Fleeing Persecution Asylum Claims in the UK on Religious Freedom

S<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> suspension of <strong>the</strong> DFT <strong>the</strong> Home Office has cont<strong>in</strong>ued to deta<strong>in</strong> asylum-seekers and to
deal with <strong>the</strong>ir cases while <strong>the</strong>y are <strong>in</strong> detention. Those whose cases had been processed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>
DFT found to be unfair have been able to apply to have <strong>the</strong> decision <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir appeal set aside and
have <strong>the</strong> appeal reheard but have had only limited opportunities to address <strong>the</strong> deficiencies <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>
<strong>in</strong>itial decision.
Despite <strong>the</strong> suspension of <strong>the</strong> DFT System, <strong>the</strong> ‘Deta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>Asylum</strong> Casework’ (DAC) has been
implemented <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terim while <strong>the</strong> DFT undergoes review. This new system, however, still
<strong>in</strong>volves plac<strong>in</strong>g asylum seekers <strong>in</strong> detention and process<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ir claims while <strong>the</strong>y are deta<strong>in</strong>ed.
Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, <strong>the</strong> timescales for <strong>the</strong> DAC are similar to <strong>the</strong> DFT – from <strong>the</strong> po<strong>in</strong>t at which an
<strong>in</strong>dividual is appo<strong>in</strong>ted a lawyer to decision on asylum, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> DFT it was an <strong>in</strong>dicative 8 work<strong>in</strong>g
days; <strong>in</strong> DAC it is an <strong>in</strong>dicative 11 work<strong>in</strong>g days, <strong>the</strong>refore it is still an accelerated deta<strong>in</strong>ed asylum
process just by a different name.
It was on <strong>the</strong> same day that <strong>the</strong> DFT was suspended, that <strong>the</strong> DAC was implemented. Worry<strong>in</strong>gly,
it reta<strong>in</strong>s some of <strong>the</strong> same defects hence is currently undergo<strong>in</strong>g litigation <strong>in</strong> court to test its
legality. The DAC uses <strong>the</strong> same ‘screen<strong>in</strong>g’ process as its predecessor which came under heavy
criticism. The screen<strong>in</strong>g process did not work effectively to ensure that those who are potentially
vulnerable or have complex claims requir<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>vestigation (such as religious persecution claims or
sexuality claims, etc.) are identified and not <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> DFT. As <strong>the</strong> DAC uses <strong>the</strong> same
screen<strong>in</strong>g process, it <strong>in</strong>evitably also suffers from <strong>the</strong> same defect.
The DAC arguably reta<strong>in</strong>s elements of unfairness, which has <strong>the</strong> potential to impact religious
persecution cases. Many Claimants are routed <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> DAC pre-screen<strong>in</strong>g, this means that <strong>the</strong>y do
not have <strong>the</strong> opportunity to set out <strong>in</strong>formation about <strong>the</strong>ir asylum claim to determ<strong>in</strong>e whe<strong>the</strong>r
<strong>the</strong>ir case is straightforward and can be fairly determ<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> detention.
Due to <strong>the</strong> accelerated time frames of process<strong>in</strong>g cases with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> DAC it is difficult to ascerta<strong>in</strong>
whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> process is fair simply by look<strong>in</strong>g at outcomes such as rates of refusal. If given proper
time to prepare an asylum claim, it could be that what appeared to be an unfounded claim actually
has merit. As religious persecution cases are complex by <strong>the</strong>ir very nature, <strong>the</strong>y often require
expert evidence and witness statements from o<strong>the</strong>rs to corroborate an <strong>in</strong>dividual’s account.
The <strong>in</strong>dividual’s own account is seldom enough <strong>the</strong>refore it is critical to allow for a fair opportunity
and enough time to ga<strong>the</strong>r evidence to support one’s claim. If a claimant is held <strong>in</strong> detention,
acquir<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> necessary evidence becomes difficult as you may be unable to access witnesses;
detention also impacts on mental and physical health as well as <strong>the</strong> ability to disclose one’s own
claim fully.
Depend<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>the</strong> outcome of <strong>the</strong> litigation <strong>the</strong> DAC is undergo<strong>in</strong>g, this is an area that may warrant
cont<strong>in</strong>ued <strong>in</strong>spection.
Applicants not deta<strong>in</strong>ed will have <strong>the</strong>ir asylum claim assessed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> community, with regular
report<strong>in</strong>g. Often <strong>the</strong>y will require “asylum support” and will live <strong>in</strong> hous<strong>in</strong>g provided under
contract to <strong>the</strong> Home Office for <strong>the</strong> duration of <strong>the</strong> asylum process.
For decisions made <strong>in</strong>side or outside detention <strong>the</strong> refugee criteria are <strong>the</strong> same. Alongside <strong>the</strong>
applicant’s oral or o<strong>the</strong>r documentary evidence, case workers are required to consider objective
evidence from <strong>the</strong> country of orig<strong>in</strong>. Country of Orig<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation can <strong>in</strong>clude o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong>formation
<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>formation on <strong>the</strong> political and human rights situation <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> country as well as
19