What Moves
the World to Move?

              Never Doubt

The Butchers Apron

           Nellie de jongh

       Winning Campaigns


No-Deportations - Residence Papers for All
Monday 16h May to Sunday 22nd May 2022

More Than 59 Million Peopel Internally Displaced in 2021

A record 59.1 million people were displaced within their homelands last year, or four million more than in 2020, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) said on Thursday 19th May 2022, citing the latest Global Report on Internal Displacement (GRID).

Running from disasters: For the past 15 years, most internal displacement was triggered by disasters, with annual numbers slightly higher than those related to conflict and violence. Last year was no exception, according to the report. Weather-related events such as floods, storms and cyclones resulted in some 23.7 million internal displacements in 2021, mainly in the Asia-Pacific region. IOM warned that with the expected impacts of climate change, and without ambitious climate action, numbers are likely to increase in the coming years.

Conflict and violence: Meanwhile, conflict and violence triggered 14.4 million internal displacements in 2021, a nearly 50 per cent increase over the previous year. The majority took place in Africa, particularly Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, while Afghanistan and Myanmar saw unprecedented numbers of displacement.

Source: UN News, https://rb.gy/dx2bqa

Jamaican ‘Wrongly’ Detained for Deportation Launches Legal Action Against Home Office

James Matthews was awaiting the outcome of his application to remain in the UK when he was unexpectedly swooped upon by seven immigration enforcement officers. James, 33, was awaiting the outcome of his application for leave to remain when seven immigration officers stormed into his home, claiming that he was in the country illegally, before he was taken to Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre (IRC).

The former banker at Jamaica National Bank had applied for leave to remain on the basis of his relationship with a British citizen in July 2020, but the Home Office said this application was refused in February. However, Mr Matthews says neither he nor his previous legal representatives were notified about this or served with the refusal decision.

In light of this, his solicitors argue that he is still lawfully resident in the UK with an in-country right of appeal. This means Mr Matthews’ detention is unlawful, as would be his removal from this country, according to his legal representatives.

In a pre-action letter sent to the Home Office on Thursday by MTC Solicitors, which represents Mr Matthews, they request the immediate removal of their client from detention, the cancellation of his deportation order, a copy of the refusal decision, details of where, how and when the refusal decision was served on their client - and a response by 5pm on Friday.

Read more: Nadine White, Indpendent, https://rb.gy/ss5loa

Rwanda Refugee Deal is a Distraction From the Real Issues in the Asylum System

What is the Rwanda deal? As background, the Rwanda deal involves the United Kingdom sending an unspecified number of newly-arrived asylum seekers to Rwanda. The theory is that once in Rwanda, their asylum claims will be assessed there and Rwanda will either (a) grant them status as refugees or (b) remove them back to their country of origin. They will never get a right to return to the UK: their removal from our country is intended to be permanent.

Theory is unlikely to be matched by reality. The asylum system in Rwanda is thought to be very under-resourced, meaning that individual decisions may not be reached for years. There is a refugee status decision-making body, at least on paper. I do not know what resources it commands, how many decisions it makes and how quickly. Others have suggested that capacity is limited.

Lack of resources will also affect those whose claims are ultimately refused: Rwanda is unlikely to start removing Afghans to Afghanistan, for example, and will more likely do what the UK does after refusing someone’s asylum claim: nothing. Failed asylum seekers will probably not be removed to their home countries but rather denied status and allowed to remain without legal permission, lacking the right to work and so on.

Read more: Freemoevement, https://rb.gy/otcri3

Upper Tribunal Dives Into Refugee Convention Exclusion Clauses

The signatories of the Refugee Convention thought that some people didn’t deserve protection on account of having committed particularly heinous crimes. They therefore introduced “exclusion clauses”, found at Article 1F of the Convention. Accordingly, The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:
(a) he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;

(b) he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;

(c) he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

If you are looking for a detailed review of exclusion clauses 1F(a) and 1F(b), look no further than the case of KM (exclusion, Article 1F(a), Article 1F(b)) [2022] UKUT 125, The Upper Tribunal does an impressively deep dive into what constitutes a “crime against humanity” and “serious non-political crime”, and the tests used to assess when someone will fall under those exclusion clauses.

