APPENDIX 12
Memorandum submitted
by Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit
Thank you for your letter of 3 February 1998 in respect
to entry clearance procedures at Islamabad and New Delhi. I write
on behalf of Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit. However
I have had personal experience of the operation of the High Commission
in Islamabad having visited there in 1985 with a colleague from
Manchester Law Centre. This was in respect to investigating primary
purpose cases. We were sponsored by Manchester City Council. I
enclose the report written after that visit-"What would
you do if your fiancee lived on the moon? " [not printed].
The Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit has been
in existence since 1989. We offer free and expert immigration
advice and representation. We are funded mainly by (a) Manchester,
Bury and Tameside councils, (b) money we obtain through legal
aid. We also produce advice leaflets, pamphlets and books. I enclose
a list of these.
Many of our cases are from the Indian sub-continent.
A majority of these are from Pakistan. Therefore we are aware
mainly of issues concerning Islamabad but suspect these are generally
applicable. The main issues from our experience are:
(1) For the majority of our clients entry clearance
procedures represent a major obstacle in exercising their legitimate
rights under the immigration rules and legislation. These are
clients seeking either settlement through family unity or family
visits. We take it as generally agreed that the rules and legislation
are complex. Also knowing what evidence to obtain to satisfy the
rules (and how to obtain it) is also complex and difficult, It
is therefore intolerable that at the very minimum there is no
free expert and independent advice service on the sub-continent
to guide applicants. The need for such a service is recognised
in this country to advise sponsors (eg through law centres, GMIAU,
JCWI and the Home Office funded Immigration Advisory Service).
There is all the more reason for such a service to exist to advise
applicants directly.
(2) As we understand it the imposition of entry
clearance procedures was first introduced in order to "help"
applicants-in order to prevent them travelling to the UK and then
being refused entry. However we do not accept that prior entry
clearance facilitates the entry of any applicant. Our experience
is that it is an extremely daunting exercise the purpose of which
is to prevent entry. Of course the primary purpose rule has been
abolished. However the way the applicants were asked confusing
and "loaded" questions in marriage interviews was just
the clearest indication of how entry clearance is processed generally.
(3) Our best advice to sponsors in the UK is
often to accompany applicants for their interview. This also means
the sponsor can have the opportunity of properly explaining to
the applicant the issues that will arise at the interview. This
of course means sponsors have to travel thousands of miles. It
is ludicrous.
(4) Actually applicants also often have to travel
huge distances sometimes on more than one occasion. Why are there
only two posts in Pakistan (Karachi and Islamabad)?
(5) The whole entry clearance process gives great
power to entry clearance officers who are several thousand miles
removed from accountability to sponsors or agencies advising/representing
sponsors. It is often hard enough for advisers or sponsors to
communicate with the Home Office in Croydon. It is almost impossible
to have direct communication with the post in Islamabad. Time
variations, engaged telephone lines, blocked faxes-these are all
major obstacles.
(6) Direct communication from the UK is often
particularly necessary in cases of application for visit visas-both
because such visits can be of an emergency nature and also because
there is no appeal system in cases of refusal. We would be interested
in knowing what procedures, if any, exist in Islamabad to facilitate
such direct communication with sponsors or their representatives.
(7) Entry Clearance Officer powers are vastly
increased and the accountability of ECOs is greatly diminished
where no appeal rights exist to contest ECO decisions. For this
reason all appeal rights removed by the 1993 Asylum and Immigration
Act should be restored.
(8) Though the primary purpose rule has been
abolished yet our impression is that Islamabad seems to operate
on the principle that if one rule is made easier (or abolished)
then another rule should be interpreted more stringently. For
instance when it became apparent that it was hard to prevent women
coming under the primary purpose rule then our impression was
that they were then disproportionately prevented from entering
because of the maintenance and accommodation requirements. Our
concern is that with the abolition of primary purpose this will
now happen in the case of men seeking entry. In particular a whole
new form of questioning will develop to "prove" couples
do not intend living with each other or that a marriage is not
"subsisting".
February 1998
| 
