14 days of non-compliance means refusal for 36,5% asylum seekers

On 24th November, Barbara Roche MP, junior Home Office minister, provided interesting information about current state of refusals of asylum applications in written answer to a parliamentary question. She was asked how many initial asylum decisions resulted in a refusal on the grounds that the applicants had failed to complete their statement of evidence form correctly or had failed to complete it within the 14 days allowed

She replied that the total number of refusals of asylum in the UK between April- September 2000 is 37,765. Total number of new application for asylum between April — September 2000 was 37,095. Total refusals on non-compliance grounds; comprising failure to provide further evidence as required and failure to respond to invitations to interview to establish identity as well as failure to complete a statement of evidence form correctly and within the time allowed was 14,080 or 36,5% of all applications refused.

Asylum seekers are asked to fill in 18 pages long form in English explaining their situation and application within 14 days of their arrival, when they are still confused and if dispersed or not able to speak English they stand no chance with Barbara Roche’s bureaucracy. Once they manage to find legal representatives and understand what is happening to asylum seekers refused on non-compliance grounds will appeal and that means that the number of appeals will increase by 36,5% and the Home Office bureaucracy will be in motion forever. Not to mention stress, trauma and grief caused to asylum seekers only so that Barbara Roche can show how ‘tough’ she is on asylum in the run up to the next general election. Non-compliance refusals are also served to those who have been properly represented.

Hussein Kasujja refused again

Hussein Kasujja has been campaigning against deportation for a long time. He came here from Uganda and applied for asylum 10 years ago. He fears persecution both as a member of the opposition and as a Muslim and he would be in danger if sent back to Uganda. His asylum claim was refused and he was detained for 15 months pending deportation. He was released and his case went to the High Court. The High Court judge sent the case back to the Home Office and Mr Kasujja was asked to re-apply for asylum and provide new evidence which he did through his solicitor. The Statement of Evidence form was filled and sent by recorded delivery in August 2000 and within 14 days deadline. In September Hussein received the letter from the Home Office informing him that his application was refused (again) because he failed to return the forms on time and without reasonable explanation. After they have established that they have not received his documents the Home office letter continues: "In the light of all the evidence available to him and for reasons given above, the Secretary of Sate is not satisfied that you have established a well-founded fear of persecution." Hussein’s solicitor has to make further representations and the case is going to go on while Hussein is facing further uncertainties and trauma of being faced with deportation.

People come because they have to

Applications over the last three months (August to October 2000) averaged at 6,610 per month. This was 5 per cent lower

than the monthly average for the same period of 1999 (6,920).

Applications from Iraq rose by 20% compared with September to 1,175, the highest number ever recorded. An average of 1000 and 470 applications were received per month from nationals of Iraq and Sri Lanka respectively between August and October 2000. Just a brief look at the countries asylum applicants came from in October 2000 confirms that they are not really coming from stable democracies or favourite holiday destinations.

Dispersal and vouchers, another side of this cruel tactics to stop people from coming, are not working either. Apart from continuous public outcry against use of vouchers and for equal treatment of asylum seekers this so called deterrent does not work from government’s point of view because number of asylum applications is not falling. People come here because they have to. But that is obviously of no concern for the government. At the end of November Jack Straw announced that he is going to spend £600 million more to build more detention centres to lock up and deport more asylum seekers. £600 million is more than double the amount that was spent in 1999 as a total cost of supporting asylum seekers, including legal aid, welfare benefits, housing, health and education (£597 million in 1999).

It is astonishing that 0.3% of population accounting for a total cost of 0.17% of Government spending can be such a hot and highly rated item on the public agenda.

The bad cop — good cop

The bad cop — good cop tactics employed by the Home Secretary and his Junior Minister became even more visible in November. One week Barbara Roche was announcing programme of integration for refugees (but only recognised refugees) while a week later Jack Straw claimed that all 72,000 of backlog applicants are missing and he needs to spend more money so he can detain and deport more people.

According to the Guardian article from 22 November Jack Straw said: "that if Oakington was not working the government had no chance of meeting its target of 30,000 enforced departures per year by 2001/02. The last full year figures showed 7,910 asylum seekers were removed from the UK. But Mr Straw insisted that the government could achieve this significant increase through its £600m investment in the immigration service, including an increase in the number of detention places to 2,400. He said deportation was not easy as if someone came from a country where there was civil disturbance there was often no effective government with which to make arrangements for their return."

What he did not say is that from January to September 2000 they have deported and removed 34,170 people and that he does not know where the 72,000 backlog applicants for asylum are because he has not tried to contact them for years. Many of them are law abiding and are informing the Home Office about their whereabouts in the hope that IND will eventually resolve their cases one way or another. These people have not yet been refused and have no reason to abscond. They are not missing - the Home Office has lost them in the storage room, and there is a difference.

If you would like more information about Hussein’s campaign please contact NCADC in London.