UK
Spouse/Partner Visas - Access to Benefits
Spouse visas are granted on the condition that
the successful applicant can have’ No recourse
to public funds (NRFP)’ in the UK. There is
often confusion around what is meant by ‘public
funds’ and what benefits fall under this
definition, with many migrants are worried about
the possibility of jeopardising their
immigration status by claiming certain benefits.
In this article we outline the rules on access
to benefits for non-EEA spouses in UK, and
answer some of their key questions.
What benefits can be claimed on a UK
spouse/partner visa?
‘Public funds’ does not include benefits that
are based on National Insurance contributions.
Benefits to which a person is entitled as a
result of National Insurance contributions
include:
contribution-based jobseeker’s allowance;
guardian’s allowance;
incapacity benefit;
contribution based Employment and Support
Allowance (ESA);
maternity allowance;
retirement pension;
statutory maternity sick pay;
statutory sickness pay;
widow’s benefit and bereavement benefit.
Whilst these are the main benefits that can be
claimed by those on a UK spouse visa, this is
not an exhaustive list. If you are in any doubt
you should check the definition of public funds
in Paragraph 6 of the Immigration Rules.
Read more: Jack Freeland, McGill & Co, https://is.gd/h79Ev8
Changes
to Home Office Asylum & Resettlement
Policy and Practice in Response to
Coronavirus
Whilst there has been no formal announcement
about reporting requirements, we are aware that
many people have received SMS messages from the
Home Office informing them that their reporting
conditions have been suspended until further
notice. It is likely that decisions to
suspend reporting conditions are being taken on
a case by case basis.
Assisted Voluntary Returns Service Has
Been Put On Hold
The Home Office have confirmed that their
Assisted Voluntary Returns Service has been put
on hold due to operational and logistical
challenges. They will continue to
register an interest from people who wish to
return, and seek to offer other forms of support
to people wanting to return to their country of
origin.
Some People Allowed to Remain In Asylum
Accommodation Past the 28 Day Period
Whilst there has been no formal announcement on
the 28-day move-on period, we are aware that
asylum accommodation providers are allowing some
newly-recognised refugees to stay in
accommodation past the normal 28 days notice
period. It is likely this is being done on a
case-by-case basis as the Home Office has
instructed accommodation providers to alert them
of any cases of people who are exhibiting
symptoms and/or need to self-isolate, and
therefore need to stay in their accommodation.
We are also aware that the Home Office is
engaging with local authorities to assess the
impact of the current situation on their
capacity to provide housing assistance and other
services.
All Resettlement Travel Suspended
The UNHCR has temporarily suspended resettlement
travel for refugees. UNHCR will continue
to work in refugee-hosting countries to ensure
that the processing of resettlement cases
continues. The suspension of travel
is a temporary measure and they hope to resume
full resettlement travel as soon as logistics
permit.
Screening Interviewees, Do Not Have To
Physically Attend the Asylum Screening Unit tn
Croydon
The Home Office have cancelled some screening
interviews and are working on a new system for
asylum claims to be registered without the need
to physically attend the Asylum Screening Unit
in Croydon. Further details on the new
system will be posted here once they become
available.
Substantive Asylum Interviews Paused
The Home Office have paused substantive asylum
interviews and are currently exploring
alternative options to manage these going
forward. Further details will be posted here
once they are made available.
No Requirement to Attend Liverpool for
Further Submissions
The Home Office have confirmed that they have
suspended the requirement to attend the Further
Submissions Unit in Liverpool in order to lodge
a further submission.It is now possible to send
further submissions by post or email
This information from Refugee Council: https://is.gd/oFAARI
Woman
Held at Yarl’s Wood IRC Tests Positive For
Coronavirus
The Home Office confirmed the diagnosis on
Sunday 22/03/2020, and said the woman had been
placed in isolation at the Bedfordshire facility
after showing symptoms. No other staff or
detainees have tested positive for Covid-19, the
Home Office added. The charity Women For Refugee
Women said many of the detainees inside the
facility had underlying health conditions, which
could put them more at risk if they are
infected. “The Home Office is putting already
vulnerable women at risk through its chaotic and
inhumane system of detention,” the charity’s
director Natasha Walter said. It is time to
close the detention centre, and ensure that
every individual receives the support they need
to protect themselves and others during this
pandemic.”
Yarl’s Wood IRC, which is located near Milton
Ernest, north of Bedford, houses women and adult
family groups awaiting immigration clearance.
