Jump to content




Photo

Border Farce Lets Thousands Of Illegals Stay


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#11 TRS2010

TRS2010

    Senior Member

  • Active Members
  • 221 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England
  • england

Posted 23 November 2012 - 08:51 PM

After reading the inspector's findings , i feel for those whose cases have been delayed and ended up being granted only DL which is very unfair . I can imagine how it feels for someone who has been co operating well with UKBA , sending all the requested correspondences , and was promised their cases would be concluded in time but ended up not being granted during CRD , its disappointing . I know of some people who had been granted DL in 2007 etc , and applied well on time to extend their stay , but their cases were not looked at and now when they are due for ILR , they get only DL , its unacceptable . The implementation from ILR to DL was flawed as the inspector said , why change it when they had promised to either grant (ILR) or remove someone ? People who are getting DL will still have the stress of going to re apply again after those 3 or 2.5 years , and God knows what will be happening then . Its really unfair and many people still have their cases not looked at , they have been sending letters etc , and were not even opened , surely this is barbaric .



#12 mkhari

mkhari

    Prefered Member

  • Active Members
  • 776 posts
  • Location:leicester
  • england

Posted 24 November 2012 - 11:51 AM

my question is
the people who filled JR
the ukba independent chief inspector report to parliment is a valid point

i meam whats the credibility in front of the court
in Jr

how we can present our arguments and put reference number of this report about UKBA
unfair decion about DLR


are these kinds of arguments are acceptable in court
that 150 unopen boxes

our case was in legacy
asylum claimed before march 2007
CRD reviewed our case
several letter received end of summer 2011 all cases will be resolved


and case transfer to CAAU
guidline changed and they start issuing DLR

according to chief inspector

#13 TRS2010

TRS2010

    Senior Member

  • Active Members
  • 221 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England
  • england

Posted 24 November 2012 - 07:20 PM

my question is
the people who filled JR
the ukba independent chief inspector report to parliment is a valid point

i meam whats the credibility in front of the court
in Jr

how we can present our arguments and put reference number of this report about UKBA
unfair decion about DLR


are these kinds of arguments are acceptable in court
that 150 unopen boxes

our case was in legacy
asylum claimed before march 2007
CRD reviewed our case
several letter received end of summer 2011 all cases will be resolved


and case transfer to CAAU
guidline changed and they start issuing DLR

according to chief inspector

No Mkhari , the problem here is the inspector identified points he thought are/were flawed BUT he is just there to inspect and recommend , that is all . His findings do not in any way shape or form interfere with the UKBA law/policy . So , it does not necessarily mean the ukba policy is wrong but is inconsistent with previous granting policies . The UKBA have the power to maintain the policy or change it , not the independent inspectors . It is up to the UKBA to take into consideration what the inspector has recommended , which is really credible and fair . People whose cases were delayed are suffering but unless UKBA changes its policies , nothing can be done . Your point of arguing that those who have applied for JR , it is still tricky because the courts might still uphold the decisions because UKBA are granting according to current law/policies , its not as if they are granting some ILR but some DL , they now seem to grant one status which is DL . Its very tricky and unfortunate ..

