Home Affairs Committee

Introduction

Why Refugee Women is a women refugee only organisation formed and run by refugee women and asylum seeking women in Yorkshire and Humber. The word refugee within the name and in this report includes refugees and asylum seekers. Why Refugee Women was set up in 2010 with an ultimate aim of improving the quality of life of women refugees. We work unite women refugees in fighting unfairness and lack of understanding in asylum decision making, as well as injustices at policy level. We also empower refugee women to voice their concerns in order to protect their human rights, dignity and respect and to create awareness in our communities about the lives of refugees.

Why Refugee Women has 108 refugee women from all over the world who have so far signed up as members. To promote its mission, it has developed a charter555 that 133 organisations have signed in support. Why Refugee Women members have personal experiences in all the areas to be covered by the Inquiry. Why Refugee Women’s submission concentrates on addressing all these areas, endeavoring to provide concrete examples and recommendations both for investigation and for change. Unlike many other institutions also making their submission in response to the Parliament call, Why Refugee Women’s submission is one of a kind that is direct from the hands of the target group and whatever is addressed in this submission are real life experiences. This is what makes our submission unique, therefore, close consideration needs to be paid to the recommendations herein.

Why Refugee Women views this opportunity to submit evidence to the Parliament Inquiry Select Committee as a great opportunity believing that the Voice of Women Refugees must be at heart of any review of asylum process as many have suffered hardship as a result of the asylum policies of the Home office. The points raised in this submission are the result of a survey done among the members of Why Refugee Women in Yorkshire and Humber who live in Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, Keighley and Doncaster about their priorities for this inquiry. These women were selected randomly without looking at their status, background and country of origin.

Executive Summary

This submission is focussing on matters regarding screening and assessment of the credibility of the applicants that result in negative decisions, especially women asylum seekers where majority cases are gender based and the majority get refused by the Home Office as highlighted in the Asylum Aid Women’s Asylum Charter in Every Single Woman556 report and Refused: the Experiences of Women denied asylum in the UK Report557, many women flee their countries mainly based on gender persecutions and their cases end up being refused due to a gender-insensitive cultures which create discriminatory barriers faced by women. As strongly highlighted at its conference held on 30th November, 2012558, the many traumatic and hardships that asylum seekers face is because of poor quality of decision making within the Home Office. Why Refugee Women looked critically at some of the factors that contribute to failures of female asylum seekers cases. As highlighted in Refused: The experiences of women denied asylum in the UK559 all women in our sample had their cases refused at initial decision and some were overturned in the court at appeal stage, refer to Case Study 1 attached. Asylum Aid’s research560 in January, 2011 also confirmed that 87 per cent were initially refused but 50 per cent were overturned at appeals level. The UKBA subsequently confirmed these statistics in 2011 that its statistics showed a similar pattern – between 35 per cent and 41 per cent of initial decisions on women’s cases are overturned at appeal level561. This percentage is significantly more than other government procedures. The overturned appeal percentage of women is relatively than for men. As stated above, the results of poor decision making bring about many hardships and sufferings which include detention, destitution, deportation, poor health, poverty and traumatic stress.

The main problems that lead to refusals and poor decisions are found principally at screening stage and substantive interviews stageand this submission will focus on these areas. At final part of this submission, Why Refugee Women has put forward some recommendations made by members who believe the current system fails to take into account their needs.

The effectiveness of the UK Border Agency screening process, including the method of determining eligibility for the ‘Detained Fast Track’ procedure.

The survey which Why Refugee Women carried out involved 31 women amongst which 28% were in the age of 21-30; 40% were in the age range of 31-40; 16% were of the age range of 41-50; 15% of the age range of 51-60 and 1% was under 20. They are from Malawi, DRC, Zimbabwe, Gambia, Lebanon, Pakistan, Gambia, Uganda, Algeria, Iran, Cameron, Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania, Somalia, Sudan, Angola, Portugal (originally from Eritea) and Zambia (they are some women in the research who also came from other countries who passed through other countries). These women entered and sought asylum in UK between year 2000 and 2012 at different stations – Croydon, Liverpool, Sheffield and Newcastle. 100% of these women were refused asylum at the initial decision, a common experience among women asylum seekers, Refused: the experiences of women denied asylum in the UK states562. From these finding Why Refugee Women concludes that there are strong factors that contribute to failure or refusal of female asylum seekers cases which mainly are evident at screening and substantive interviews. On the other hand, 100% of the interviewees believe that the decisions in their cases were unjust decision and the findings reveal a multitude of problems that contribute directly and indirectly to failure of female asylum seekers cases aside poor decision making.

