider this. "It is utter madness
in the current situation to make people travel
via public transport at this time. All that is
involved is that an envelope of evidence is
handed in. This takes a maximum of five
minutes.”
Read More: Scotlands Third Voice, https://is.gd/GAWS6N
Failed
Asylum Seeker's Daughter 'at High Risk of
FGM
A has lived in the UK from the age of three. If
she is removed to Bahrain or Sudan, she will be
isolated and unsupported. She is unable to speak
Arabic fluently, limiting her ability to
communicate freely with her mother and seek help
independently. Additionally, A has no
recollection of living in Bahrain and has very
limited knowledge of her African heritage as she
has been raised with British culture and norms.
A is unaware of the practice of Female Genital
Mutilation (FGM) or that she is at risk of this
procedure. The father has played no role in the
family for several years. He is currently
believed to be in military prison in Bahrain and
is stated to support the practice of FGM. The
mother reported that it was the father’s
intention to take A to Sudan to undergo the
procedure and that he last mentioned this to her
in 2015. As such the father cannot be considered
a protective factor against the risk of FGM.
The mother, suffers from disabling PTSD and is
very fearful of returning to Bahrain or Sudan.
She does not have the resolve to protect A from
family pressure surrounding FGM. The negative
impact on our client’s mental health if the
family were to be removed would render her less
able to provide protection for A, particularly
in the context of family and cultural
expectations as well as the patriarchal
hierarchy in Bahrain and Sudan.
Read more: Gherson Immigration,
https://is.gd/FdO1F6
Returning
Residents: Have you lost your Indefinite
Leave to Remain/Enter, and can you get it
back?
Indefinite Leave to Remain (“ILR”) and
Indefinite Leave to Enter (“ILE”) carry the same
rights, i.e. those granted ILR or ILE have no
time restrictions on their stay in the UK.
There is no time limit on the validity of
ILR/ILE status, although it is important to
understand that this status can be lost under
certain conditions.
How is ILR/ILE lost? In order to maintain your
ILR/ILE status you must continue to reside in
the UK. If you hold ILR/ILE but move away and
spend a continuous period of two or more years
outside of the UK, your status will lapse and
cease to be valid. This is the case even if you
still hold your ILR/ILE Biometric Residence
Permit (“BRP”) or passport vignette – your
status can cease to exist regardless of your
possession of such a document.
Absences of less than two years will not result
in the loss of ILR/ILE, provided that the holder
returns to the UK within the two-year period,
and enters the country for the purpose of
settlement. Factors such as how many days you
are spending in the UK, what ties and
connections you have to the UK (family,
property, business) and whether you are spending
the majority of your time in another country
will all matter and can affect a UK Border
Officer’s decision on whether your status should
remain intact upon reentry.
Additionally, ILR/ILE can be revoked in less
common circumstances such as if the status was
obtained by deception, or if the holder is being
deported.
How can ILR/ILE be regained?
As above, those who have been granted ILR/ILE
and have subsequently been absent from the UK
for two consecutive years or longer will be
deemed to no longer hold ILR/ILE.
Upon their desired return to the UK, they are
known as ‘returning residents’ and must make an
entry clearance application evidencing strong
ties to the UK, and the intention to make the UK
their permanent home once more. Evidencing this
will depend on a range of factors, which must be
considered carefully in each individual case.
Read more: Gherson Immigration,
https://is.gd/lbCz0d
Extra-Statutory Immigration Policies
Should Be Interpreted
(1) Extra-statutory immigration
policies should be interpreted in accordance
with the objective meaning that a reasonable and
literate person would ascribe to them.
(2) The Home Office discretionary
leave policy should not be read as saying that,
once it is decided that an individual continues
to qualify for further leave on the same basis
as before, he must automatically be granted
indefinite leave to remain after 6 years'
continuous discretionary leave unless at the
date of decision he falls within the restricted
leave policy. The word ‘normally' is used
advisedly, so as to maintain the maximum
possible discretion. Where a policy governs what
is to happen in the normal case, it remains open
to the decision-maker to take a different course
in a particular case, provided he or she takes
account of the policy and has reason for
considering the case to be abnormal.
