No-Deportations - Residence Papers for All

            What Moves
the World to Move?

              Never Doubt

The Butchers Apron

           Nellie de jongh

       Winning Campaigns

Hunger Strikes in Immigration Detention
Self-Harm in Immigration Detention
34 Deaths Across the UK Detention Estate
Families/Individuals who Campaigned Against Deportation and Won


Immigration Solicitors

News & Views Monday 22nd June to Sunday 28th June 2020

Children’s Right to Live in the Community

Children are placed into institutions because of poverty, social deprivation and poor parenting skills, carer and child illness and disability, natural and human-made disasters, and child abuse and neglect. The right to live in the community is an important human rights topic affecting a huge number of children. In 2015, it was estimated that in the region of 5-6 million children were living in institutions worldwide, the majority being in low-income and middle-income countries.

The Lancet has published a set of papers on institutionalisation and deinstitutionalisation of children. They will receive a lukewarm response. The Lancet has defined institutions as any publicly or privately managed and staffed collective living arrangement for children that is not family based, and includes small-scale group homes. This definition would include hospitals such as “assessment and treatment units” in the UK, recently the subject of reports by the Parliamentary Joint Committee of Human Rights which published reports in November 2019 and this month.

One of the key concerns across central and eastern Europe was the number of institutionalised children with disabilities. Institutions do not just warehouse disabled children: they cause disability. In the Lancet article that surveys the literature on effects of institutionalisation on child development, it is reported that at least 80% of institutionalised children are below the mean of comparison groups in physical growth and cognitive development.

The health and social arguments are clear:  “when children leave institutions and are placed in family-based alternatives (adoption, kinship, or foster care), the situation rapidly improves—striking catch up is seen across all domains. Moreover, even children who have been exposed to severe deprivation can develop secure attachments with their new parents from adoption or foster placements.”

Read more: Doughty Street Chambers,

EDM 658: Leave to Remain Status

That this House notes that currently in the UK there are an unknown number of persons who are not UK citizens, who do not have leave to remain in this country, who lack any entitlement to support from the state, who are therefore entirely without funds to feed, clothe and house themselves and their families and who are unable to comply with Government guidance on self-isolation and social distancing; and considers it essential that the Government takes immediate action to ensure that leave to remain in the UK is granted to all such persons who are within the UK but are not citizens, irrespective of their nationality or immigration status, so that they can access healthcare, food and housing to enable them to adhere to Government advice on social distancing, ensure the health of themselves and their families and help protect the health of all people in the UK.

Parliament: Tabled 24 June 2020,

Put Your MP to Work – Ask Them to Sign EDM 658 

To find your MP go here:  

When is a Foreign Criminal Not A Foreign Criminal?

That is the question answered by the Upper Tribunal in SC (paras A398 – 339D: ‘foreign criminal’: procedure) Albania [2020] UKUT 187 (IAC). The appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. So he is, by any reasonable definition, a criminal. He is a citizen of Albania — so clearly foreign. But he is not, from a legal perspective, a “foreign criminal”. This is because his conviction was in Albania.
Offences outside the UK:As regular readers of this blog will know, there are strict rules set out in Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 for those who seek to resist deportation on the basis of their private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This regime applies to anyone who is a “foreign criminal”, as defined in section 117D(2). That definition requires a criminal conviction in the UK. There was no such conviction here — only a murder conviction in Albania. As such, these provisions did not apply. Paragraphs A398 to 399D of the Immigration Rules also regulate deportation and Article 8. The Upper Tribunal had previously flip flopped on whether the use of the phrase “foreign criminal” in the Rules has the same meaning as in section 117D(2). This conflict has now been resolved in favour of using the same definition.

Read more: Freemovement,

Number of Forcibly Displaced Worldwide Breaks All Records

The U.N. refugee agency reports more than nine million people were newly displaced by persecution and conflict in 2019, bringing the total number of forcibly displaced around the world to a record-breaking 79.5 million people.  These unprecedented figures appear in the agency’s annual Global Trends report, released in advance of World Refugee Day on June 20.     More than one percent of humanity or one in every 97 persons on earth is now uprooted. The U.N. refugee agency considers this a matter of great concern.  It notes most of the nearly 80 million uprooted are displaced inside their own countries, while 29.6 million are refugees, who have sought asylum in other countries.    Despite commonly held perceptions, U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi, says most refugees do not seek asylum in richer countries, but flee to nearby countries.  He says 85 percent are being hosted by poor developing countries.  