Screening Interview

1. During screening process, told to go away unless you have ID/Passport.

Many asylum-seekers may not have IDs particularly women who have been trafficked/smuggled or are running away from persecution. Many of Why Refugee Women members have felt that the current screening process has had unfair negative effect on their pursue to a fair asylum claim. As indicated in the lady’s story in Case Study 1 (attached), the screening interview posses a barrier just starting from the reception, security guards. This is backed up by the findings from the survey we just did where women have complained that they were being interrogated to hand in their passports and when they explained that they did not have them, either they were turned away or put on hold. With these experiences alone right at the beginning of the asylum process, it puts the women in an extra confused state and instills spirit of fear, making it difficult to get the real story from a woman who has been intimidated by the officials right at the entrance.

2. Examinational searching by security Guards

Case study 1, discusses the experience of examinational search which is very demeaning, whereby the claimants are treated like a criminals and so dehumanizing accompanied by accusations being leveled against the claimant in the case study reveals a total culture of disbelief which is coming out from everyone who participated in our survey. This search includes setting mobile phones into pieces up to a point of removing sim cards from the mobile phones (read case study 1).

3. Male interviewers

From the findings the Why Refugee Women for this submission, 58 per cent were interviewed by male officers and 92 per cent indicated preference of female interviewers while 8 per cent did not answer the preference question. In view of this, 100% of the women in our survey indicated that they found it difficult to disclose their stories due to the nature of their stories and culturally, these are impossible to be disclosed to an opposite sex. In Asylum Aid’s recent report563, for example, one lady explained how she was expected to provide immediate details of sex work. Even though it is indicated with the Home Office that women are allowed to request for female interviewers and interpreters but in practice even if they request for same, male interviewers turn up and their decision can never be challenged564.

4. Understanding the purpose of the Screening Interview

66.67 per cent of the 31 women who participated in the Why Refugee Women Survey did not understand and were not aware of the importance of screening interview at the time of the interview. This lack of knowledge, contribute to the reasons indicated in refusal letters. Failure to disclose their stories at screening interview result in labeling them to be liars and formulating other stories after the screening interview was already over.

5. Screening Officer tell the asylum seekers not tell their whole story

100 per cent of the interviewees and members of the Why Refugee Women testified that the staff at the screening interview mis-represented the facts by suggesting to claimants that the screening interview was less important and somehow unnecessary. The staff told the interviewees that they needn’t tell their whole stories, rather just part or brief of their stories. However, the failure to tell their whole stories was held against them later, and used to suggest that their stories were not true. One woman commented, “The interviewer misled me not to tell everything and I was penalized at the initial decision that I did not say some things at the screening interview and called me a liar”.

6. Interpreters at Screening Interview

64 per cent of the interviewees in the survey indicated that they did not have an interpreter and in view of this, they could not explain clearly their asylum reasons. A further 28 per cent said they had interpreter but the interpreters were either not from their countries or spoke different dialects, and as a consequence, misrepresented the facts. 8 per cent did not answer the question.

7. Difficult to tell

72 per cent disclosed that they found it difficult to tell the interviewers why they claimed asylum because of the nature of their stories, the environment, language barriers, and the time. A great deal of psychological research confirm that it is difficult to trauma victims to discusss their experiences565 and also by the Holocaust Survivor, Eva Scholls566 who has publicly confessed on the national television on 11th April, 2013 that it has taken her 70 years to talk about her experiences and this was not even discussed amongst their family members. This is how it is, scary, and traumatizing and talking about it, Eva said, it is like opening the wounds again.