(3) There are four categories of
cases in which supplementary reasons, supplied
in response to an actual or threatened legal
challenge, may be relied upon: first, to
‘elucidate' reasons previously given; secondly,
to constitute a ‘fresh decision'; thirdly, to
consider material not before the decision-maker
at the time when the earlier decision was taken;
and fourthly, to acknowledge that the original
decision was flawed but simultaneously make a
new one to the same effect.
(4) Even if the original decision is
held to be unlawful, relief must be withheld
pursuant to s.31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act
1981 if a further decision shows that it is
highly likely that the outcome would not have
been substantially different, unless the proviso
in s.31(2B) applies.
Frontex 330 Charter Flights January
Through December 2019
330 flights - total number of returnees 10,903,
Countries of destination were: Afghanistan,
Albania, Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Bangladesh, Benin, Bosnia & Herzegovina,
Cameroon, Colombia, Congo DR, Côte d'Ivoire,
Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia,
Georgia, Ghana, Guinea, Iraq, Kenya, Kosovo*,
Lebanon, Mauritania, Moldova, Mongolia,
Montenegro, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Pakistan,
Russia, Senegal, Serbia, Somalia, Sudan, The
Gambia, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.
European
Border and Coast Guard Agency, also known as
Frontex, is an agency of the European Union
headquartered in Warsaw, Poland, tasked with
border control of the European Schengen Area,
in coordination with the border and coast
guards of Schengen Area member states.
|
No-One
Can ‘Self Isolate’ From a Friend’s Sofa, a
Park Bench or a Shop Doorway"
RAPAR is calling upon the State to suspend all
detention and deportation activities, including
legal processes. We also call upon the
State to extend an invitation to all
undocumented, displaced and destitute people,
i.e. those most acutely vulnerable to COVID-19,
to come forward for safe housing , without fear
of being snatched or locked up, and so that they
may contribute, openly, to making the population
as safe as possible.
Obviously, no one will be able to act in their
own - and everyone else’s - best interests if
their basic needs are unmet. RAPAR Chair
of Trustees, Dr Rhetta Moran says: “We are
acutely aware of the risk COVID-19 poses both to
our Members and to the wider population.
This is why we are reaching out in this way,
right now. Our 2010 position that
questioned that Government’s ‘Big Society’ a
decade ago is being borne out. There is,
hopefully, still time to act with compassion and
wisdom. At last night’s televised press
conference, the Government insisted that social
contact be minimised immediately and, at the
same time, insisted that our schools remain
open. This is not rational. It is
physical contact that needs to be minimised, not
social, educational, legal or political
communication. It is within our capacities
to offer these resources to one another while
minimising physical contact - let’s do the
possible.”
Suspend all detention and deportation processes
Invite all undocumented or displaced or
destitute people to come forward, without fear
Identify empty buildings with capacity for
creating self-contained units where homeless
people can live, with local community support,
now
RAPAR https://is.gd/nqeKhO
Supreme
Court Rules to Remove MS to Pakistan
Would Breach Article 4
The appellant is a Pakistan national born in
June 1995. He entered the United Kingdom on a
visit visa in July 2011 when he was just 16. His
case is that he was tricked into travelling to
the UK by a promise that he would be furthering
his education but that he was delivered to a
restaurant owner and made to work long hours
unpaid. He was able to leave this job for a
succession of very low paid jobs in Asian food
outlets which he was directed to by adult
co-workers. He was arrested by the police in
September 2012 and claimed asylum. His social
worker referred him to the Competent Authority
as a potential victim of trafficking, but the
authority held in February 2013 that he had not
been brought to the UK for the purpose of forced
service. The respondent rejected his claim for
asylum and issued removal directions. The Upper
Tribunal held that the appellant could challenge
the negative trafficking decision in the appeal,
had not been granted his rights under ECAT, and
that his removal would be in breach of article 4
ECHR. The Court of Appeal allowed the
respondent’s appeal, holding that the Upper
Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction in
remaking the trafficking decision and then erred
in using its remade decision for the wrong
purpose. MS withdrew his appeal but the Equality
and Human Rights Commission applies to be
substituted for the appellant.
