MPs
Urge Government to Suspend NHS Immigration Checks
MPs have urged the government to suspend NHS
charges and immigration checks during the coronavirus
crisis, and have warned that undocumented migrants are
dying at home because they are afraid to seek medical
care. A letter to the health secretary, Matt Hancock,
signed by 60 MPs warns that the government’s efforts
to respond to the pandemic are being undermined by the
legacy of its hostile environment policies. The letter
cites the case of a Filipino man, known only as Elvis,
who died on 8 April while self-isolating at home with
Covid-19 symptoms. He did not seek care “fearing that
he would be charged thousands of pounds for his
treatment, or that he would face immigration
enforcement if he tried to access care”, the letter
said. It added that the man’s wife also has the virus
but is not seeking help for the same reasons. Elvis’s
death came days after that of another man, known only
as Rey, according to human rights group Rapar.
The Kanlungan Filipino Consortium, which supports
vulnerable migrants from the Philippines, has said
there are many undocumented workers in the UK in a
similar situation. “They have lost their jobs due to
the lockdown and are ineligible for government
support,” said Susan Cueva, from the consortium. “They
often live in crowded conditions with other
undocumented workers and they are too scared to go to
a doctor or hospital.” Calls to stop NHS data-sharing
with the Home Office and suspend healthcare charges
for overseas visitors have been backed by the British
Medical Association, the Royal College of Physicians
and Doctors of the World.
Read more: Aaron Walawalkar, Guardian, https://is.gd/jimik2
California
is launching a $125m disaster relief fund for
undocumented immigrants, the first of its kind in the
nation, California governor Gavin Newsom announced
Wednesday. Undocumented immigrants make up 10% of
California’s workforce, Newsom said, but are
ineligible for unemployment insurance, pandemic
unemployment assistance and federal stimulus support.
“Regardless of your status, documented or
undocumented, there are people in need,” Newsom said.
“And this is a state that steps up, always to support
those in need, regardless of status.”
The
governor noted that there was an over representation
of the undocumented workforce in essential services,
“in the healthcare sector, in the agriculture and food
sector, in the manufacturing and logistics sector, and
in the construction sector.” “We feel a deep sense of
gratitude for people that are in fear of deportation
but are still addressing the essential needs of tens
of millions of Californians,” he said. More than 2
million undocumented immigrants live in California,
making up 6% of the state’s overall population. Last
year, undocumented immigrants paid $2.5bn in local and
state taxes, Newsom said. But still amid this crisis,
many find themselves in the impossible situation of
having to choose between healthcare and legal status,
or continuing essential work without protections.
Read
more: Vivian Ho, Guardian, https://is.gd/Qm9FE3t
Online
Petition: Access to Healthcare, Housing, Food For
All Undocumented/Destitute/Migrant Peoples
We the undersigned call upon the Prime Minister of the
UK and the Taoiseach of Ireland to use their vested
powers to instruct the British and Irish States to act
immediately and in all ways necessary so that ALL
undocumented people, destitute people and migrant
people in the legal process in both the UK and Ireland
are granted Status Now, as in Leave to Remain. In this
way every human, irrespective of their nationality or
citizenship, can access healthcare, housing, food and
the same sources of income from the State as everyone
else.
Everyone has the right to be in an environment where
they can follow the Public Health directives necessary
to limit COVID19 viral transmission to the absolute
minimum and to care for themselves, their loved ones
and their living and working communities. People
living in extreme poverty and/or destitution and/or
without immigration status in the UK or Ireland and/or
without access to the NHS or the Irish Health System:
Are unable to socially isolate as needed
Cannot access health care, and income and other social
support
Cannot contribute openly and without fear, to making
the population as safe as possible, alongside everyone
else
Migrant people who are in the legal system cannot keep
physically safe on their allowances, because those
allowances don’t amount to enough money to eat
healthily, or buy and apply appropriate cleaning
materials, and many are living in accommodation where
they cannot socially isolate as they may want and need
to.
All people who are destitute and/or undocumented and
living in the shadows fear what will happen to them if
they identify themselves, cannot access healthcare,
emergency shelter and food, nor report or seek
protection from domestic violence, rape, exploitation
and other abuses - levels of which are already rising.
It is imperative - being in everyone’s best interests
- that the basic needs of all are met.