8. Lack of privacy

The majority of the women interviewed complained of lack of privacy at the screening interview. At all of the screening units mentioned, asylum seekers are asked to explain their stories to Home Office officials sitting behind glass screens in an open hall where other claimants are listening while waiting for their turns and also to male officers and in the presence of their children. As indicated above, this environment is intimidating, especially that the majority of female asylum seekers cases are complex cases related to sexual violence and domestic persecution. This is clearly indicated in the Case Study 1 attached and in other reports like the Asylum Aid and Refused: the experiences of women denied asylum in the UK report567.

9. Nature of women asylum cases

The majority of the women interviewed indicated that they felt ashamed to talk about their experiences. As indicated in the Refused: The experiences of women denied asylum in the Uk report, it is not easy for women to talk about their experiences of persecution, particularly when these include experiences such as rape, sexual violence, forced prostitution and female genital mutilation. Many women claiming asylum undergo traumatic experiences which impact badly in the initial decision due to their inability to give an accurate record. As indicated from the records, all of the women indicated that they felt ashamed to tell their experiences.

Some indicated that they could not tell everything because they felt sad and scared to talk about their experiences.

10. Language Barriers

As already indicated above, interpreter are scarcely available as there are no provision for such on the arrival of the claimant. Very few common languages have interpreters available on rota basis and their quality and ability is always questionable, in the Why Refugee Women survey for the Parliament Inquiry submission only 28% of the 31 women we interviewed had interpreters. The majority felt that they did not understand the questions and 60 per cent felt the interviewers rushed the interview through without considering language difficulties.

11. Timing

Under the Fast Track system, victims of sexual violence are expected to disclose their experiences on the same day of their claim, and no consideration is given to the nature of cases. Many women tend to hide most sensitive information at the first instance either because of the environment, or being unsure of the person they are telling or feeling ashamed and traumatized. Late disclosure, or incidents described in later interviews of which no mention was made in the first, is commonly cited as a reason against an asylum seeker’s credibility (see Asylum Aid, 1999). Decisions on refugee status rely heavily on judgments about how individuals present themselves and their histories. Late or non-disclosure of sensitive personal information is assumed to be a result of fabrication by the asylum claimant. In the Centre for the Study of Emotion and Law research568, the majority of participants in the research experienced the Home Office interviews as difficult, and many reported difficulties with disclosing personal details. The research569 revealed that women who have suffered sexual violence are psychologically affected and it takes a long time for them to start talking about their experiences in an orderly manner. According to the National Audit Office (NAO, 2004) pressure to meet targets has resulted in the neglect of the complexity and sensitivity of such cases. One lady in the survey said in tears, “I felt frightened”.

This means that, the asylum process expects too much from these women and the results are obvious in that they end up refusing their claim, not because they do not have genuine grounds for asylum but because they cannot ably tell their experiences in the midst of other problems at the screening stage. Over 70 per cent indicated that because it was hard there were things they did not tell the interviewers.

As stated from case Study 1 and comments from the majority of them, asylum seekers spend hours waiting for interview and with no food. The lady in the case study 1 spent over 12 hours without any food and many of them have the same experience. The waiting time increases anxiety and stress, diminishes their thinking and generally makes them low and negative about the whole process. Keeping claimant without any food and still expecting them to discuss their experiences accurately is totally inhuman.

12. Attitude of Interviewers

In addition to the experience of the security guards at the entrance, 48 per cent of respondents we interviewed indicated that the interviewers were rude to them, either because of the culturally insensitive questions they were asking or because they were forcing the claimants to say things they were not comfortable saying in inconvenient environments and to male strangers. 36 per cent indicated that they met polite interviewers while 16 per cent did not answer the question. For example, one woman commented “Asking me embarrassing questions sounded rude to me, in our culture there are things we do not tell everyone and not in public places”.

In the Centre of the Study of Emotion and Law research revealed that the attitude of the interviewers emerge as the strongest factor in either facilitating or impeding disclosure. The interview data in the Centre of the Study of Emotion and Law research also showed that disclosure was not just based on personal decisions and internal processes, but also related to interpersonal-, situational-, and contextual factors570.