The UNHCR chief says only five countries generate 68 percent of the world’s refugees.    “Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan, South Sudan, and Myanmar.  You know what this means.  If crises in these countries were solved, 68 percent of the global forced displacement would probably be on its way to being solved," he said. Grandi says conflict in Democratic Republic of Congo, Africa’s Sahel region, Yemen and Syria account for most of the nine million newly displaced last year.  He says he is particularly worried about the dramatic drop in the number of refugees who are able to return home or find countries of resettlement.      In the 1990s, he notes an average 1.5 million refugees were able to return home each year.  This number, he says, has now declined to fewer than 400,000 a year.

Read more: Lisa Schlein,

Home Office to Face Legal Challenge Over 'Digital Hostile Environment'

Immigrants’ rights campaigners are to bring the first court case of its kind in British legal history in an attempt to turn off what they claim is a decision-making algorithm that creates a “hostile environment” for people applying for UK visas online. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) has been granted a judicial review to challenge the Home Office’s artificial intelligence system that filters UK visa applications. They claim the AI programme is designed to discriminate against applicants from certain nations. In their submission to the high court the JCWI said the algorithm created three channels for applicants including a “fast lane” that would lead to “speedy boarding for white people” to enter the country.

The rights group said applications from people holding suspect nationalities received a higher risk rating. These applications were subjected to far more intensive scrutiny by Home Office officials, took longer to reach a decision and were much more likely to be refused, the JCWI said. It claims that this results in racial discrimination and therefore breaches the 2010 Equality Act. The JCWI will argue in the judicial review case that the AI streaming tool is also too opaque and secretive. They point to the existence of a secret list of suspect nationalities. So far, the Home Office has refused to provide the JCWI with meaningful information about the algorithm in their pre-legal action correspondence. In this action the JCWI and a new group campaigning for justice in the technology sector, Foxglove, will ask the court to declare that the streaming algorithm is unlawful. They will urge the court to order a halt to its use pending a substantive review of the AI decision-making system.

Read more: Henry McDonald, Guardian,

Deadly Impact of Hostile Environment Policies on Undocumented Migrants

From our prior knowledge and experience we anticipated that the hostile environment agenda would be implicated in pushing undocumented migrants overcrowded housing and exploitative “no work, no pay” jobs that make it impossible for them to keep safe in the pandemic and lockdown. It is for this reason that the Status Now Open Letter call was sent to Prime Minister Johnson on 27th March. In this research, some respondents were paid as little as £2/hr as live-in domestic workers, and one had lived in a 5-bedroom flat with 13 other people, all of whom had COVID-19 symptoms in March.

The report concludes that hostile environment policies “constitute a danger to public health by present-ing people with the impossible choice of going to work and risking their health and the health of all those they are in contact with, or otherwise falling into destitution.” Its key recommendations are:

• Regularise all undocumented migrants
• End NHS charges and data-sharing
• End hostile environment policies putting the public in danger
• Raise awareness of migrants’ rights

Contact for more details, the full report, and interview requests:
Susan Cueva, Trustee, Kanlungan Filipino Consortium / 073 9779 6238

Asylum Seeker Set to Challenge “Illusory” Right to Work Rules

The High Court has granted permission for a judicial review challenge to the rules on when asylum seekers are allowed to work in the UK. People waiting over a year for an initial decision on their bid for refugee status can apply for permission to get a job, but only for roles that are on the Shortage Occupation List. The claimant in this case had previously managed to convince the Home Office to consider allowing her to work in a non-shortage role, according to her solicitors at Duncan Lewis. But the department’s answer was no: officials decided that she “had not raised any exceptional circumstances to justify discretion being granted in her favour”. That kicked off a fresh legal challenge, which argues among other things that the decision to refuse permission to work outside the Shortage Occupation List was “irrational, unreasonable and breaches the Claimant’s rights under Article 8” of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Sulaiha Ali of Duncan Lewis told Free Movement that “the current rules only create an illusory right to work for asylum seekers, as very rarely will they be able to work in a job listed in the Shortage Occupation List”. Mr Justice Pepperall, granting permission for the case to proceed, observed that the Home Office had “no clear policy as to the circumstances in which such exceptional permission might be given”.