You can sign the petition here: https://is.gd/dGBSHm
Approach
to be Taken in the Definition “Partner” in a
Deportation Case’
In the recent deportation case of Buci (Part 5A:
“partner”: Albania) [2020] UKUT 87 (IAC)('Buci') the
Upper Tribunal (Lane J (President) + Mandalia (Upper
Tribunal Judge)) has: (i) defined the meaning of
“partner” for the purposes of the exception contained
at sections 117C(5)/117D(1) of the Nationality,
Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; and (ii) clarified
that, even if the relationship relied upon is not with
a 'partner', it will still be necessary to consider
the effect of deportation on the other person.
Definition and Consideration of Effect. After
considering the definition of 'partner' in GEN 1.2 of
Appendix FM (Family members), the Upper Tribunal
stated, at paragraph 19: 'The starting position, we
find, is that anyone who satisfies the definition of
"partner" in GEN.1.2. should, as a general matter, be
regarded as being a "partner" for the purposes of Part
5A. Where a person does not fall within this
definition, the judge will need to undertake a broad
evaluative assessment of the relationship, having
regard to the factors...'
As to 'the factors', the Upper Tribunal said, at
paragraph 18: ‘The expression "partner" means a person
to whom one has a genuine emotional commitment, of the
same basic kind as one sees between spouses and civil
partners, albeit not necessarily characterised by
present cohabitation. A "partner" is not the same as a
friend, however strong the friendship may be. Nor is
an adolescent's or other young person's boyfriend or
girlfriend necessarily a "partner". The position may,
however, change if the relationship becomes
sufficiently serious and committed.' Even where the
other person to the relationship is not within the
definition of 'partner', the decision maker must go on
to consider the effect of deportation upon that
person. The Upper Tribunal summary provides that, at
(4): ‘Where, conversely, a relationship is not
categorised as that of partners, it will still be
necessary to consider the effect of deportation on the
other person, by reference to section 117C(6). In the
light of NA (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the
Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 662, it is the
substance of the relationship that needs to be
examined and, in this type of case, it will be
productive of error to draw too bright a line between
section 117C(5) and (6).’
Comment The definition statement in Buci of
'partner' is no doubt a welcome addition to the law.
But also, Buci now clarifies that decision makers
cannot ignore the relationship only because this does
not meet the definition of ‘partner’ under sections
117C(5)/117D; they have to make a rounded assessment
in order to consider whether the effect of deportation
would be so serious as to amount to a disproportionate
interference with Article 8 under s 117C(6).
Source: Ishrat Mahmud 33 Bedford Row, https://is.gd/wHk7yN
|
Online
Petition: Access to Healthcare, Housing, Food For
All Undocumented/Destitute/Migrant Peoples
We the undersigned call upon the Prime Minister of the
UK and the Taoiseach of Ireland to use their vested
powers to instruct the British and Irish States to act
immediately and in all ways necessary so that ALL
undocumented people, destitute people and migrant people
in the legal process in both the UK and Ireland are
granted Status Now, as in Leave to Remain. In this way
every human, irrespective of their nationality or
citizenship, can access healthcare, housing, food and
the same sources of income from the State as everyone
else.
Everyone has the right to be in an environment where
they can follow the Public Health directives necessary
to limit COVID19 viral transmission to the absolute
minimum and to care for themselves, their loved ones and
their living and working communities. People living in
extreme poverty and/or destitution and/or without
immigration status in the UK or Ireland and/or without
access to the NHS or the Irish Health System:
Are unable to socially isolate as needed
Cannot access health care, and income and other social
support
Cannot contribute openly and without fear, to making the
population as safe as possible, alongside everyone else
Migrant people who are in the legal system cannot keep
physically safe on their allowances, because those
allowances don’t amount to enough money to eat
healthily, or buy and apply appropriate cleaning
materials, and many are living in accommodation where
they cannot socially isolate as they may want and need
to.
All people who are destitute and/or undocumented and
living in the shadows fear what will happen to them if
they identify themselves, cannot access healthcare,
emergency shelter and food, nor report or seek
protection from domestic violence, rape, exploitation
and other abuses - levels of which are already rising.
It is imperative - being in everyone’s best interests -
that the basic needs of all are met.
You can sign the petition here: https://is.gd/dGBSHm
Many
Asylum-Seekers Survive on £5 a Day. Corona is a
Chance to Change This
Across society, voices demanding change are getting
louder. Once Covid-19 has been defeated, they say,
society, politics and the economy cannot revert to
business as usual. The same should be true of asylum and
integration. It has taken this crisis to show how much
we rely on the NHS and key workers. We owe them. As a
result of history and globalisation, a good number of
those shouldering this burden — and sometimes paying the
ultimate price — have origins outside the UK. Some had
to battle a system stacked against them; many still
don’t know their prospects longer term.