13. Notes from the Screening Interview

64 per cent of the interviewees complained that the notes that they saw after the interview were not accurate and were mostly also photocopied faint ink making them eligible to read. This was seen as demonstrating the whole mission of the Home Office. The women interviewed kept on saying that their cases were refused the moment they stepped into the Home Office claim office. All other steps are just procedurally while they have already refused you. Provision of wrong notes are suspected either the attitude of the interviewer, having preconceived decision or interpreters giving wrong information. Not sure which is which, Why Refugee Women views this as a serious negative sign of an unfair asylum process that aims at double torturing victims of torture.

On the other hand and to confirm our suspicions over the behavior of UKBA staff, one woman was instructed by her solicitors to make a request for her interview to be recorded but it was not and she said, “My representative had asked for the interview to be tape recorded but it was not”. This notwithstanding, many times, the interviewers have told the claimants that the recorders were not working or the tapes were not available. This is an example of unfair the asylum process is in UK.

14. Other Reasons

Why Refugee Women research revealed that there are a multitude of reason why the present UK asylum process is regarded unfair system from the screening stage because of the following findings. The women we interviewed said in their own words:…

“The interviewer misled me not to tell everything and I was penalised why I did not say some things at screening interview and called me a liar”.

“Asking me embarrassing questions sounded rude to me, in our culture there are things we dont tell everybody and in public places”

“I felt embarrest”

“Everything I said was not believed and I was warned several times that if I lie I will be liable”.

“they didn’t take my age in consederation in dealling with me during the interview time”.

“it was very hard for me to tell my story I was very cofused and stressed”.

“the problem was with the interpreter who missunderstand my meaning and my dialect plus the interviewer was rushinig me up”.

“they where one female and three male so I couldn’t talk about the main problem on front of them and my kids around”

15. Other comments on the Screening Interview

Many Asylum seekers believe the screening interview, for many reasons, is not the fair place to expect asylum seekers to outline their full claim and made the following comments in their own words:

“At least should be in private”

“The Interview was strict and made it difficult for me.”

“It was confusing”

“The interview was the bad experience I went through; the things the interpreter say wrongly I don’t say I tell the UKBA interviewer he shout and say the interpreter knows his job”.

“Long waiting times and stressful”

“The interpreter was too loud and they change the interpreter three times because of the loud voices and didn’t understand my Arabic”.

“Because I was shy and ashamed. Interviewer wrote things I did not say. I don’t know if the interpreter did a good job because I cannot understand English”.

“It was a very intimidating process and I didn’t fully understand what it was for”.

“I felt pressured to respond there and then without thinking about my responses or I would risk not getting my refugee status”.

“I felt too afraid to trust the interpreter and interviewer. It was difficult for me to speak”.

“My representative had asked for the interview to be tape recorded but it was not”.

“It was rushed and before completing the answer to one question he rushed to ask another question”.

“Everything I said was not believed and I was warned several times that if I lie I will be liable”.

“I felt frightened”.

The assessment of the credibility of women, the mentally ill, victims of torture and specific nationalities within the decision-making process and whether this is reflected in appeal outcomes.

Most Why Refugee Women members and supporters believe for many cultural and gender specific reasons, women have an unfair disadvantage in claiming asylum. As highlighted in the Asylum Aid Charter and the Refused: The experiences of women denied asylum in the UK ; StillHumanStillHere: The Campaign to end destitution of refused asylum seekers and the conference report of the launch of the Refused report in Bradford on 30th November, 2012, assessing women’s experiences of persecution requires understanding of the traumatic effects of these experiences. Despite facing battles with their perpetuators, inhuman customary laws, legal injustices and corrupt police system in their own countries, these women face even similar battles to prove their experiences in the asylum process. The Home Office issued guidance for its staff in March, 2004571, where many of the forms of persecution and violence that women experience and safeguards for women in the asylum process. However, despite these guidelines document, numerous reports and this survey that Why Refugee Women took reveal regular failure by decision makers to take women’s experiences into account when interpreting refugee regulation. Asylum Aid research over a decade highlight failure by UKBA to properly implement and abide to the Gender Guidelines instruction document572.

In our survey, the following elements were revealed that affected the initial decision.