Read more: Freemovement,

Scrap UK Rule That Has Left 1m Migrant Workers at Risk of Destitution

Immigration rules that have left 1 million migrant workers in the UK at risk of destitution because they cannot claim universal credit should be suspended on public health grounds during the pandemic, a cross-party group of MPs has recommended. The work and pensions select committee said the no recourse to public funds (NRPF) rule – which hit the headlines recently when Boris Johnson appeared not to be aware of its existence – meant many foreign nationals faced a choice of staying at home in hardship or going to work and risking catching or spreading the virus. “During a pandemic it cannot be in the public interest to expect people, some of whom are key workers and frontline medical staff, to comply fully with restrictive public health guidance while simultaneously denying them full access to the welfare safety net,” the report said.

The NRPF rule, which was introduced in 2012 and prevents migrant workers with leave to remain in the UK from claiming many social security benefits, was ruled unlawful by the high court in May following a case brought by a eight-year-old boy whose family had been left in extreme poverty by the rule. Ministers have been under pressure to set out how the government will support people with NRPF since the prime minister unexpectedly told a meeting of the Commons liaison committee in May that he thought the NRPF scheme should be reviewed. “We will see what we can do to help, Johnson said.  The recommendation came as part of the committee’s inquiry report into the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) response to coronavirus. It concluded that while the DWP should be commended for its rapid response to the pandemic, gaps in the safety net had left “huge numbers” of people struggling with daily living costs during the crisis.

Read more: Patrick Butler, Guardian,

What, if Any, Legal Liability Does the UK Government Have For Deaths Caused by Covid-19?

‘The government has faced sustained criticism of many aspects of its handling of the pandemic. Central to that criticism has been the question of whether the government’s decision making has made the requirement to protect life secondary to economic considerations. What has to be faced is the shockingly high fatality rate in the United Kingdom among care home residents and those working on the front-line, including transport workers. That in itself establishes a prima facie case against those responsible for making critical decisions as the pandemic has engulfed us. All the indications are, however, that any question of legal liability at a governmental level will be firmly resisted’

[Failure to provide PPE may amount to a criminal offence under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007]

[CMCHA S.3 is intended to protect government departments from criminal liability for political decision making]

“If the government were an employee of mine I would have sacked them for gross negligence” – so said Anita Astley, manager of Wren Hall nursing home in Nottinghamshire, where 10 residents died from Covid-19 and 48 carers caught the virus in a three week period[1]. Ms Astley’s complaint poses in stark terms a question which has been circulating since the full and devastating extent of the consequences of the pandemic have become clear:  what, if any, legal liability does the state have for deaths caused by Covid-19?

The government has been doing its utmost to deflect any suggestion that it may bear responsibility for the consequences of its handling of and failure to prepare for the pandemic. Principally this has been achieved through a call for unity in a time of crisis, to the extent that even muted questioning of government actions by the opposition has been criticised, as witnessed by the Health Secretary Matt Hancock’s suggestion to Rosena Allin-Khan M.P. that she changes her tone when, as a front line A & E doctor as well as a shadow minister, she had the temerity to ask direct questions about the government’s strategy for contact tracing and testing on the floor of the House and the Prime Minister’s rebuke to criticism of his handling of the pandemic by Keir Starmer, that this amounted to undermining trust in the government. There have also been indications that the buck is going to be passed to the government’s scientific advisers. More sinisterly, there is a suggestion that the government’s decision taken on 19th March to reclassify Covid-19 from a High Consequence Infectious Disease to a Low Consequence Infectious Disease[2], while at the same time the Health and Safety Executive downgraded the classification of Covid-19 under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 from a Group 4 to a Group 3 biological agent, was taken in order to facilitate the decanting of elderly Covid-19 patients from hospitals into care homes.

Read more: Henry Blaxland Q.C,  Garden Court Chambers,

Rules on revocating a Deportation Order

The Secretary of State has the power to revoke a deportation order under section 5(2) of the Immigration Act 1971. The Immigration Rules set out the process that decision-makers are expected to follow: 390. An application for revocation of a deportation order will be considered in the light of all the circumstances including the following:
(i) the grounds on which the order was made;
(ii) any representations made in support of revocation;
(iii) interests of the community, including the maintenance of effective immigration control;
(iv) the interests of the applicant, including any compassionate circumstances.

390A Where paragraph 398 applies the Secretary of State will consider whether paragraph 399 or 399A applies and if it does not, it will only be in exceptional circumstances that the public interest in maintaining the deportation order will be outweighed by other factors. Paragraph 390A ensures that applications for revocation are considered in the same way as claims that deportation would breach someone’s Article 8 rights.

Read more: Freemovement,