The conclusions in the case itself are quite fact-specific, but illustrate how difficult it is to be excluded from the Convention. This is for good reason: those excluded from the Convention lose the rights and benefits associated with refugee status.

Read more: Freemoevement, https://rb.gy/egaauf

Reject the Immigration Enforcement Migrant Victims’ Protocol

Southall Black Sisters brought the first ever super-complaint in UK history. The super-complaint was submitted against both the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) and the Home Office and challenged the harmful practice whereby police share victim and witness data with the Home Office for immigration enforcement purposes. This complaint was grounded in a long-recognised concern that prioritising immigration enforcement over safeguarding puts victims and witnesses at risk, causes serious distress and is wholly counterproductive to the prevention of crime.

In response to the super-complaint the investigative ‘Safe to Share?’ report was published by a group of police watchdogs. The report reaffirmed that Home Office and police practice was causing victims and witnesses of crime with insecure or uncertain immigration status to be fearful of coming forward, worsening the risk of abuse and exploitation. Further, it concluded that significant harm is being caused to the public interest and that there is no evidence that data sharing arrangements safeguard victims of domestic abuse. The independent report asked the Home Office to produce a review of this practice and its legal framework.

The Government laid its review of data sharing on migrant victims and witnesses of crime (the Review) before Parliament at the close of 2021. While recognising that data sharing for immigration enforcement can be a contributing factor to victims not reporting crime and that exploiters and perpetrators ‘often use the victim’s immigration status to exert fear or control’ the Home Office failed to implement the changes that could prevent this. Instead, disregarding the evidence put forward by victims/survivors, by the anti-trafficking sector, and the ending violence against women and girls (VAWG) sector, the Home Office proposed an Immigration Enforcement Migrant Victims’ Protocol (the Protocol). The Protocol, which is yet to be implemented, will prevent immigration enforcement action against victims only while criminal investigations and proceedings are ongoing, and while the victims are being supported. It is unclear how victim status will be determined and there is no process for people who are witness to crime

Read a whole lot more: “Step up Migrant Women”, https://rb.gy/eb0wse

Police Clash With Locals As Officers Attempt To Arrest Man On ‘Immigration Offences’

Several people were arrested in east London after protesters clashed with officers attempting to arrest a man on “immigration offences” on Saturday. Videos shared on social media showed scores of protestors clashing with police, with some clips showing officers hitting locals who tried to stop the arrest on Kingsland high street in Dalston. Protesters lined the street and could be heard shouting “let them go” in response to the people who had been detained by officers. The Metropolitan Police said it was carrying out a “pre-planed operation targeting e-scooters and moped-enabled crime” in Dalston at 7pm on Saturday when officers identified a man who was wanted for immigration offences. After officers sought to arrest the man, protesters gathered to stop them, the Met Police added.

Witnesses at the incident described “horrendous” scenes as violence broke out. Journalist Samir Jeraj who was at the protest said “police and protesters periodically clashed with police” and said he saw someone “hit multiple times with a baton.” The Metropolitan Police claim officers were also “assaulted” during the clash but none required hospital treatment. In one video a group of over half a dozen officers can be seen pushing into the protesters knocking some of them to the ground before one protester is seen being beaten with a baton and pushed to the ground. In another video, one of the protesters is seen on the ground surrounded by police while onlookers shout “he’s punching him.”

Read more: Thomas Kingsley, Indpendent, https://rb.gy/hnhhvm

Immigration Inspector Orders Rapid Review of Rwanda Policy

Newly released government documents justifying the refugees-to-Rwanda policy will be independently scrutinised, the immigration inspector has announced. The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI) is inviting tenders for a country expert to review four detailed publications on the asylum and human rights situation in the East African country. The documents, published on 9 May, are broadly intended to prove that “a functioning asylum process is in operation in Rwanda” and that it would not be a breach of refugees’ human rights for the UK government to send them there.