(a) Interviewers, male or female

In this survey 44 per cent of the women were interviewed by male office; 32 per cent had female interviewers while the rest did not bother to comment. The high percentage of male interviewers confirm what has been said above and in the Asylum Aid report that almost a decade now since the Gender Guidelines were produced, UKBA still acts against the instruction. Furthermore, 72 per cent of the women surveyed showed preference if they could be given a female interviewer and this clearly indicates the pains felt by refused female asylum seekers that they could not speak enough about their cases to a male officer. This points to the unfairness of the practices in the asylum process which have impacted badly on female asylum seekers and particularly where children are involved.

(b) Legal Representatives

72 per cent testified that they did not go with their solicitors to the substantive interview, while 12 per cent indicated that they had their lawyers with them. These disparities clearly put the credibility of the asylum process into question. Without a solicitor, these women were clearly denied a fair hearing. One would ask what is the measuring stick of who should and should not bring a lawyer with them as the results in this survey reveals a lot of doubt.

(c) Barriers to disclosure

In this survey as well as in the Case Studies 1 and 2 attached, it is revealed that the majority of asylum seekers fail to disclose everything to the interviewer about their experiences due to different barriers. For some, it is because they didn’t have interpreters, or the interpreters did not do a good job, for example, one lady stated that the interpreter knew very little about her language and ended up saying the wrong things and the lady complained, the officials turned against her “..The interview was the bad experience I went though the things the interpreter say wrongly I don’t say I tell the UKBA interviewer he shout and say the interpreter knows his job”.

Some indicated that the Home Office provided the interviewees with interpreters that were not from their countries of origin and failed to give a true picture of their experiences. Some women complained that the interpreters spoke a different dialect or worse enough they intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented the asylum claimants.

The other contributing factors to the negative outcomes of the initial decisions are that the asylum seekers are expected to disclose their entire story but in hostile and intimidating environments. For example 12 per cent of the women we interviewed complained that they could not tell everything to the interviewer because their children were around. Despite, the positive changes in the Home Office where 7 centres have provided child care services, Croydon in London has not done so till to date and yet this is the main asylum claiming office where the screening and substantive interviews are done. This is against the Asylum Instruction on Processing Family cases573. The revelations from this reports highlights another challenge to the credibility of decision making over gender based asylum cases.

Some women opted not to say everything because it makes them sad and ashamed or feared to talk about their experiences. This is quite common, as revealed by a Holocaust survivor, Eva Scholls who could not speak or write about her horrible experience in Germany during its war with the Russian army and as well as in the Refused report574. Some fail to disclose because they do not know if such information would be relevant to their claims due to lack of understanding of the asylum process.

40 per cent of the women indicated that the interview was rushed and also heavy and confusing whereby the interviewees did not understand the questions but they had to say some things any way which in the end worked against their cases. Substantive interviews take almost a whole day where an asylum seekers are interrogated like criminals and are also asked irrelevant questions that confuse them even more with an intention to find loopholes for refusal.

40 per cent of the women indicated that the interviewers were rude to them while 48 per cent felt that the interviewers were polite to them. This difference may link up to gender of the interviewers which caused the female asylum seekers to feel that the male interviewers were rude when they asked sensitive questions.

