Appeals Against Deportation Conducive to the Public Good Scrapped
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire): The reforms to the immigration appeals system in the Immigration Act 2014 are being phased in from 20 October. These provisions contain important measures to make it easier to deport foreign criminals and build upon the significant reforms we have already made.
In July we introduced new powers to stop criminals using family life arguments to delay their deportation. This has been successful, enabling the Home Office to deport over 100 criminals since July pending any appeal.
>From Monday criminals will also no longer be able to appeal against a decision that their deportation is conducive to the public good. This is the most significant change to deportation appeals since 1971. Criminals will be deported and will not be able to appeal beforehand unless they face a real risk of serious irreversible harm. For those that do have an appeal right, they will only be able to appeal once.
>From Monday the new Act will also reform the appeals system for students. For those with meritorious appeals the old system was a costly and time-consuming way to correct simple casework errors which could be resolved by a request to the Home Office to review the decision. New immigration rules provide a system of administrative review through which case work errors will be corrected within 28 days rather than 12 weeks, supporting our policy of attracting immigrants who benefit the United Kingdom's businesses and universities. For non-compliant students the new appeals reforms, combined with the new single power of removal, will make removal quicker and more legally straightforward.
West Midlands to Trial New Racist Immigration Laws
On 3 September I announced that the west midlands would be the location for the first phase of the implementation of new restrictions on illegal immigrants accessing rented housing. I have now made the order to bring into force the necessary powers in the Immigration Act to allow the scheme to start from 1 December. This will allow further secondary legislation to be laid before Parliament shortly.
Further measures in the new Act are also being brought into force to limit the ability of immigration detainees to make repeat bail applications and to extend the powers of the Immigration Services Commissioner to combat rogue immigration advisers. Finally, powers are being brought into force to enable us in due course to lay before Parliament the secondary legislation needed to implement the NHS health surcharge and to implement the changes to the process for giving notice of marriage or civil partnership to combat sham marriages and civil partnerships.
Reforms are also being made to strengthen the regime and further enhance security. Technical changes are being implemented across the immigration rules to tackle abuse while enhancing the United Kingdom's status as an excellent place to do business. In particular, the tier 1 (investor) route is being reformed following recommendations from the Migration Advisory Committee. The minimum investment threshold will be raised from £1million to £2 million. The Government will also consult further on what sort of investment the route should encourage in order to deliver real economic benefits, and other improvements to the route. A consultation document will be published in due course.
House of Commons: 16 Oct 2014 : <>Column 42WS
March Against Deaths In Custody Saturday 25 October
Since 1969 There have been over 3,000 deaths in state custody, 22 of these in the Immigration estate. There has not been a single successful homicide prosecution, despite evidence of unreasonable force and several unlawful killing inquest verdicts.
Join United Families and Friends Campaign (UFFC) on Saturday 25 October 2014 for their annual rally, protest march and petition submission to 10 Downing Street. Assemble for the rally at 12:00 Noon in Trafalgar Square. Please wear black. London Campaign Against Police & State Violence will be there with banners.
UFFC is a national coalition of families and friends of those that have died in the custody of police and prison officers as well as those who are killed in immigration detention and secure psychiatric hospitals in the UK.
Includes the families of Roger Sylvester, Leon Patterson, Rocky Bennett, Alton Manning, Christopher Alder, Brian Douglas, Joy Gardner, Ricky Bishop, Sarah Campbell, Mark Nunes, Paul Coker, Paul Jemmott, Harry Stanley, Glenn Howard, Mikey Powell, Jason McPherson, Lloyd Butler, Azelle Rodney, Sean Rigg, Habib Ullah, Olaseni Lewis, David Emmanuel (aka Smiley Culture), Kingsley Burrell, Demetre Fraser, Mark Duggan and Anthony Grainger to name but a few.
The UFFC annual precession is supported by: Migrant Media, Newham Monitoring Project, London Campaign Against Police and State Violence, 4WardEver UK, BirminghamStrong Justice 4 All, Tottenham Rights, Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association (JENGbA), INQUEST, The Monitoring Group, Pan African Society Community Forum, Defend the Right to Protest, RMT, Unite, UCU, MOJUK.
"We look forward to seeing you - No Justice No Peace"
Institutional Indifference – in Life and Death
The treatment of a homeless French man who died in immigration detention makes grim reading and shows up a callous system.
