Hosted by www.ijjo.org

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 12 | Appeals: Right to Appeal and Representation 18 Home Office. Further Steps to Cut Asylum Abuse — Three Countries Added to List of Designated Countries. Press Release, 24 October 2005. 19 A process by which the IND decides whether there are still any grounds for believing that the child or former child is still in need of protection (under either the ECHR or in some cases the Refugee Convention). 20 Ibid, Endnote 12, para 11. 21 By 24 October 2005 this list included Albania, Brazil, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Ecuador, Ghana, India, Jamaica, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Nigeria, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro (including Kosovo), South Africa, Sri Lanka, and Ukraine. 22 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, s94. 23 The IND did not collect statistics on the number of former unaccompanied or separated children granted leave as the result of the Active Review Process. 24 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, s82(2)(d). 25 ECHR, Article 8. 26 ECHR, Article 3. 27 Arguments based on Article 8 of the ECHR which required a grant of leave which was not provided for under the Immigration Rules HC 395 were not likely to succeed unless there were truly exceptional circumstances, as in Huang v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 105 where the Court of Appeal held that the Government had taken the need to comply with the ECHR into account when drafting these rules. 28 Immigration Rules HC 395, para 353. 29 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, s94 as amended by subsequent orders. 30 Albania, Bulgaria, Serbia and Montenegro (including Kosovo), Jamaica, Macedonia, Moldova, Romania, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Ukraine, and India and for a time to Bangladesh. 31 Interview with Samar Tasselli, a case worker at Stockport Law Centre, 2004. 32 API 1/2003 Humanitarian Protection and Discretionary Leave, 1 April 2003. 33 Immigration Rules HC 395, para 346. 34 One of the young people interviewed for the purposes of this research. 35 Legal Services Commission. Immigration Specification. April 2004. For example, since 1 April 2004, solicitors have only been entitled to five hours of funding by the Legal Services Commission prior to an initial decision unless it agrees to an extension on the grounds that further funding is reasonable and will move the case forward. 36 The Legal Help Scheme funds the initial preparation for making an application for asylum. 37 The Controlled Legal Representation Scheme funds representation at asylum appeals. 38 To name but a few such firms: Coker Vis., Edwards Duthie & Glazer Delmar (as an immigration department); Winstanley Burgess (completely); Wesley Gryk and Fisher Jones Greenwood (as providers of publicly funded representation). 39 This is more than the amounts granted to firms who do not have devolved powers. 40 Ibid, Endnote 31. 41 Wood Green Appeal Centre in London. Hosted by www.ijjo.org 159
42 Interview with Laura Brownlees, Policy Officer at Save 49 Comment by Adrian Matthews, Children’s Legal the Children UK, 2004. Centre, 2004. 43 Hereward & Foster in London, 2004. 50 Comment by Mike Kaye, Anti Slavery International, 44 Interview with Helen Johnson, Manager of the 2004. Refugee Council’s Children’s Panel, 2004. 51 Sivakumaran v. Secretary of State for the Home Depart- 45 Interview with Alison Harvey, then Principal Policy ment [1988] AC 958. SEEKING ASYLUM ALONE | UNITED KINGDOM 160 and Practice Manager at the Children’s Society in London, 2004. 46 Interview with Kathryn Cronin, barrister at Two Garden Court Chambers in London, 2004. 47 A system under which individual solicitors’ firms could grant themselves the power to incur costs on new cases or extend their spending limits on existing cases without seeking the prior approval of the Legal Services Commission. 48 Bartram & Co, Bates Wells & Braithwaite, Bindman & Partners, Birnberg Peirce, Clore & Co., Deighton Guedalla, Fisher Meredith, Glazer Delmar, Hammersmith & Fulham Law Centre, Irving & Co, JCWI, Lawrence Lupin, Luqmani Thompson, O’Keefe’s, Philcox Gray, Wesley Gryk, Tyndallwoods, Ben Hoare Bell, The Rights Partnership. 52 UNHCR. Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, para 196. 53 In order to qualify for the necessary Controlled Legal Representation funding from the Legal Services Commission to be represented at an asylum appeal hearing before the appellate authorities, the unaccompanied or separated child or his or her legal representative had to show that: (1) he or she was a minor so that it would be difficult for him or her to present his or her case without representation; (2) the likely benefits of winning the appeal justified the likely cost of being represented; and (3) the prospects of success were over 50 % or were 50/50 but the case was of overwhelming importance to the appellant or raised significant human rights issues or had a significant wider public interest (the latter was unlikely to be the case in an appeal before Hosted by www.ijjo.org