The issue: 1. Where the Competent Authority for
the purposes of the European Convention on
Action against Trafficking in Human Beings
(ECAT) has determined that a person is not a
victim of trafficking, what effect does this
have on the jurisdiction of a tribunal hearing
an appeal against a decision to remove that
person to decide whether a person is a victim of
trafficking?
2. Where a tribunal decides that a person is the
victim of trafficking, what impact does this
have on the lawfulness of the decision to remove
the person by reference to article 4 of the
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and
applicable policy?
The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the
appeal. In the present case, the UT decided that
the Appellant was indeed a victim of
trafficking. Once brought to the attention of
police, the Appellant was removed from the risk
of further exploitation, while the UT held that
he would not be at risk of re-trafficking if
returned to Pakistan. However, there had not yet
been an effective investigation into the breach
of article 4, as the police took no action after
referring him to social services. Such an
investigation is required and cannot take place
if the Appellant is removed to Pakistan. The
appeal is therefore allowed and the UT’s
decision on this ground restored
Read more: https://is.gd/qQzHLK
Immigration
Health Surcharge to Increase
Rishi Sunak, The Chancellor of the Exchequer,
delivered the 2020 Budget, outlining some
significant reforms to support public services,
businesses and individuals in the UK. The Budget
is a financial statement set by HM Treasury each
year outlining the nation’s finances and the
Government’s proposed changes to taxation,
revenue and expenditure. This year’s
Budget is set against the global outbreak of
COVID-19 (Corona Virus) and the UK Government’s
pledge to protect health and security despite
the increasing economic disruption the virus is
causing.
The statement released confirms an increase in
the Immigration Health Surcharge (“IHS”) from
the current level of £400 per year to £624 per
year. This change will be implemented in October
2020 and will apply to all non-EEA nationals and
their relevant family members who make
immigration applications to come and live in the
UK. As before, the mandatory IHS fee will only
apply to those migrants who will remain in the
UK for more than 6 months or to those who are
extending their leave. The changes also
include an increase in the normally discounted
IHS fee for students and Youth Mobility Scheme
migrants from £300 to £470 per year.
Unlike the current scheme, children under the
age of 18 will not be required to pay the full
IHS fee. The surcharge will be capped at £470
per year for all child migrants in recognition
of the financial impact that the fee increase
will have on family groups. From January 2021,
the surcharge will also be applicable, under the
same conditions, to all EEA migrants arriving in
the UK under the proposed new immigration
system. The Office for Budget
Responsibility (OBR) forecasts the increase in
the IHS surcharge will generate additional
revenue of approximately £150 million in the
2020-21 financial year.
Source: Gherson Immigration,
https://is.gd/UGL8xS
“Genuine
chance of being engaged” test for
retaining EU worker status found unlawful
EU citizens do not have to prove that they have
a “genuine chance of being engaged” in order to
retain worker status under European Union law,
the Upper Tribunal has held. The case is KH v
Bury MBC and SSWP [2020] UKUT 50 (AAC).
Martin Williams of the Child Poverty Action
Group brought the case on behalf of KH, a Polish
citizen. KH needed to prove that she retained
the status of worker after being unemployed for
over six months, in order to keep her housing
benefit. Standing in her way were the EEA
Regulations, which provide (in both the 2006 and
2016 versions) that someone in this position
must “provide evidence that [s]he is seeking
employment and has a genuine chance of being
engaged”.
KH argued that this test was unlawful. All the
Citizens’ Rights Directive requires of people to
keep their worker status is “being in duly
recorded involuntary employment and registration
as a jobseeker at the relevant employment
office”. The UK adding on a genuine chance of
being engaged test undermined the directive.
Upper Tribunal Judge Wright agreed:
As a matter of EU law, when it is properly
understood, having a genuine chance of being
engaged in employment is no part of the test for
retained worker status…
It follows, according to paragraph 26 of the
judgment, that regulations 6(2)(b)(ii) and
6(2)(c)(ii) of the EEA Regulations 2016, and
their equivalents in the 2006 Regulations, are
“unlawful and of no legal effect”.
https://is.gd/LS9snw
|