(d) Credibility of the initial decisions and culture of disbelief

100 per cent of the women interviewed in our survey had their asylum claim refused at initial stage. As confirmed by the Women Refugee Women research for the Refused report575 the majority of the women in our research had their claims refused on the grounds that they were not believed . One woman was quoted … “It is painful not to be believed when you know what I went through was true, whatelse should I say. I am depressed and under medication, I cry every day. Life no good”. This is a key strategy in that vulnerable lives are being destroyed even where the case law shows that women who have experienced certain kinds of persecution are entitled to refugee protection and it becomes very painful if such individuals are told that they never had those experiences, The Independent Asylum Commission in 2008576. The majority of the women in our survey had in their refusal letters that they were not believed. However, when someone flees their country and seeks the protection of another state, they usually have to describe what happened to make them afraid to return. This task requires many psychological processes, a key one being autobiographical memory. Memory for events of a specific time and place in one’s personal past is the subject of a huge literature, much of it showing that recall is vulnerable to distortions and biases577. On the other hand, it is also confirmed by the recent Asylum Aid research578 where it is evidenced that the Home Office Case Workers pick out one weakness and flag it as an element of dishonesty and muddling the rest of the facts. All the women we interviewed were in this dilemma and did not know what to do and had no additional or different information to prove their experiences, this is because they revealed other information later or they still felt they could not reveal it. On the other hand, initial interviews are often held just hours after arrival, before people get a chance to seek advice or legal representation. Often people have had long journeys and suffer anxiety and distress on arrival. They may have suffered traumatic experiences in their home country and be terrified of being refused and sent back. All of these factors make it difficult for asylum seekers, in their initial interview, to give a full account of what happened to them, without leaving out information or getting some facts wrong. Since there is often little documentary or other supporting evidence about the asylum seeker, the credibility of the individual is key. The applicant is expected to disclose all relevant information to their application, such as what happened to them in their country of origin.

Also, one woman in our research said “..They said it is safe for me to return home because I can always relocate to another region in my country and that I am lying about what I had claimed”. A report by Amnesty International (2004) revealed that Home Office asylum decisions are based on inaccurate and out-of-date country information, poorly reasoned decisions about people’s credibility and a failure to properly consider complex torture cases. The Independent Asylum Commission also indicated that when caseworkers are laying out the reasons why they do not believe an individual, they often make ‘speculative arguments on the basis of little or no evidence at all and with no regard to the impact of different political, social or cultural contexts in the claimants countries of origin579. In our research, one lady bitterly confessed ..”I am Christian and they don’t believe me. We do not believe that you are a Christian”. The lady has so far collected 30 letters from her church where she practices her Christianity to prove her case.

It was also highlighted in our research that the Home Office uses internet information to back up their reasons of refusal and the majority – 76 per cent of the women indicated that the Home Office did not use accurate information about their countries of origin580. This goes without saying as research reports already indicate that the caseworkers can use anything as reasons of refusals even false and outdated information pasted on the internet by any individual in the world. On the contrary, 24 per cent of the women in our research said they were believed, but yet they were told to go back to their countries any way. Some, passed through other countries and the Home Office told them to go back to that country which was not their home. An example of Jackie Nanyonjo581 This was also evidenced in our survey where the women stated that “…I was believed but had passed through another safe country and was told to return there”.

(e) Is there anything else you would like to say about the asylum process?

The women we interviewed made the following comments some of which are highlighted as recommendations in this submission.

“If only they can believe us regardless of where we come from”.

“Very very stressed, very upset, very depressed, suicidal, mental stress, (hears voices telling me to go and kill myself). My children are still in DRC and I need my children here with me”.

“It is the most stressing thing for a woman to go through”.

“The asylum process too hard the way they treat us like animals especially when you go for reporting staff shouting even you are a minute late because of the bus being late or your child being sick they dont care shouting at you - even you give them evidence which they themselves knows and find out it that it write evidence they dont care and they give bad legal aid solicitors they dont favour us they just feel and drop you on their own will. they believe that I am at risks and I give them evidence from this country and from my country still they say no. and when I went to court i stop the interpreter because is not saying what I meant so the judge say and home office you are young and smart, and educated use your certificates and hide with your son even you are forced in marriage and having a son out of deadlock which am muslim my family angry with me am in risk I cannot go back”.

“The asylum process is very stressful and the Home Office makes things hard by not believing in my story and I wish they could understand”.

“It’s tough life. I feel sad all the time that Home Office does not believe me. I get courage to talk about my experience in Pakistan because I have a daughter I want to protect. I don’t care if I get killed but not my daughter”.

“I think a lot needs to be improved especially in decision making”.

“It is a very rigid system that is highly unaccommodating and does not recognise the needs of women”.

“The system is very de-humanising and is killing people psychologically”.

“It is a traumatic process and the feeling you have when you are not being believed and you know you are telling the real truth but cannot do anything to convince Home Office, truly this on its own is a bomb shell. No mother would enjoy staying without her children for the sake of just wanting to remain in UK but fear of losing your life will keep you in bondage”.

“It is stressfull”.