Page 1 and 2:
Unaccompanied and Separated Childre
Page 3 and 4:
ABOUT THE AUTHORS Jacqueline Bhabha
Page 5 and 6:
Manchester City Council; Sue Fisher
Page 7 and 8:
Contents Chapter 1 | 9 Chapter 5 |
Page 9 and 10:
SEEKING ASYLUM ALONE | UNITED KINGD
Page 11 and 12:
Arriving in the U.K. 6 The Immigrat
Page 13 and 14:
ers often believe that although a p
Page 15 and 16:
fear of certain groups in society t
Page 17 and 18:
that unaccompanied minor children f
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
It then added that “although chil
Page 23 and 24:
2004 it rose to 8.8%. This was at a
Page 25 and 26:
2.3 Countries of Origin Unaccompani
Page 27 and 28:
Recommendations ■ 1. If the U.K.
Page 29 and 30:
There was no comparable age differe
Page 31 and 32:
2.7 Private Fostering Arrangements
Page 33 and 34:
Endnotes 9 Statistics published by
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
unfounded, thus depriving this subs
Page 39 and 40:
Bill in Parliament which would have
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
of someone who might be an unaccomp
Page 45 and 46:
It is clear that the Rules are a po
Page 47 and 48:
subsequently abducted by their form
Page 49 and 50:
“G” was a 16-year-old Christian
Page 51 and 52:
■ 4. Article 4 of the European Co
Page 53 and 54:
17 A multi-agency task force establ
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
of the asylum determination process
Page 59 and 60:
as a group around the claimant laug
Page 61 and 62:
with as being hostile. Nor did they
Page 63 and 64:
purposes. 38 The Immigration and Na
Page 65 and 66:
or local authority social services
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
als from age disputed children deta
Page 71 and 72:
and February 2005 when 75% of those
Page 73 and 74:
accommodation which is separated fr
Page 75 and 76:
e safe to let the child go and live
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
case, that adult is advised to info
Page 81 and 82:
The official justification for thes
Page 83 and 84:
Asylum Support Team has a case load
Page 85 and 86:
days and a second review after thre
Page 87 and 88:
provides access to rehabilitation a
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
who the child must try to relate to
Page 93 and 94:
adult in their life to speak on the
Page 95 and 96:
8.3 Role of a Legal Guardian rights
Page 97 and 98:
asylum application and monitor the
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
do once I got to London. The pictur
Page 103 and 104:
Some social services departments do
Page 105 and 106:
■ 5. The screening interview shou
Page 107 and 108:
eturn to a country requiring servic
Page 109 and 110: ■ 6. The syllabus for the Accredi
Page 111 and 112: SEEKING ASYLUM ALONE | UNITED KINGD
Page 113 and 114: this research believe that it is no
Page 115 and 116: A recent White Paper 13 states that
Page 117 and 118: an important and distinct role to p
Page 119 and 120: for Determining Refugee Status. 30
Page 121 and 122: draws on a small number of other re
Page 123 and 124: ■ 3. UNHCR also states that the q
Page 131 and 132: contact the child via social servic
Page 133 and 134: It is not possible to ascertain the
Page 135 and 136: leave to remain if it was unlikely
Page 139 and 140: “Unaccompanied children are not g
Page 141 and 142: 5 IND. Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking
Page 147 and 148: until they turn 18, whichever is th
Page 151 and 152: “There are some exceptionally goo
Page 153 and 154: could have been allowed. In one of
Page 155 and 156: esisting removal to their countries
Page 157 and 158: ■ 3. The Law Society and the Lega
Page 159: determinations we analyzed this did
Page 165 and 166: should resolve this difficulty. The
Page 167 and 168: A number of legal representatives b
Page 169 and 170: Department at appeals by unaccompan
Page 171 and 172: Basis Upon Which Appeals Were Allow
Page 173 and 174: Basis Upon Which Appeals Were Allow
Page 175 and 176: Recommendations 14 Immigration Rule
Page 179 and 180: concern the plethora of evidence of
Page 181 and 182: As a consequence of these restricti
Page 183 and 184: ■ ■ accommodate unaccompanied o
Page 185 and 186: that the vast majority of referrals
Page 187 and 188: ecause of long waiting lists and be
Page 189 and 190: which would have provided for a leg
Page 191 and 192: screening interview and do not real
Page 193 and 194: ■ 9.9 The interviewer should alwa
Page 195 and 196: excessive delay in reaching a decis
Page 199 and 200: children, or anyone who had been re
Page 201 and 202: appeal. The Asylum Policy Unit has
Page 203 and 204: and adjudicators rarely prevented t
Page 205 and 206: 22 Information provided by Ailish K
Page 207 and 208: A P P E N D I X 1 Glossary of Terms
Page 209 and 210: Bibliography Amnesty International.
Page 211 and 212:
Immigration Advisory Service. Submi
Page 213 and 214:
FOR MORE INFORMATION PHOTOGRAPHY CR
show all

Hosted by www.ijjo.org

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?