Hosted by www.ijjo.org

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 13 | Appeals: Processes and Outcomes refused solely because the child is too young to understand the situation or to have formed a well founded fear of persecution. 14 It is clear from our analysis of the determinations for February, May, and October 2004, that adjudicators regularly permitted children as young as 13 to give evidence and rarely stop children from being cross examined by Home Office Presenting Officers. In one case an adjudicator would not permit the Home Office to cross examine a 12-year-old Somali girl but then questioned her himself. 15 In an example of better practice, a 16-year-old Liberian girl who had been trafficked for child prostitution was not required to give oral evidence and in another case the adjudicator would only allow a 13-yearold Somali girl to give her identity and confirm her statement. “All cases before an adjudicator are a lottery. It tends to be full time adjudicators who hear children’s appeals. I am not sure that that means a great deal. Some in Manchester are not known to have ever allowed an appeal.” 16 “We have very hard line adjudicators in North Shields, some of whom never allow [appeals].” 17 165 Appeals: Processes and Outcomes | K’s Story “K” was a 15-year-old boy from Cameroon who had suffered persecution throughout his childhood because of the political activities of his older relatives. This included physical and sexual assault. On the morning of his appeal hearing he heard that yet further relatives had been killed or had disappeared when a social worker mistakenly disclosed this to him. His reaction was to say spontaneously “They have taken them all now.” The adjudicator gave permission for him to remain outside the room whilst an older cousin gave evidence. There was also a medical report which indicated that he was too traumatized to provide cogent evidence and expert evidence which indicated that older members of his family had attracted persecution on account of their political views. In addition, he had provided a detailed statement of the limited knowledge he had of his family’s political activities. (When he had asked why they were being persecuted in the past, they had told him that it was not safe for him to know more.) Despite this the adjudicator dismissed his appeal taking issue with the fact that he had not been tendered for cross examination and stating that he could have moved on his own (as a 15 year old) to another part of Cameroon to avoid further persecution. The adjudicator also doubted his credibility because he had not left Cameroon at an earlier age of between six and 14. 18 “Generally the stories children tell are disjointed and fragmented. Those without experience [of giving evidence, like children] will give a fragmented as opposed to a full and coherent statement and adjudicators do not take this into account. They hold against them the fact that they have “neglected” to tell their full story. Training for adjudicators [may help] but some are untrainable. The problems are scepticism and a prosecutorial attitude.” 19 Hosted by www.ijjo.org
A number of legal representatives believe that adju- tion Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA), and dicators fail to subject asylum appeals by unaccom- these three organizations should be consulted panied or separated children to the same anxious about the content of the course. scrutiny accorded to adult appellants because they have already been granted exceptional or discretionary ■ 2. In particular, this course should provide them leave to remain until they were 18. A typical comment is: with an appropriate child specific framework in which to decide appeals by unaccompanied or “Adjudicators are not applying the same standards separated children. Both substantive questions as with adults. They are probably reassured by the fact that children have some other form of leave. I think that they regard it as all a bit of a waste of time and money. One problem is that adjudicators regarding the meaning of child specific persecution, and procedural issues regarding appropriate conduct during hearings, should be covered. do not believe that the child isn’t in contact with his or her parents. There is a problem with plausibility. (Adjudicators simply do not believe many unaccompanied or separated children.) Adjudica- 13.3 Role of the Home Office Presenting Officer tors take a culturally specific view (and judge the accounts given by the unaccompanied or separated child as if they had been made by a child Home Office Presenting Officers (HOPOs) 23 can play a crucial role at an appeal especially where a separated child is not legally brought up in the U.K.).” 20 represented. The research reveals extensive resist- SEEKING ASYLUM ALONE | UNITED KINGDOM 166 Up until 2005 there was no specific training for adjudicators hearing appeals from unaccompanied or separated children. However, early in 2005 in preparation for the establishment of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, 21 every adjudicator had to attend a training course and one of the case studies presented to them was that of an appeal by an unaccompanied or separated child. 22 Recommendations ■ 1. The Department of Constitutional Affairs should provide training for all Immigration Judges, Designated Judges, or Senior Immigration Judges before they are permitted to hear an appeal from an unaccompanied or separated child based on the Chief Adjudicator’s Guidance and guidance provided by UNHCR, the Separated Child in Europe programme, and the Immigra- ance to differentiating between adults and current or former unaccompanied or separated children who have just turned 18. An analysis of the determinations for February, May, and October 2004 shows that Home Office Presenting Officers who are allowed to, regularly cross examine children. I have had HOPOs contest age at an appeal even when a separated child is accompanied by his or her social worker and when all the evidence in the bundle indicates that he or she is a child. I haven’t discerned any change in that regard [since the Immigration and Nationality Directorate decided as a matter of policy to accept age assessments made by professional social workers employed by local authorities]. In one famous case involving a nine-year-old Somali girl both the HOPO and the adjudicator expected her to give evidence. 24 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:
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 125 and 126: SEEKING ASYLUM ALONE | UNITED KINGD
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 and 160: determinations we analyzed this did
Page 161 and 162: 42 Interview with Laura Brownlees,
Page 165: should resolve this difficulty. The
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?