On 26 September, nearly two years after the inquest, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) published a fatal incident report into the death on 6 December 2011 of an unnamed 40-year-old French man in immigration custody in a west London hospital. He had been held at Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre (IRC).
The man died after coughing up massive amounts of blood – as the result of a tuberculosis (TB) infection. The report contains few details about him, except that he was homeless and known to a charity caseworker for 'sitting in the same spot in Marble Arch in spite of inclement weather. He wore the same clothes for six months.'
Read more: Harmit Athwal Institute of Race Relations (IRC), <>13/10/14
National Shame That is Healthcare in UK Immigration Detention
NHS England has awarded security giant G4S a series of multi-million pound contracts to run medical facilities at four detention centres where men, women and children are held pending deportation. The seven-year contracts, worth £23.4 million, became operational last month. G4S has taken over healthcare services at Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre in Bedfordshire, previously provided by outsourcing rival Serco. The change comes in the wake of a sexual abuse scandal at Yarl's Wood, where one male Serco nurse reportedly told a female detainee who complained of headaches that "she did not need medication but needed his penis".
The company is best known among asylum seekers for its involvement in the death of Jimmy Mubenga, the 46 year old father of five who died after heavy restraint by three G4S guards on a British Airways plane four years ago today. Last year an inquest jury found that Mubenga had been unlawfully killed. The three other new contracts handed to G4S by NHS England cover medical duties at Brook House and Tinsley House detention centres outside Gatwick Airport and the detention facility called Cedars in the village of Pease Pottage where families with young children are detained.
Is G4S any more fit to give medical care to vulnerable detainees?
Phil Miller and Clare Sambrook, Open Democracy, <>12/10/14
Reasoned Assessments Needed for Internal/Alternative Protection
Ten years after the adoption of the <> Qualification Directive, the application of the concepts of internal protection alternative (IPA) and actors of protection is still not harmonised among Member States and still gives rise to concerns with regard to its compatibility with human rights, a comparative report by ECRE shows. ECRE examined how these two concepts are applied both at the administrative and judicial level in 11 Member States: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden and the UK.
The internal protection alternative is a concept that allows denying refugee status or subsidiary protection to an applicant if he/she is found not to be in need of international protection in one part of his/her country of origin. The research found that in many instances, a Member State's decision to rely upon the IPA was not fully reasoned, lacking a proper identification of the region of relocation or a full assessment of the possibility for the applicant to safely and legally travel to the region. This lack of proper assessment of the IPA can lead in practice to the burden of proof being transferred to the applicant, for instance by requiring the applicant to prove that no IPA exists anywhere in his/her country of origin.
The research revealed that non-state actors, such as international organisations, are almost never considered as stand-alone actors of protection. Some gaps were identified with regard to the assessment of the nature of protection, such as the lack of identification as to whether protection against a threat is actually available in practice to the applicant and not only foreseen in the law of the country of origin.
The study looked at the application of both concepts to vulnerable groups. Consideration of factors affecting vulnerable groups was carried out in most countries but on a case-by-case basis rather than as a matter of consistent policy. There was a more consistent policy in most Member States with regard to unaccompanied children; generally they would not be expected to relocate internally if they did not have close family in the region of relocation.
In addition to the comparative report, 11 national reports provide a detailed assessment of the use of the IPA and actors of protection in each of the countries covered in the research.
The Actors of Protection and the Application of the Internal Protection Alternative is a project coordinated by ECRE in partnership with <> Asylum Aid,
For further information · ECRE, Asylum Aid, VluchtelingenWerk Nederland, <> APAIPA, Actors of Protection and the Application of the Internal Protection Alternative, European Comparative Report
Human Rights Campaigner & Wheelchair Defeats Home Office
Disabled human rights campaigner Manjeet Kaur has won her case against the Home Office's attempt to evict her onto the streets. A judge has ruled that Manjeet, who is Chair of RAPAR, can stay in her home in Whalley Range until her asylum case has finally been completed. The judge made his decision based on the paperwork in her case. Manjeet, who uses a wheelchair, was due to travel to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal in Manchester today for the hearing about her housing support.
Ironically, the Home Office transport sent to Manjeet's home to take her to the tribunal was not wheelchair accessible and it took another two hours for the Home Office to send a suitable replacement from Liverpool. She was on her way to the tribunal when her solicitor phoned to say that, after reviewing the paperwork, the judge had ruled in her favour against the Home Office.
