Continuing Conflicts that Create Refugees - November 2011
Deteriorated Situations: Afghanistan, Burundi, DR Congo, Kosovo, Pakistan, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria
Download the full report: crisiswatch-100.pdf
Immigrants: Detainees [ Dawn raids ]
Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether the UK Border Agency has any plans to review its policy on the time of day at which it visits homes for the removal of failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants; 
(2) if she will place in the Library a copy of the guidance provided to immigration officers undertaking home visits; 
(3) whether guidance is provided to immigration officers on the time of day a visit should take place to a home where a child is resident. 
Damian Green: The UK Border Agency has clear guidance on the considerations that need to be made when planning an enforcement visit, including the time the visit should take place.
Guidance for the timing of operational enforcement visits to residential addresses is set out in chapters 31, 45 and 61 of the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance.
Where enforcement action is being considered to ensure the return of a family with children, an individually tailored return plan will be referred to the independent Family Returns Panel. Enforcement visits will only take place when the Family Returns Panel has advised on the most appropriate time of day to secure the return of the family, while having regard to the welfare of the children.
The timing of visit for cases falling outside of the family returns process is determined and also recorded in the risk assessment that is carried out for each visit. Visits should not normally take place either very late at night or very early in the morning unless operational planning indicates that a visit would be frustrated if carried out at a different time.
All existing policy and guidance relating to the timing of enforcement visits is regularly reviewed as part of a programme of nationwide unannounced assurance currently being rolled out by the UK Border Agency's Professional Standards for Enforcement team (PSE).
House of Commons / 1 Dec 2011 : Column 1069W
Your asylum claim refused/appeal rights exhausted
Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA) have kindly given permission to circulate the briefing below, which gives a guide on making a 'Fresh Asylum Claim'.
Fresh Asylum Claims
A fresh claim is where someone who has previously made an asylum claim, which has been finally refused, makes a new claim that they should be granted asylum.
Paragraph *353 of the Immigration Rules states:
"…submissions will amount to a fresh claim if they are significantly different from the material that has previously been considered.The submissions will only be significantly different if the content:
(i) had not already been considered; and
(ii) taken together with the previously considered material, created a realistic prospect of success…"
Fresh claim or further representations
The distinction between fresh claims and further representations is very important.
Further representations (or further submissions) are no more than information that is sent to the Home Office after asylum has been refused. These may or may not include new information. These may or may not relate to an identified asylum or human rights claim. Sometimes, the representations may do no more than restate any compassionate circumstances and ask the Home Office to exercise their general discretion to grant some form of status.
A fresh claim, however, must contain new information. That is information, which no decision-maker (whether the Home Office or an immigration judge) has yet considered. The effect of the new information must be that there is a real chance the claim will be successful.
Benefits of a fresh claim
If a fresh claim is made, this may enable a person to qualify again for welfare and housing support as an asylum-seeker. A person will usually have a new right of appeal against a refusal of a fresh claim. Also, a fresh claim may qualify for legal aid. In contrast, further representations will not usually lead to these benefits.
What counts as new information?
There is no limitation on what will count as new information - except that it must not have been considered before. New information might include:
new information about the individual asylum-seeker - e.g. documents received from his or her home country, such as an arrest warrant
new information related to the individual asylum-seeker - e.g. information from his or her home country of the arrest of a family member
evidence of a change of circumstances in the asylum-seeker's home country
a development in caselaw - e.g. a new judgment of the Court of Appeal or decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
These categories are not exhaustive. They merely indicate the range of information that may count as new. In particular, they show that new information may, but does not need to be, personal to the asylum-seeker.
A real chance of success
In addition to providing new information, a fresh claim must have a real chance of success. This means that the new information must be relevant. It must give reason to think that, despite previous decisions, the asylum-seeker is now at risk.
Necessary considerations before making a fresh claim
Firstly, it is vital to obtain the decisions made on the original (and any other) asylum claim. The evidence on which that claim was based is also needed. This information must be carefully considered to work out:
what information has already been considered?
what findings of fact have already been made?
Secondly, it is necessary to consider the new information. Having seen what information has already been considered, it is now possible to decide whether the information is indeed new. It will not be new unless it either provides evidence of some new fact or provides a new source of evidence for a fact that has previously been rejected.