But they also reveal serious deficiencies in the Rwandan asylum process, while a separate equality impact assessment points to “ill treatment” of LGBTQI+ people. One expert told Free Movement: “if this is the best they can come up with they are f***ed”.

The ICIBI-commissioned review will involve “assessing the extent to which information from source documents has been appropriately and accurately reflected in the… reports” and “noting and correcting any specific errors or omissions of fact”, among other things. The deadline for applications is 30 May and the review is due by 8 July.

Read more: Freemoevement, https://rb.gy/zugm6w

Home Office Admits Internal Failings Led to Refugee Housing Crisis

Senior Home Office staff have admitted that slow decision-making over asylum claims has led to almost 40,000 people being trapped for months in “unsuitable” temporary accommodation. The department’s failures have been highlighted in a new report by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, which is responsible for monitoring the Home Office’s performance.

In the report, staff blamed the slow speed and poor quality of asylum decisions for exacerbating the accommodation crisis. The UK government is spending more than £4.5bn over ten years to house asylum seekers in temporary hotels. As of February 2022, more than 37,000 asylum seekers, including 12,000 Afghan refugees, were being housed in UK hotels, at a cost of £4.7m a day. This despite Home Office staff admitting to the inspector that hotels were unsuitable for housing refugees for long periods of time.

Read more:Adam Bychawski, Open Democracy, https://rb.gy/rqlt0v

Civil Servant Wins Six-Figure Sum Over ‘Insidious’ Ministry of Justice Racism

A former civil servant received a six-figure pay-out from the government over discrimination after she says she was subjected to “insidious” racism during a 20-year battle with the Ministry of Justice. Olivea Ebanks, 58, worked at the ministry for almost 20 years and took it to court three times; in 2008, 2011 and finally in 2020 for cases respectively won, lost and settled. During that time, an internal investigation within the prison service found there was scope for institutional racism yet the ministry has denied such issues plague the department. Ms Ebanks claims she was called racially insulting names by a manager, prevented from progressing her career and had her out-of-work activities monitored. She says she was also accused of bringing the ministry into disrepute for writing a book about her life and experiences of prejudice in the prisons service. Feeling unable to leave the job due to financial pressures and the need to care for her ill mother, Ms Ebanks said working in an “abusive” environment led to her physical and mental health suffering.

Read more: Nadine White, Independent, https://tinyurl.com/2p8kwwuv

Deportation Charter Flight to Jamaica Wednesday 18th May

Caroline Lucas - MP for Brighton Pavilion

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will cancel the deportation flight to Jamaica scheduled for 18 May 2022; make it her policy to halt any further mass deportation flights from the UK; and if she will make a statement.

Tom Pursglove, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, repied: No.

Priti Patel Brings Back Police Controversial Stop and Search Powers

Priti Patel is lifting restrictions placed on police in the use of controversial stop-and-search powers as part of the government’s strategy to tackle violent crime. The new measures will see officers able to stop people without suspicion in areas where serious violence “may” occur, rather than “will” occur, a loosening of the guidelines which the government claims will help prevent knife crime.

In a letter sent to police forces on Monday, the home secretary will set out how restrictions on section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, which have limited when officers could use stop and search and have been in place since 2014, will be removed.

Ms Patel’s initial plan to remove restrictions placed on section 60 searches was met with criticism, leading her to backtrack on the plan, although she is now pressing ahead with it.

The government said officers will have “full operational flexibility” to “rid the streets of dangerous weapons and save lives”.

Read more, Zaina Alibhai, Indpendent, https://rb.gy/loo6hx


Opinions Regarding Immigration Bail

36 Deaths Across the UK Detention Estate

UK Human Rights and Democracy 2020

Hunger Strikes in Immigration Detention

Charter Flights January 2016 Through December 2020

A History of

Immigration Solicitors

Villainous Mr O