Fifty supporters from disability, trade union and community networks joined a lobby outside the tribunal hearing. Manjeet said: "I am very pleased we won the case but it is not my victory alone. I want to thank everyone who came along to support me and show that we will not let vulnerable people be evicted from their homes."
Kath Grant 07758386208/ <>firstname.lastname@example.org
Tighter Immigration Laws Catching Out Long-Term Legal Migrants
Thousands of migrants who have lived and worked legally in Britain for decades, in many cases having arrived in the country as children, are falling victim of the governments more restrictive immigration laws, according to a report by the charity Legal Action Group. Many of whom were educated, married and raised families in Britain Ð have been caught out by recent legislative changes that have left them in a legal limbo and often without a job, even though until recently they could work and claim benefits legally.
Read more: Mark Tran, Guardian, <> 15/10/14
Why so Much Hostility to Immigrants in the UK?
"It is not prejudiced to worry about immigration," Ed Miliband suggests. Possibly. But no one is worried about immigration. Yes, 77% of people in the UK want immigration reduced, and 56% want it "reduced a lot" – but this is not worry or concern, rather a hardening anti-immigrant consensus. As to whether this is prejudiced, the evidence is clear: polling shows that most people have a negative opinion of immigration, despite them not having any negative experience of it. In fact, people in areas with most immigrants are least likely to express anti-immigrant sentiment.
Popular hostility toward immigrants is determined by the perceived big picture, which polling data also shows most people get badly wrong. These errors are not neutral. The fact that people greatly overestimate the proportion of immigrants who are asylum seekers, for instance, matters largely because of the culture of suspicion and disbelief about refugees. It is hard to see how this could not be prejudiced.
Read more: Richard Seymour, theguardian.com, <> 14/10/14
Control & Restraint Persons Removed by Aircraft from UK
The primary issue in this appeal is whether the use of control and restraint on persons being removed by aircraft from the United Kingdom is subject to a sufficient framework of safeguards to meet the requirements of Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("the ECHR"). The appellant's case is that, in breach of the obligation imposed by those articles, the respondent Secretary of State has failed to develop and approve techniques for the use of force in the specific environment of an aircraft, and to train staff how to use force in that situation, so as to minimise to the greatest extent possible any risk to life or risk of harm. The policy on the use of force is also said to be unlawful under domestic law on the ground that it gives rise to an unacceptable risk of unlawful action in individual cases.
A secondary issue is whether the Secretary of State's decision not to publish parts of the existing policy, as set out in the Use of Force Training Manual ("the Manual"), is unlawful.
In relation to those issues, Foskett J dismissed the claim for judicial review brought by a claimant referred to as Z: see  EWHC 498 (Admin). In granting permission to appeal, Pitchford LJ permitted the substitution of a new appellant, a woman referred to as FI who had been subject to restraint by a number of officers within an aircraft during an unsuccessful attempt to remove her in September 2011. The case does not depend, however, on the individual circumstances of either FI or the former claimant. The arguments concern the framework itself, not the use of force on a specific set of facts.
This judgment proceeds as follows. First, I will explain the legal basis of the use of force in effecting removals from the United Kingdom. I will then describe the Manual, the respects in which it is alleged to be deficient, and the relevant factual history. Many of those matters are dealt with at length by Foskett J, which enables me to cut back on some of the detail. Having set out the background, I will consider the issues in the appeal.
Legal basis of the use of force - read more here . . . .
UKHO CIG - Libya: Violence Against Women
This document provides guidance to Home Office decision makers on handling claims made by nationals/residents of Libya as well as country of origin information (COI) about Libya. This includes whether claims are likely to justify the granting of asylum, humanitarian protection or discretionary leave and whether - in the event of a claim being refused - it is likely to be certifiable as 'clearly unfounded' under s94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Decision makers must consider claims on an individual basis, taking into account the case specific facts and all relevant evidence, including: the guidance contained with this document; the available COI; any applicable caselaw; and the Home Office casework guidance in relation to relevant policies.
UKHO CIG - Iran: Journalists and Bloggers
This document provides guidance to Home Office decision makers on handling claims made by nationals/residents of Iran as well as country of origin information (COI) about Iran. This includes whether claims are likely to justify the granting of asylum, humanitarian protection or discretionary leave and whether - in the event of a claim being refused - it is likely to be certifiable as 'clearly unfounded' under s94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Decision makers must consider claims on an individual basis, taking into account the case specific facts and all relevant evidence, including: the guidance contained with this document; the available COI; any applicable caselaw; and the Home Office casework guidance in relation to relevant policies.