Thirdly, it is necessary to consider whether any new information creates a real chance of success. This can only be done by considering the facts already decided. For instance, country information establishing that persons of a particular ethnic group are now at risk will not assist if it has already been decided that the asylum-seeker is not of that ethnic group - unless there is also new information giving reason to think that decision was wrong.
It will be necessary to consider why the new information has not been made available previously. Relevant questions will include:
from where and from whom has the new information come?
why has it been possible to obtain it now; and why was this not possible previously?
Asylum claims are often refused because the asylum-seeker is said not to be credible (not truthful, or not reliable). If the asylum-seeker has been found to be not credible, this may affect how much weight will be given to any new information. This will depend on the source of the new information. However, if the new information contains new and relevant evidence (not simply the asylum-seeker stating that something new has happened) it would usually justify a fresh claim - unless there were strong reasons to think the evidence was clearly unreliable.
Home Office policy on fresh claims
* The leading case on paragraph 353 is the decision of the Court of Appeal in WM (DRC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1495, in which Buxton LJ set out in terms both the task of the Secretary of State when deciding whether further submissions amount to a fresh claim and the test to be applied by a Court called on to review the Secretary of State's decision.
The following principles can be taken from paragraphs 6-11: the task of the Secretary of State under paragraph 353 is to decide whether the new material is "significantly different" from material already considered and rejected.
That task is twofold.
First, the Secretary of State must ask whether the new material was in fact considered on the asylum claim. If so that is the end of the matter, because the material is not new and cannot constitute a fresh claim.
Second, only if the new material has not already been considered, the Secretary of State must consider whether, when taken together with material previously considered, the whole creates a realistic prospect of success on a fresh asylum claim.
If the answer is yes, it is a fresh claim under 353.
In approaching the second limb of his task the Secretary of State's judgment will involve a judgment on the reliability of the new material, as well as a judgment on the outcome of a fresh asylum claim based on that material.
A Court reviewing a 353 decision similarly has a twofold task and must address two matters. First, has the Secretary of State asked himself the right question, namely whether there is a realistic prospect of an adjudicator, applying the rule of anxious scrutiny, concluding that the applicant will be exposed to a real risk of persecution on return?
Second, in addressing that question, did the Secretary of State satisfy the requirement of anxious scrutiny? If the reviewing court cannot answer both of these questions affirmatively, it will grant the application for judicial review.
Self-Harm in Immigration detention Q3 2011
There have been three deaths in immigration detention between July and September 2011 inclusive. Two occurred at Colnbrook IRC and one at Campsfield House IRC. All three will be the subject of a Coroner's Inquest and it would be inappropriate to comment on the details in advance of their conclusions.
32 incidents of Self-Harm requiring medical attention
429 individuals being managed as having a risk of self-harm
Full breakdown of incidents can be found here . . . .
Immigration Statistics July - September 2011
UKBA released today their latest immigration statistics from Home Office administrative sources, covering July - September 2011 and can be sourced here . . . .
Removals and voluntary departures:
Quarter 3 of 2011, 13,253 people were removed or departed voluntarily, a 13% fall from 15,261 during the third quarter of 2010. This is the second lowest quarterly figure since the third quarter of 2001, although all the various types of removals and voluntary departures are higher than the second quarter of 2011, which was the lowest quarterly figure. Within the total number of people departing during the third quarter of 2011, there were 2,120 people (including dependants) who had claimed asylum (19% lower than during the third quarter of 2010)
Q3: Removals and voluntary departures by country of nationality
Top 10 destination countries
United States 679
Sri Lanka 266
Quarter 3 of 2011 had the highest quarterly number of asylum applications (4,912) since the third quarter of 2009, mainly due to an increase in applications from nationals of Pakistan, Iran and Syria. Asylum applications continue to be significantly lower than levels seen in the early 2000's.
