U.S. Committee for Refugees World Refugee Survey 1997 - United Kingdom
- Document source:
-
Date:
1 January 1997
On July 24, 1996, the United Kingdom passed a new law, the Asylum and Immigration Act, which substantially changed the asylum determination process. The law's impact was immediate: there were 27,875 applications for asylum (excluding dependents) in 1996, representing a 47 percent decrease from the previous year's total. At year's end, there were 55,635 applications for asylum awaiting an initial decision, representing a 20 percent drop from the previous year's backlog of 69,650. On February 5, the British government enacted legislation precluding both asylum seekers who do not apply for asylum immediately upon arrival and those appealing against a negative decision from receiving welfare benefits. Under the legislation, only "port applicants" are entitled to welfare benefits and income support. Of those who applied during the year, 12,440 applied at ports of entry, and 15,435 applied within the country. The countries producing the largest number of asylum applications in 1996 were Nigeria (2,540), India (1,795), Somalia (1,780), Pakistan (1,640), Turkey (1,420), and Sri Lanka (1,260). Asylum approval rates have decreased dramatically in the 1990s. In 1989, 31 percent of applications were approved. In 1996, out of a total of 38,960 decisions, only 6 percent were granted refugee status. The number of rejected asylum seekers who were granted "exceptional leave to remain" (ELR), an extendable one-year protection from deportation based on unsettled home country conditions or other humanitarian grounds, also continued to drop for the fourth year in succession. From 1984 to 1993, an average of 54 percent of all decided cases were granted ELR. In 1996, only 19 percent of the decided cases were granted ELR. Perhaps the most startling illustration of the tightening of asylum in Britain since the 1993 Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act is the increasing refusal rate in the United Kingdom, representing persons denied both refugee status and ELR. In 1993, 30 percent of applications were denied outright, but from 1994 to 1996 more than 75 percent of cases were refused. In 1996, the refusal rate rose to 81 percent of all cases examined. In 1996, applicants from several countries experiencing widespread unrest were refused both ELR and refugee status. During the year, 98 percent of Sierra Leoneans, and 95 percent of Zairians, Angolans, and people from Turkey (mostly Kurds) were refused any form of refuge. Only five Sri Lankan applications were granted refugee status, and 25 given ELR despite an upsurge of violence in their home country. By contrast, in 1993, before the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act, 98 percent of Sri Lankan asylum seekers were permitted to remain in the United Kingdom. Asylum Procedure Applicants who are recognized as refugees are granted "leave to remain" for four years. After four years, refugees are usually granted indefinite leave to remain, also known as "settlement." Refugees and persons granted ELR have equal rights with British citizens, except the right to vote (unless originating in a Commonwealth country). Rejected asylum applicants, except those who are rejected on "safe third country" grounds, have the right to appeal their denials in the United Kingdom in several stages. Asylum appeals are heard first by independent special appeal adjudicators within seven days for a fast-track appeal or 42 days for regular cases. If the special appeal adjudicators decide that their cases are not unfounded, rejected claimants may apply for "leave" from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal or the Court of Appeal. The decision of the tribunal may be reviewed by the Court of Appeal. The Asylum and Immigration Act of 1996 made significant changes in the asylum determination process, including the introduction of the concept of "safe" countries of origin; the extension of the "fast-track" appeals procedure; and the restriction of asylum seekers' entitlement to housing and benefits. Fast-Track Procedure The decision-making process for asylum applications has become faster in the United Kingdom since the introduction of the "fast-track" procedure in 1993. Expedited procedures contributed to a doubling in the number of decisions rendered from 1993 to 1996. In 1996, adjudicators decided 38,960 asylum claims in contrast to the 18,165 decisions made in 1993. The Asylum and Immigration Act of 1996 further expedites initial refugee status determinations on new applications and creates tight timetables for any subsequent legal actions. The act introduces the concept of a "white list" of "safe" countries of origin. The secretary of state, subject to parliamentary approval, designates selected countries as "not generally giving rise to a serious risk of persecution." The first countries to be put on the white list were Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ghana, India, Pakistan, Romania, and Poland. Asylum seekers from those countries have ten days to substantiate their persecution claims. The white list countries produced significant numbers of asylum seekers in 1996. The second largest number of applicants for asylum during the year came from India, a white list country. Another white list country, Pakistan, produced the fourth largest number of applicants in 1996. In addition, 809 Poles, 675 Ghanaians, 615 Cypriots, 445 Romanians, and 295 Bulgarians filed asylum claims for themselves and their families during the year. Following fears that the white list would preclude genuine asylum seekers from gaining protection, the act was amended in April so that asylum seekers who could show a "reasonable likelihood" that they had been tortured in the country to which they were to be returned would be exempted from the fast-track procedure. Safe Third Country Cases The United Kingdom continued to use the safe third