Closure of Refugee and Migrant Justice has left 10,000 asylum seekers without legal representation to fight 'culture of disbelief'
By Ayesha Christie
The tragic death of Osman Rasul last week confirmed some of my worst fears of how the closure of Refugee and Migrant Justice (RMJ) would impact on some of our most vulnerable clients.
I left RMJ a few months before it went into administration. My former clients included victims of trafficking, torture survivors, children and rape victims. Some had recently arrived in Britain and were in the initial stages of the asylum process; others had been here for many years and, like Rasul, were in the process of submitting fresh claims for asylum. The majority of those making these claims were initially unrepresented or poorly represented, and the evidence required to support their case was not previously obtained or put forward, resulting in a negative decision. Some were destitute and had been living in limbo for years, and many clients now suffer from mental health problems.
The sudden closure of RMJ left around 10,000 clients without legal representation. Many were left unclear as to what was happening with their case, and how and where to find another legal representative when there are so few immigration lawyers. We knew that given the fragile mental state of many of our clients, losing their legal representative with no warning or appropriate explanation could have devastating consequences.
Without a quality legal representative, an asylum applicant barely stands a chance when faced with the adversarial asylum system and "culture of disbelief" is pervasive within the Home Office and UK society in general. This is largely thanks to politicians and the press bandying around terms like "illegal immigrant", "economic migrant" and "bogus asylum seeker" without regard or understanding of what it means to be fleeing persecution.
From day one, I worked to the expectation that my clients would be refused asylum initially and their cases were likely to go on to appeal, as the Home Office refuses approximately 75% of asylum applications. 28 per cent go on to win at appeal; others appeal further if the immigration judge is found to have made a legal error in dismissing their case. Sometimes the Home Office refusal letters are well reasoned, but in many cases the reasoning is weak, the evidence is outdated or selective, and in one case my client's refusal letter was copied word for word from that of her partner– despite the fact the reasons for refusal did not apply to her case.
This week saw another example of the distorted media coverage of this issue. A front-page article in the Times on the absence of Home Office representatives at immigration appeal hearings declared: "Thousands take advantage of undefended appeal tribunals" – a statement that is profoundly misleading.
First, the article conflates asylum with migration, not comprehending that there is a difference between those who are fleeing persecution and are recognised as refugees in need of international protection, and those who have migrated to the UK – whether it be to study, work or reside with an immediate family member. Then there is the suggestion that immigration judges, whose job it is to consider all the evidence and submissions from both sides, fail to do so in the absence of a Home Office presenting officer, resulting in a neverending flood of migrants entering the UK. This is irresponsible journalism, and far from reality.
It is undoubtedly in the interests of justice that representatives are present for both parties at the appeal. However, in the absence of a Home Office presenting officer, the judge is still required to review the Home Office's reasons for refusing the application, and the Judge may question the appellant on issues raised.
The Times indicates that 41,470 immigration cases were allowed on appeal in 2009, of which 17,473 were unattended by the Home Office. But the real concern is not whether these hearings were attended by the Home Office, but that so many immigration cases are refused by the UK Border Agency, appealed, and subsequently allowed. What the statistics really show is that, last year, the Home Office made an incorrect decision in over 40,000 cases.
The legal aid budget is expected to be significantly cut under the new coalition government. So the priority should be improving the quality of decision-making within the UK Border Agency. Depriving asylum seekers of their opportunity to access justice will result in greater spending in the longer term and have a devastating impact on the lives of vulnerable individuals in genuine need of protection.
• Anyone wishing to donate money for the repatriation of Osman Rasul's body to Iraq, please visit Friends of Osman Mohammed
No comments:
Post a Comment