Hosted by www.ijjo.org

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 13 | Appeals: Processes and Outcomes Appeals: Processes and Outcomes | M’s Story “M” was 19. She was a single parent having been abandoned by a physically abusive partner. She had been diagnosed as being HIV positive and had tried to take her own life on two occasions. The second attempt took place when she broke down when discussing her forthcoming appeal hearing with her solicitor and tried to jump out of a third floor window. Her baby was subject to an interim care order as a result of concerns about her mental stability. Her first solicitor had failed to appeal against the decision to refuse her asylum and she was now seeking protection under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on the basis of her very poor mental and physical health. The HOPO cross examined her for two hours on issues which were relevant to her missed opportunity to appeal on asylum grounds but were no longer relevant to her present appeal for the apparent purpose of discrediting her. This was despite the fact that any right she may have had to protection under the ECHR would be determined by medical and other expert evidence and not anything she could say in evidence. Even when she collapsed on the floor of the court and had to have 20 minutes outside court to compose herself the HOPO resumed the very hostile cross examination as soon as she returned to the court. (The adjudicator hearing the appeal also declined to intervene in order to limit the Recommendations ■ 1. The Home Office in conjunction with UNHCR, the Refugee Children’s Consortium, and ILPA should devise a course to prepare Home Office Presenting Officers for representing the Secretary of State for the Home Department at appeals by unaccompanied or separated children. cross examination to issues which were strictly relevant or to suggest that the manner in which she was being cross examined was unacceptable.) ■ 2. The Home Office should ensure that no Home Office Presenting Officer is allocated an appeal by an unaccompanied or separated child until he or she has attended any such course. ■ 3. The Home Office should prepare written guidance for Home Office Presenting Officers on how to represent the Secretary of State for the Home Hosted by www.ijjo.org 167
Department at appeals by unaccompanied or separated children in compliance with best practice as established by UNHCR, the Separated Children in Europe programme, and ILPA. and those brought by unaccompanied or separated children, indicated that in 2003, 20% of 81,725 appellants had their asylum appeals allowed and in 2004, 19% of 55,975 appellants had their asylum appeals allowed. SEEKING ASYLUM ALONE | UNITED KINGDOM 168 13.4 Decisions on Appeals As was explained above neither the Immigration and Nationality Directorate nor the Department of Constitutional Affairs collect statistics on the number of unaccompanied or separated children who appeal against an initial decision to refuse them asylum. Neither do they collect statistics on the number who succeed in their appeals. However, as part of the present research the decisions reached in 2,145 determinations of appeals brought by unaccompanied or separated or former unaccompanied or separated children between 1 October 2003 and 22 November 2004 were analyzed. (See chart below). This revealed that during this period 12.26% of asylum appeals by unaccompanied or separated children were successful and a further 3.6% had their appeals allowed on human rights grounds. Home Office statistics, which did not distinguish between appeals brought on behalf of adults Determination of Appeals — 1 October to 22 November 2004 ■ ■ ■ ■ On the basis of the determinations sampled for this research it would appear that unaccompanied or separated children were less likely than adults to succeed in an appeal. We analyzed the determinations promulgated in February, May, and September 2004 in more detail and detected certain trends and similarities both in relation to how these appeals were dealt with and which factors were likely to lead to a positive outcome. It is clear that a disproportionate amount of appeals by Somalis were allowed. This may reflect the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s acceptance that a Somali who is a member of a minority clan or group is in need of protection under the Refugee Convention and thus the consequence that outstanding issues of fact on appeal are narrow, and can be dealt with by evidence from a suitably qualified expert or a relative. It may also indicate a high incidence of poor decision making by case workers on Somali cases. 254 allowed on both Refugee Convention and ECHR grounds 9 allowed on Refugee Convention grounds only 78 allowed on ECHR grounds only 1,891 dismissed on both Refugee Convention and ECHR grounds 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 and 166: should resolve this difficulty. The
Page 167: A number of legal representatives b
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?