Faced with the emergency, the government quickly sought
to address some systemic challenges. It has allowed
online registration to claim asylum and has suspended
requirements to check in with local officials or
offices. The government has also halted evictions and
kept the borders open. Councils have been instructed to
find emergency accommodation for rough sleepers which
helps to shield the most vulnerable. This offers
breathing room. But the authorities should go further.
Many asylum-seekers cannot comply with Corona
guidelines. Living in basic shared accommodation, they
rely on £5 a day for travel, food and necessities. They
cannot afford enough sanitary products to wash their
hands frequently or disinfect communal areas; most
cannot afford books or to access the internet. This
threatens their right to an education, hinders access to
news and communication with service providers, and
jeopardises their physical and mental health. A modest
increase in benefits could help significantly.
Read more; Huffington Post, https://is.gd/A8TOBc
Due
to the coronavirus outbreak, many people may find it
difficult to support themselves or their family
members financially and may require help from the
government. However, if you have leave to remain
granted on the basis of your private and family life,
many will have “no recourse to public funds”
restriction attached with their leave to remain. This
means they are unable to obtain financial help from
the government.
The
Home Office have now updated their policy and have
stated if one of the following applies you may be
entitled to applying for a change of conditions to
your current leave:
If
your financial circumstances have changed since being
given permission to stay in the UK and you are no
longer able to provide food or housing for yourself or
your family
If
your child is at risk because of your very low income
If
you had financial problems when you first applied but
you did not provide evidence of this and you now want
to provide this evidence
In
order to qualify, your current leave to remain must be
giving under the following conditions:
You
must have leave to remain under the 10 year partner,
parent or private life route, where the applicant
claims that refusal of that application for leave to
remain would breach their rights (or the rights of
other specified persons) under ECHR Article 8 (the
right to respect for private and family life)
You
have leave to remain on the basis of other ECHR right.
You
can also be eligible to apply if you have leave to
remain under the 5 year partner/parent route. If you
are accepted you would be considered to have moved on
to the 10 year route to settlement and as such any
future applications for leave will be considered under
the 10 year route.
However,
when you come to reapply if you feel that you again
meet the criteria under the 5 year route you should be
aware that any leave you had previously accumulated
under the 5 year route will not count towards your new
5 year period.
Approach
to be Taken in the Definition “Partner” in a
Deportation Case’
In the recent deportation case of Buci (Part 5A:
“partner”: Albania) [2020] UKUT 87 (IAC)('Buci') the
Upper Tribunal (Lane J (President) + Mandalia (Upper
Tribunal Judge)) has: (i) defined the meaning of
“partner” for the purposes of the exception contained
at sections 117C(5)/117D(1) of the Nationality,
Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; and (ii) clarified
that, even if the relationship relied upon is not with
a 'partner', it will still be necessary to consider
the effect of deportation on the other person.
Definition and Consideration of Effect. After
considering the definition of 'partner' in GEN 1.2 of
Appendix FM (Family members), the Upper Tribunal
stated, at paragraph 19: 'The starting position, we
find, is that anyone who satisfies the definition of
"partner" in GEN.1.2. should, as a general matter, be
regarded as being a "partner" for the purposes of Part
5A. Where a person does not fall within this
definition, the judge will need to undertake a broad
evaluative assessment of the relationship, having
regard to the factors...'
Read more: Ishrat Mahmud 33 Bedford Row, https://is.gd/wHk7yN
General
Grounds for Refusal: Criminal Convictions, Public
Good, Character, Conduct and Associations
Criminal convictions and other signs of poor character
can, unsurprisingly, negatively affect applications
for leave to enter or remain in the UK. This has
always been so, but in December 2012 the rules were
changed to permanently ban entry of those with serious
convictions, other than in certain very narrow
circumstances, and to impose entry bans of various
lengths in other cases. Those caught out by these
rules over the years include former boxer Mike Tyson,
Duane “Dog the Bounty Hunter” Chapman, Tyler, the
Creator and perhaps OJ Simpson. By their nature,
blanket rules can give rise to harsh results,
individual hardship and injustice. Some of those
convicted of criminal offences, including some people
later revered, later redeem themselves in some way or
are convicted in dubious or exceptional circumstances.
They are nevertheless forbidden from entry to the UK.
In this post we look at the mandatory grounds for
refusal (“must be refused”) and further discretionary
grounds for refusal (“should normally be refused”) in
some cases involving lower level criminality. We also
look at the limited exceptions set out in Home Office
policy documents and the available case law.
Read more: Freemovement, https://is.gd/4zqvoy
|