Select Committee on Home Affairs Additional Written Evidence


44.  Eighth supplementary memorandum submitted by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, Home Office

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FOR HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Number and percentage of unrepresented applicants in bail applications in the latest five years

  The following data shows the percentage of bail applicants who were represented and unrepresented for 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. Data is not available for earlier years:


2003-04
Adjudicator
Represented
Unrepresented

Bail
92%
8%



2004-05
Adjudicator
Represented
Unrepresented

Bail
82%
18%




2005-06
Immigration Judge
(Apr-Dec)*
Represented
Unrepresented

Bail
76%
24%
*Outcomes figures for 2005-06 are provisional only and refer to hearings after 4 April. Decisions in 2005-06 include cases heard by Adjudicators prior to 4 April 2005.
Based on promulgations in the period.


  The package of reforms to asylum legal aid introduced in April 2004 included measures to focus public funding on cases with merit. Most decisions on funding for appeals have been reserved to the Legal Services Commission but the test of a meritorious case has remained unchanged. The DCA is currently evaluating the impact of these reforms.

Number and percentage of unrepresented applicants in judicial review cases in the latest five years

  The number and percentage of unrepresented applicants in immigration judicial review cases for 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 were:


2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

<lh0,26p6> Represented
200
247
182
324
635
Unrepresented
32
20
28
59
111
Unknown
2
4
2
3
1
Unrepresented %
13.7%
7.4%
13.2%
15.3%
14.9%
Grand Total
234
271
212
386
747

Outcome of AIT appeals following statutory review

  Due to the technical complexities associated with collating this cohort information more development work is required and we are unable to offer any additional information at the moment. However, we are taking this work forward and will send the data in the first week of May.

Number of renewals to High Court of applications for reconsideration of AIT decisions with outcomes, in immigration and asylum cases separately, monthly since April 2005

  Data on reconsideration applications is collected weekly, and so has been collated into monthly totals for 2005-06 up to 3 March 2006. The information did not discriminate between immigration and asylum until the week commencing 20 June 2005:


Received
Granted
Refused

4 April-29 April
  12
0
  4
2 May-3 June
177
9
40
6 June-17 June
  97
5
40



Asylum
Non-Asylum

Received
Granted
Refused
Received
Granted
Refused
20 June-1 July
183
17
  89
    5
  7
    9
4 July-29 July
462
13
  58
  14
  0
    2
1 August-2 September
786
21
155
  71
  0
    8
5 September-30 September
416
22
130
  36
  2
    6
3 October-4 November
378
33
222
  90
  3
  45
7 November-2 December
411
78
731
115
28
164
5 December-30 December
205
45
226
  56
16
  90
2 January-3 February
310
28
214
104
13
  75
6 February-3 March
245
11
  92
  72
  2
  20


Latest analysis of cohorts of applicants throughout the entry clearance/immigration application appeals process

  Data quality issues on the non-asylum part of CID (Case Information Database) mean that it is not able to support good quality cohort analysis under National Statistical protocols prior to 2004. Different databases are used to record information on entry clearance, immigration and appeals. It is therefore not possible to provide cohort information across the full range of these processes. A full range of entry clearance information is available at www.ukvisas.co.uk (go to "More about UKvisas"; then "Entry Clearance Facts and Figures").

  However, the provision of cohort data is one of the expected recommendations of the forthcoming National Statistics Review of Immigration Control Publications, and the Home Office response to the review is likely (resources permitting) to propose that this is among the prioritised list of developments to be addressed after publication of the 2005 Control of Immigration Command Paper.

Latest internal assessments of impact of outsourcing parts of the visa application process

  Please see the attached document. (Appendix A)

Further internal reports, memos and emails on workload pressure and implications of this on speed and quality of decisions in the posts Accra, Lagos, Islamabad and New Delhi

  Please see the enclosed hard copy documents. [Not printed.]

Analysis of reasons for successful appeals (non-asylum), latest five years

  Statistical information about the reasons for appeals being allowed is not collected. Many factors influence the outcome of an appeal hearing including:

(i)  The presence of a sponsor at the hearing

  As the National Audit Office report "Visa Entry to the United Kingdom" indicates, the role of the sponsor can be influential in entry clearance appeals. Entry clearance decisions made in posts abroad have, at best, documentary evidence provided by any sponsor. When it comes to the appeal hearing, it is the sponsor, not the appellant, who is present in court. The NAO report found that the role of the sponsor was significant in 23% of the cases they analysed.

(ii)  Post-decision evidence

  An appeal against a non-asylum decision taken in the UK may take into account any relevant evidence, even if it was not available to the original decision-maker. This means that appeals may be allowed on the basis of information that was not available in the first instance. Additional evidence is also often produced either shortly before, or at, the hearing. This means that there is no opportunity for the decision maker to reconsider the case.

(iii)  Immigration Rules and subjectivity

  The absence of quantifiable criteria in certain sub-paragraphs of the Rules may lead to different interpretations by the decision maker and the Immigration Judge of the requirements. For example, no minimum level of English language skills is prescribed in the student Rules, and no age range was specified in the Sectors Based Scheme Rule (sub-paragraph 135I ii) until 30 November 2005. Decision makers are therefore required to make subjective judgements, which are susceptible to being overturned on appeal.

(iv)  Lack of clarity caused by separate work permit and immigration decisions

  The existence of separate employment and immigration decisions in the processing of Sectors Based Scheme or work permit employment applications can cause misunderstanding over what should be assessed at applicable immigration appeal hearings. The Immigration Rules set out a number of immigration requirements which need to be met by the applicant (for example sub-paragraph 135 I of HC395 as amended) whereas there is often a perception that a positive employment decision, namely the grant of a work permit for a job, is a determining factor in the immigration appeal. The Government announced in 2005 their attention to bring the two considerations into a single process as part of the Five-Year Strategy.

(v)  Justification of the original decision

  The quality of the decision, including the written material produced in support of it, is of course an important factor. The quality of the refusal letter is especially important when justifying subjective judgements, as mentioned above.

Internal assessments and reports on main areas and levels of abuse of immigration control, based on IND intelligence material/briefings

  Please see the documents sent separately. [Not printed.]

Analysis by officials of effectiveness of current IND policy and practice on tackling abuse eg overstaying, working without permission, abuse of marriage route

  Please see the documents sent separately. [Not printed.]

Current internal guidance to enforcement officers on investigating breaches of immigration control

  Section E of the Operational Enforcement Manual is attached. [Not printed.]

Latest proposals for regulation of overseas immigration advisers, as outlined in the Five Year Strategy

  Initial proposals are not yet available.

eBorders programme: latest cost-benefit analysis of biometric visas. What is an SOBC?

  The Committee has received a copy of the UKvisas Biometrics Programme Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC). We are working to update the cost and benefit information contained in the SOBC in the light of feedback from our pilot projects and developing discussions with stakeholders. To date figures have not changed significantly. We would be happy to provide the Committee with a fully updated business case when revisions to cost and benefit information have been completed.

Analysis of costs of different categories of handling in-country immigration applications which led to the setting of fees at current levels; and comparison with costs of categories of entry clearance applications and fees

  We do not yet have the full information the Committee has requested but will supply this as soon as it is available.

Total costs incurred by UKvisas in handling visa applications and appeals, broken down by locations and by type (eg staff costs, accommodation, IT and telecoms, producing forms and leaflets etc)

  Please see attached document. [Not printed.]

March 2006



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 23 July 2006