Quarter 3: Top 10 source countries
Sri Lanka 415
Charter Flight to Sri Lanka PVT 030 - 15:30 hrs Thursday 15th December
The operator of this flight is ArkeFly is a Dutch charter airline head quartered in Schiphol-Rijk on the grounds of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol in Haarlemmermeer,
There does not seem to be a website for ArkeFly, would be appreciated if anyone on list has contacts in Holland, who could find out more about this airline, specifically who the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is and contact details for th CEO and Email/Fax/phone numbers for ArkeFly so a campaign can be mounted to persuade ArkeFly not to lease their jets to UKBA, specifically for the 15th December.
Also a Charter Flight to Nigeria PVT090 - 21:30 hrs Thursday 8th December
ARC: Commentary on UKBA August Sudan Operational Guidance Note
This commentary identifies what the 'Still Human Still Here' coalition considers to be the main inconsistencies and omissions between the currently available country of origin information (COI) and case law on Sudan and the conclusions reached in the August 2011 Sudan Operational Guidance Note (OGN), issued by the UK Border Agency. Where we believe inconsistencies have been identified, the relevant section of the OGN is highlighted in blue.
An index of full sources of the COI referred to in this commentary is also provided at the end of the document.
To download the document click here . . . .
This commentary is a guide for legal practitioners and decision-makers in respect of the relevant COI, by reference to the sections of the Operational Guidance Note on Sudan issued in August 2011.
Complete UKBA Operational guidance notes (OGN) on Sudan go here . . . :
The document should be used as a tool to help to identify relevant COI and the COI referred to can be considered by decision makers in assessing asylum applications and appeals.
This document should not be submitted as evidence to the UK Border Agency, the Tribunal or other decision makers in asylum applications or appeals.
However, legal representatives are welcome to submit the COI referred to in this document to decision makers (including judges) to help in the accurate determination of an asylum claim or appeal.
The COI referred to in this document is not exhaustive and should always be complemented by case-specific COI research.
Source: Asylum Research Consultancy (ARC)
Quarter 3: During the third quarter of 2011, 6,834 people entered immigration detention. This was a slight increase from 6,771 in the third quarter of 2010. Of these 6,834, 30 were children, which compares with 48 in the third quarter of 2010.
Quarter 3: People leaving detention
6,593 people left detention of these:
4,085 were removed of which 1,475 were asylum detainees
2,508 were released into the community 38%
Quarter 3: People entering detention
Grand Total 6,834 of whom: asylum detainees 3,097
Brook House 698 Campsfield House 714
Dover 340 Dungavel 351
Harmondsworth 903 Haslar 50
Lindholme 74 Morton Hall 319
Tinsley House 549 Yarl's Wood 783
Short Term Holding Facilities
Colnbrook Short Term 1,401
Larne House 110 Pennine House 523
Pre Departure Accommodation Cedars 19
Quarter 3: Top 10 nationalities entering detention
Pakistan 813 India 611
Nigeria 488 Afghanistan 456
Bangladesh 419 China 333
Sri Lanka 284 Vietnam 239
Albania 158 Brazil 187
Freedom of Information request - Longest lengths of Detention
1 detainee has spent nearly 6 years in detention
5 detainees have been detained over 4 years
11 detainees more than 3 years
Quarter 3: As at 30 September 2011, management information shows that of the 2,909 people detained solely under Immigration Act powers, the 20 longest recorded lengths of detention are:
5.9 years (2,158 days) 1 detainee male
4.8 years (1,760 days) 1 detainee male
4.3 years (1,603 days) 1 detainee male
4.3 years (1,579 days) 1 detainee male
4.2 years (1,540 days) 1 detainee male
4.0 years (1,474 days) 1 detainee male
3.8 years (1,414 days) 1 detainee male
3.6 years (1,346 days) 1 detainee male
3.6 years (1,324 days) 1 detainee male
3.5 years (1,308 days) 1 detainee male
3.5 years (1,298 days) 1 detainee male
3.5 years (1,297 days) 1 detainee male
3.4 years (1,266 days) 1 detainee male
3.4 years (1,255 days) 1 detainee male
3.3 years (1,240 days) 1 detainee male
3.1 years (1,165 days) 1 detainee male
3.1 years (1,162 days) 1 detainee male
2.9 years (1,089 days) 1 detainee male
2.9 years (1,087 days) 1 detainee male
2.9 years (1,064 days) 2 detainees male