#14 mkhari

mkhari

    Prefered Member

  • Active Members
  • 776 posts
  • Location:leicester
  • england

Posted 26 November 2012 - 09:07 PM

http://icinspector.i...-22.11.2012.pdf

July 2011 Policy change – Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) to Discretionary Leave (DL)
7.30 On 20 July 2011 the Agency changed its policy in relation to the type of leave that it would grant under Paragraph 395C of the Immigration Rules.60 This resulted in legacy asylum applicants being granted Discretionary Leave for three years where it was considered removal from the UK was not appropriate. This was a change from the previous position where Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) was routinely granted in asylum cases where a decision was made not to remove under Paragraph 395C.
7.31 The rationale for this policy change was that as the vast majority of legacy cases had now been cleared, it was no longer appropriate to grant ILR. The change was also justified on the basis that remaining legacy cases should not be treated more favourably than refugees who were normally granted five years’ limited leave. The Agency recognised this policy change increased the risk of litigation and told us it considered the potential impact in detail when the change was made. This included the need to provide for certain exceptions whereby ILR could still be granted. While we make no comment on the new policy itself, we identified that the exceptions were not in place when the change took effect, nor were they subsequently clearly communicated to staff.
7.32 The Agency planned to allow CAAU caseworkers to retain their discretion to grant ILR in cases where it had ‘made a written commitment that a case would be considered before 20th July 2011, but had failed to do so, and the Agency later decided that a grant was appropriate’.
7.33 The Agency intended that this exception would address situations where granting DL would be unfair. However, when the operational guidance was issued on 20 July 2011,61 caseworkers were not informed of this exception – indeed the guidance stated that:
60 Staff from the Agency’ s Policy and Strategy Group transferred to Home Office HQ on 18 July 2011 to form a new Immigration and Border Policy Directorate. Although this predates the policy change by two days, we concluded that the policy change was driven by the Agency at this point in time.
61 Chapter 53 of the enforcement instructions and guidance.60
‘Where, as a result of considering the factors set out in 53.1.2, (the relevant factors set in Paragraph 395c of the Immigration Rules) removal is not considered appropriate, a maximum of 3 years Discretionary Leave (DL) should be granted.’
7.34 On the same day, an email was circulated to CAAU senior caseworkers and above, setting out that:
‘With immediate effect from this morning we can no longer grant ILR following consideration of Chapter 53.’
7.35 An attachment to this email reinforced this message, stating:
‘Section 53.1.1 will be amended to include a line stating that where, as a result of considering the factors set out in 53.1.2 (relevant factors in Paragraph 395C), removal is not considered appropriate, a maximum of 3 years Discretionary Leave (DL) should be granted. To be clear, from 20 July 2011, ILR should no longer be granted in any cases as a result of considering the factors in 53.1.2.’
7.36 On 1 August 2011 revised training material was circulated to senior caseworkers in CAAU. This made no mention of any exception which allowed caseworkers to continue granting ILR in certain circumstances.
7.37 We were told that this exception was excluded from the Agency-wide guidance because it was only applicable to asylum legacy cases managed through CAAU, and not those cases decided under the New Asylum Model. Instead, the policy change was supported by local guidance, which was issued specifically to senior caseworkers within CAAU (who provide guidance and advice to case workers), setting out the exception under which they could grant ILR.
7.38 While the exception was considered prior to 20 July 2011, it was not actually approved until the last week in August. This meant the exception was not in place at the time the policy was changed. While the exception originally referred to a ‘written commitment’ being made in individual cases, we noted that senior caseworkers in CAAU were subsequently told on the 29 July 2011 that this discretion would only apply in cases where individual written commitments had been given in response to Pre Action Protocol letters, Judicial Reviews or correspondence from MPs. This mitigation flowed from work that the Policy Unit had undertaken to mitigate risks linked to this policy change, which stated:
‘CAAU report a number of cases were given an undertaking by CRD (in relation to PAPs, JRs or MPs’ correspondence) that a decision would be made on their case by a date pre-dating the change in policy, but the undertaking has not been met. We will seek to distinguish these cases and grant ILR on the basis that it is in line with a previous undertaking. We recommend that we adopt this approach’.
7.39 We noted that this risk mitigation plan went on to state that the Agency ‘would defend challenges from older cases where the above does not apply’. From other written chains of evidence that we examined, it was clear that this aspect of the risk mitigation plan was based in part on earlier evidence from CAAU. This set out that CAAU wanted to distinguish cases given an undertaking by CRD in relation to PAPs, JRs or MPs’ correspondence, granting ILR on the basis that it had failed to meet an earlier undertaking to make a decision prior to July 2011. 61
7.40 This approach excluded other types of written communication, for example from legal representatives (otherwise than in the context of litigation) or applicants themselves, including complaints. The written commitment had to have been given in individual cases, which therefore excluded those applicants who were sent letters and who were told to wait their turn for a decision by CRD. These applicants had sometimes waited over a number of years, due to the priority order in which CRD was working through asylum legacy cases. This disadvantaged applicants who were compliant and who had to wait for their case to be considered and had a reasonable expectation that a decision would be made by the summer of 2011.
7.41 This was a serious omission, because in many of the cases we sampled, we found that applicants or their legal representatives had been in contact with the Agency about their asylum claims over a number of years, sometimes repeatedly (Figure 17 refers). They were encouraged by the Agency not to contact it once they had provided the additional information requested, because of the way the Agency was prioritising its workload, which was set out originally in the IND Review:
‘We plan to do this within five years or less. We will prioritise those who may pose a risk to the public, and then focus on those who can be more easily removed, those receiving support, and those who may be granted leave. All cases will be dealt with on their individual merits’.
7.42 This approach saw hundreds of thousands of letters being sent out to applicants and their legal representatives during the lifetime of CRD, reminding them of the Agency’s intention to conclude all legacy cases by July 2011. These letters were of particular significance to those applicants who were in contact with the Agency and complying with Agency requests, who were given an expectation that their cases would be concluded by July 2011. Figure 24 details two types of generic letters that were sent out to applicants by CRD. 62

Figure 24: Example of stock letters sent out to legacy asylum applicants
1
‘On 19 July 2006, the Home Secretary made a statement to Parliament about the then UK Border Agency’s legacy of electronic and paper records relating to unresolved asylum cases. He stated that the aim was to clear these cases within five years or less, namely by July 2011. I can confirm that your client’s case falls into this category but I cannot give any indication at this stage when it will be actioned. We will contact your client when your client’s case comes up for decision.’
2
‘Please send your photographs and any other documents62 along with the completed form sent with this letter, to the address at the top of this letter. You should do this within 21 days from the above date. If you do not return the documents requested above, we will consider your case on the documents available to us.’
‘We ask that you do not make routine telephone or written enquiries about the progress of your case, as this diverts our resources from resolving cases. We will not confirm receipt of your reply to this letter or receipt of your photographs. Should we require any further information about your case, a UKBA colleague will contact you.’

#15 mkhari

mkhari

    Prefered Member

  • Active Members
  • 776 posts
  • Location:leicester
  • england

Posted 28 November 2012 - 11:53 AM

http://www.freemovem...eal-fault-lies/

#16 lemrac

lemrac

    Junior Member

  • Active Members
  • 96 posts
  • Location:London
  • gb

Posted 29 November 2012 - 08:59 AM

Channel 4 news : http://www.channel4....fit-for-purpose

#17 isaacalum

isaacalum

    Advanced Member

  • Active Members
  • 357 posts
  • Location:leeds
  • england

Posted 29 November 2012 - 12:14 PM

Channel 4 news : http://www.channel4....fit-for-purpose

its painful to every one in this fiasco but their people in more appalling situation than others its like a bird waiting for its wings to grow so it can fly but instead constantly having them clipped and have to wait longer than necessary

#18 mkhari

mkhari

    Prefered Member

  • Active Members
  • 776 posts
  • Location:leicester
  • england

Posted 29 November 2012 - 02:06 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-20508412




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users