One woman, who has been in the centre for more
than a fortnight, said: “Now they are taking
precautions, but they were taking no precautions
until yesterday. So right now everyone is
panicking. We know there is a pandemic going on
and here we are not being given the means to
protect ourselves.”
Detainees arriving at immigration removal
centres are medically assessed by a nurse within
two hours of their arrival and a doctor within
24 hours, the Home Office said.
Read more: Shropshire Star, https://is.gd/60nIje
Home Office Release 300 From Detention
Centres Amid Covid-19 Pandemic
Release follows legal action that argues Home
Office is failing to protect immigration
detainees. The Home Office has released almost
300 people from detention centres in the last
few days because of the Covid-19 pandemic, the
Guardian has learned. The speed and scale of the
release is unprecedented in recent years.
Detainees and charities estimate that more than
a quarter of those currently locked up have been
set free. The release comes in the wake of a
legal action launched last week which argued
that the Home Office had failed to protect
immigration detainees from the coronavirus
outbreak and failed to identify which detainees
were at particular risk of serious harm or death
if they do contract the virus due to their age
or underlying health conditions.
It called for the release of all those who are
particularly vulnerable and for all detainees to
be tested, along with the suspension of all new
detentions. The action warns even a short delay
could have “catastrophic consequences”. It is
believed that more than 900 people are currently
in immigration detention.
The Home Office provided a response to the legal
action to the high court out of hours on Friday.
After receiving the Home Office submissions, Mr
Justice Swift made an order on Friday night that
a half-day hearing should be held next Wednesday
to determine whether or not to grant the
emergency measures requested in the legal
challenge by the charity Detention Action and a
vulnerable detainee who suffers from
hypertension, which experts say doubles the risk
of death if Covid-19 is contracted.
Read more: Diane Taylor, Guardian, https://is.gd/MCyyWB
|
High
Court Rejects Call to Free 736 Detainees at
Risk From Coronavirus
The high court has rejected calls to free
hundreds of immigration detainees who, lawyers
and human rights activists say, are at risk from
Covid-19 while behind bars. The ruling,
following a hearing over Skype on Wednesday, was
handed down in response to an urgent legal
challenge from Detention Action. The legal
action asked for the release of hundreds of
detainees who are particularly vulnerable to
serious illness or death if they contract the
virus because of particular health conditions,
and also for the release of those from about 50
countries to which the Home Office is currently
unable to remove people because of the pandemic.
The two judges – Dame Victoria Sharp, president
of the Queen’s Bench division, and Mr Justice
Swift – came down strongly on the side of the
Home Office and highlighted the range of
measures already being implemented by the home
secretary, Priti Patel.
Read more: Diane Taylor, Guardian, https://is.gd/EoiFfd
Charter
Flights: Wild West of Immigration Law
The recent charter ight to Jamaica received
signicant interest from the media and fuelled a
polarised public debate. To those opposing the
ight, it represented all that was wrong with a
proudly hostile environment; embracing a ‘deport
rst, ask questions later’ policy. They argued it
embodied a government already accused of being
institutionally racist in the leaked Windrush
lessons learned review. For those on the other
side of the fence, it became the poster child
for an untamed judiciary meddling in political
decisions and failing to respect the best
interests of the public.
There were a number of dierent legal challenges
taking place on the day before the charter ight.
One of these culminated in a Court of Appeal
injunction on behalf of the NGO Detention Action
to stop the Home Oce deporting anyone detained
at the Heathrow immigration detention centres.
The basis of this challenge was the failure to
provide working mobile phone SIM cards to
detainees, which resulted in them being unable
to access legal advice in the days leading up to
the ight. Fifty people were scheduled to depart
on the charter ight on 11 February and the
injunction prevented the removal of
approximately 25 people. The signicance of this
court order is magnied by the individual cases
also issued the day before the ight.
Emotions run high in deportation cases, for
obvious reasons. It is a politically incendiary
area of law, in which the ripple eects are
profound. The Jamaican charter ight case was
billed by the government as being a clear-cut
case of dangerous men with no basis of stay in
the UK, who were being deported as a punishment
for their heinous crimes. But the reality is
less black and white. We
need to start by unpacking the idea that the
‘Jamaica 50’ – as they became collectively known
– were all hardened, dangerouscriminals whose
cases had been fully adjudicated.