“They treat us like dogs why not treat us like British women? I want to die”.

“They regarded me a liar at the outset, they did not believe a single word from me and used wrong information on the internet”

“All I tell lies and lies. How can I go Congo, it is dangerous, am already ruined inside out and UK government killing me even more. Why?”

“they treat us like animals if im not rong because they treat theire animals better than us”.

“when you come from an EU countries they don’t believe you they always take you as a liar”.

“the interpreter was a male from a same country same village and he was asking to say stuff I don’t want to say and is not true”.

Recommendation

WRW believes screening process should be more accommodating by:

(a) Provision of the right information

As indicated from the survey and from the case studies attached, evidence is proven that Personnel at screening office tell you you’re not supposed to tell whole your story, but they still screen through to ask you your problems. So there are things you don’t bother to say during screening, and then in interview, you get asked why you didn’t tell them in the screening interview. In view of this, Why Refugee women recommends that the Home Office should put in a system that is consistent with what its staff recommend to the claimants. One way to achieve this is to train the screening and the case owners together to avoid contradictions in how they make their decisions.

(b) Time Frame

As discussed above and from numerous reports, women feel the time given for screening and interview for female cases need to be reviewed. Women interviewed complained that they were not given enough time to feel comfortable, and tell their entire story. This literally explains why the Detained Fast Track which UKBA uses for assessing asylum application to make quick decisions, mostly, within three days, is unsuitable for women. The system was applied to women in 2008 and so far 1550 women have been detained by the Home Office while their claims were assessed582. With reasons and proofs provided to the Home Office, the system puts women in acute difficulties as once in the fast track, women are on a ‘fast-moving treadmill which prevents them from making their cases effectively583. In this process, as well as from the evidence in our research, women are expected to reveal to strangers of their sexual abuse that they went through and are made inhibited also by lack of female interviewers and interpreters. Against what they say, decisions for fast track is made at the initial screening interview where applicants are told not to say much and does not carry out a comprehensive exploration of why an applicant is claiming asylum. Hence, complex gender related cases that many women run away from and are the reasons they seek asylum, are unsuitable to be fast tracked and also to be decided within a short period of time. In view of this, Why Refugee Women is recommending that women should be given a longer recovery period584 in order to enable them to talk about their experiences without emotions, fear and shame. Researches, especially in Centre of the Study of Emotions and Law585 have shown that it may take a very, very long time – weeks and months and years– for survivors of sexual violence to feel comfortable telling their story, therefore, this needs to be considered seriously, in true sense, women need healing time in order to recover and speak freely. Also, we receommend that the staff should be given training to allow them to pick up on cues that mean that women were sexually abused or assaulted but don’t want to talk about it. For example, one woman reported that in their culture, they say, they had an accident when they meant that they were raped. So for example if a woman says “I had to go out by myself to do bra bra... and I had an accident”, the UKBA staff might understand that she means she was raped, and either try to discuss this with her, or else make a note in her file, in case she brings it up at a later date, and then this note could be used to confirm her story.

Interview environment

As highlighted above, women in this research and many other reports quoted in this submission indicate that at the screening interview, especially, there is lack of privacy, and that women do not feel comfortable talking about certain issues, e.g. sexual violence in a public hall where everyone else is listening including their own children. Recommendations are given that private rooms be provided to provide a conducive environment.

Language Barrier

From our research report findings, no consideration is given for English language proficiency, so you may not be able to express yourself at screening interview since claimants are ushered into an interview without considering their language barriers. Why Refugee Women, therefore, recommends that the Home Office should make the right provisions of interpreters so that the women seeking asylum are given a fair chance to present their cases.

Health and Health Personnel

Women commented that, “You may have to spend a long time there, no refreshments, no childcare facilities”, and another one said, “There are no questions about health issues, mental or physical, including PTSD; no plans made for extra support if needed”. The issue of waiting for a long time at interviews on empty stomach and also no consideration of any ailments asylum seekers may have is and which is never put as a priority to the personnel. We, therefore, recommend that the Home Office employ the right staff with social work/psychology background, instead of former police officers used to dealing with criminals, and that staff be adequately trained in the challenges facing women asylum seekers.