country provision as a basis for putting asylum applications into the fast-track procedure. An asylum applicant who has come to the United Kingdom from a third country that is party to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and that has considered and rejected the applicant's asylum claim may be removed to that country without substantive consideration of his or her asylum claim in the United Kingdom. Previously restricted to the states of the European Union, the United Kingdom extended safe third country status to Canada, the United States, Norway, and Switzerland in the 1996 act. Beginning on September 1, 1996, under section three of the act, asylum seekers who travel through a safe third country no longer have the right to appeal against refusal on safe third country grounds from within the United Kingdom. Refugee advocates expressed concern that this deletion of the United Kingdom's suspension of removal pending appeal undermines an important safeguard against refoulement. UNHCR estimates that some 40 percent of safe third country appeals in the United Kingdom were successful in the period leading up to the legislation. On April 19, a High Court judge ruled in favor of five asylum seekers who appealed against removal to Belgium under the safe third country provision. The judge expressed doubts that Belgium could be considered a "safe third country" because there were "unresolved, conflicting opinions" over whether a time limit of eight days to apply for asylum in Belgium was strictly applied, and whether asylum seekers returned there from the United Kingdom would be subsequently expelled elsewhere. This appeal would not have suspended removal from Britain after the September 1 amendment. Restriction of Welfare Benefits The government fought several legal battles during the year regarding its measure to deny benefits to both asylum seekers who failed to apply for asylum immediately upon arriving in the country and those who were appealing against a negative decision. The measures were enacted under the "Social Security Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations 1996" on February 5. On June 21, when some 8,000 asylum seekers had been denied benefits under the legislation, the United Kingdom's Court of Appeal ruled that the regulations were ultra vires exceeding the government's legal authority. A Court of Appeal judge said that the regulations "necessarily contemplate for some a life so destitute that to my mind no civilized nation can tolerate it." The government then inserted the language of the regulations as an amendment in the 1996 Asylum and Immigration Act. Asylum seekers were thus once again denied benefits until October 8, when the High Court ruled that by virtue of a 1948 law on providing shelter, warmth, and food to the needy, local councils were obliged to help destitute asylum seekers. The High Court judge said that he did not believe that the government intended that asylum seekers "should be left destitute, starving, and at risk of grave illness and even death." On December 20, for the first time since 1947, the Red Cross started to distribute food parcels to asylum seekers without social security assistance. The British Refugee Council opened a night shelter and day center for those asylum seekers who had become destitute following the changes. On August 12, USCR wrote to the British embassy in Washington expressing concern that the denial of social security benefits to those who failed to apply immediately on arrival went far beyond their stated intent to prevent "bogus" asylum seekers. "It would be far more accurate to assume that asylum seekers reaching the United Kingdom would probably be unfamiliar with both the language and with the asylum application process. Both these factors would likely lead to delays in filing an application," USCR wrote. "Because most asylum seekers lack independent means of support and cannot work legally while their applications are considered, denying social security benefits during the application process effectively amounts to a broad deterrent both to initial applications and to appeals. The regulations call into question the United Kingdom's commitment to the principle of asylum," USCR said. The British embassy replied, "The purpose and intent of this recent legislation was to deter economic migrants from abusing both the asylum and social security systems. The Act will affect nearly 50,000 claimants in a full year which, prior to the Act, would have cost the United Kingdom something in the order of £200 million [some $320 million]." Detention and Deportation Some 2,800 asylum seekers were deported after their applications were rejected in 1995, representing a rise of more than 35 percent over 1994. By June 1996, 1,750 asylum seekers had been removed from the United Kingdom, including 1,000 people who were removed from the port of entry. Up to 850 asylum seekers at any one time were held in detention centers and prisons in the United Kingdom in 1996, a threefold increase since 1993. Refugees and their advocates complained about conditions of detention and lack of information for detained asylum seekers, whose right to bail is not automatic. An Amnesty International report in December criticized the British government for consistently misleading parliament and the British public by claiming that asylum seekers are only held in detention when their claims have been refused. Up to 80 percent are detained temporarily while their claims are examined, Amnesty reported. Former Yugoslavs The British government announced in May that Bosnians in the United Kingdom would be allowed a three-month period to return to Bosnia to assess the situation without losing their right of return to the United Kingdom. At the end of 1996, the United Kingdom hosted some 13,000 Bosnians, some 2,500 of whom were admitted as part of a resettlement program.
Disclaimer:
This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.