Read more: Maria Thomas, https://is.gd/ggxOEN
Million
Undocumented Migrants Could Go Hungry
Approximately a million undocumented migrants
living under the radar in the UK could be at
risk not only of contracting Covid-19 but also
of starvation because of the crisis created by
the pandemic, charities have warned. Nobody
knows exactly how many of these migrants are
currently in the UK, as the Home Office does not
have comprehensive records of their whereabouts.
This group includes asylum seekers whose claims
the Home Office has rejected but who are fearful
of returning to their home countries and
temporary workers whose visas have expired.
A report published in November 2019 by the Pew
Research Center, a Washington thinktank,
estimates that there could be between 800,000
and 1.2 million of these migrants currently in
the UK. Asylum seekers with an active claim
receive meagre support from the Home Office –
£37.75 per week – to buy food and other
essentials and no-choice accommodation. However,
the vast majority of those whose cases have been
refused receive no support at all. They are not
allowed to work and survive thanks to a network
of charities who provide survival packages of
cooked meals at day centres, food parcels,
secondhand clothing and supermarket vouchers.
However, these charities have closed their day
centres because of the pandemic.
Read more: Diane Taylor, Guardian, https://is.gd/OVjC2w
UNHCR:
Access to Territory For Persons In Need Of
International Protection in the Context of
Coronavirus
This paper sets out key legal considerations,
based on international refugee and human rights
law, on access to territory for persons seeking
international protection in the context of
measures taken by States to restrict the entry
of non-nationals for the protection of public
health in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It
reconfirms that while States may put in place
measures which may include a health screening or
testing of persons seeking international
protection upon entry and/or putting them in
quarantine, such measures may not result in
denying them an effective opportunity to seek
asylum or result in refoulement.
States are entitled to take measures to
ascertain and manage risks to public health,
including risks that could arise in connection
with non-nationals arriving at their border.
Such measures must be non-discriminatory as well
as necessary, proportionate and reasonable to
the aim of protecting public health. In response
to the COVID-19 pandemic States have, or are
considering putting in place public health
measures such as the screening of travellers on
arrival and the use of quarantine for persons
who have been identified as suffering from the
disease or who may have been exposed to the
virus. Such efforts, multilateral or national,
are directed at containing this infectious
disease and preventing its spread.
However, imposing a blanket measure to preclude
the admission of refugees or asylum-seekers, or
of those of a particular nationality or
nationalities, without evidence of a health risk
and without measures to protect against
refoulement, would be discriminatory and would
not meet international standards, in particular
as linked to the principle of nonrefoulement. In
case health risks are identified in the case of
individual or a group of refugees or
asylum-seekers, other measures could be taken,
such as testing and/or quarantine, which would
enable authorities to manage the arrival of
asylum-seekers in a safe manner, while
respecting the principle of non-refoulement.
Denial of access to territory without safeguards
to protect against refoulement cannot be
justified on the grounds of any health risk.
Read more: Ref World, https://is.gd/iftyHX
Coronavirus:
Prisons/IRC's Other Prescribed Places of
Detention Guidance
1. any prisoner or detainee with a new,
continuous cough or a high temperature should be
placed in protective isolation for 7 days
2. if a member of staff or visitor becomes
unwell on site with a new, continuous cough or a
high temperature, they should go home
3. staff, prisoners and visitors should be
reminded to wash their hands for 20 seconds more
frequently and catch coughs and sneezes in
tissues
4.frequently clean and disinfect objects and
surfaces that are touched regularly, using your
standard cleaning products
5. prisoners or detainees who have a new,
continuous cough or a high temperature but are
clinically well enough to remain in prescribed
places of detention (PPDs) do not need to be
transferred to hospital
6. confirmed cases of coronavirus (COVID-19)
should be notified by prison or immigration
removal centre (IRC) healthcare teams as soon as
possible to local Public Health England (PHE)
Health Protection Teams (HPT)
7. people who are severely unwell may be
transferred to appropriate healthcare facilities
with usual escorts and following advice on safe
transfers
8. staff should wear specified personal
protective equipment (PPE) for activities
requiring sustained close contact with possible
cases (see below for detail)
9. if facing multiple cases of those displaying
symptoms, ‘cohorting’, or the gathering of
potentially infected cases into a designated
area, may be necessary
10. PPD leaders should be assessing their estate
for suitable isolation and cohorting provision
Read a lot more: https://is.gd/bUUl6X
|