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
| 