There is also need for competent interpreters, even where asylum-seeker speaks English, language may not at all be clear, so they may still need interpreters from ‘Academic’ to ‘normal English’.

Staff Attitudes and need for staff training

As stated above, the Home Office relies much on employing staff who are trained not to believe anybody, hence they treat everyone who goes to seek asylum as a criminal as evidenced in Case Study 1 where the claimant was examinationally searched and being asked for IDs. Home Office need to employ the right staff with social care background to deal with female cases. One woman commented “... Screeners assume the worst about you from the beginning”. We also recommend the Home Office staff need more training on how to treat people sensitively. It was acknowledged by the previous Immigration Minister, Damien Green that there is need for suitable guidance and training to ensure that ‘case owners take the right approach in handling sensitive cases particularly the gender-related violence ones586.

Culture of disbelief

The culture of disbelief is amply demonstrated in every refusal letter. Every refused asylum seeker is regarded as a liar but from the research we conducted and other research contained in this submission, many cases that were not believed at initial decision get overturned at court level. This possess questions about the Home Office personnel and suggests mechanisms need to be put in place to combat this culture of disbelief, so that claimants can have faith in the UKBA system. As highlighted by Damien Green, the Home Office need to employ the right staff and/or train its staff to remove the culture that has been encouraged all these years of not believing anyone that walks into the Home Office to seek asylum. One woman recommended that “... There is need to remove stigma and suspicion as asylum-seeker from the beginning to the end is not believed, and has no control over her life, that she is completely at the mercy of UKBA”. Screeners should be women with caring capacities, recognise when woman claimant is not capable of participating properly in process, postpone interview where necessary

Countries of origin

The Home office need to keep an open mind regarding all countries of origin, especially where gender violence is an issue – you could be from a ‘safe’ country, but still need to leave your country to escape a violent husband, for example, the lady in the research whom the Home Office told her to return to her country because it was a peaceful country and would re-locate. There is need for readily updated home office country guidance notes587.

Quality of legal services

Solicitors provided by Home Office are not reliable and are not quality solicitors, therefore, there is need for the Home Office to appoint competent lawyers that would ably represent the female asylum seekers as recommended by the Refused report by Women for Refugee Women588.

Transparency and Honesty

From the research we conducted evidence is given that the Home Office staff deliberately write the wrong things in order to refuse asylum seeking cases. It was indicated that Notes taken aren’t accurate, and it’s your word against their’s”. On the other hand, no recorded evidence is provided in most of the cases to cross-reference the notes that interviewers provide and use to make their decisions. We, recommend therefore, that accurate notes should be administered and also audio record be given to the asylum seekers to cross check their words of mouth with what is written. It is also recommended that this should be taken as part of staff training to be transparent and honest in their dealings.

APPENDICES

Case Study 1

I come from Zimbabwe. I first claimed asylum November 2006. I came alone and my family is not with me. I have refugee status.

My experience when I claimed asylum was not a happy one. I claimed at Liverpool immigration centre. I arrived at the centre at 9am and only those with passports were allowed to centre into the building to seek asylum. We sat in a long queue waiting for a bag search. My turn came for a bag search; a woman took me to search room. She went through my hand bag throwing out all my items, reading through my diary and going through every paper in my bag. She saw a paper with phone numbers and started accusing me of looking for a job. I denied all these accusation and was getting depressed and regretting why I had come. She didn’t believe what I said.

After bag search I waited again in a queue for my turn to be interviewed. This time was way past lunch time and I was hungry and dehydrating but there was no food given and not allowed now to leave building to get some food. I had to be strong after seeing children of asylum seekers in the building too. I was called to the counter through speakers with everyone hearing my name being shouted. I approached the counter 9 with everyone’s eyes looking at me) and a woman served me thank God. She explained to me that this interview was a screening interview and that I should not say everything that happened on this interview. There would be a ‘big’ interview to say everything. I was becoming very aware that there was no privacy as my experiences were too embarrassing to say in front of people. I remember going close to the speaker on the counter and whispering what had happened to me. I could not use words such as ‘rape’ openly for cultural reasons and it was even harder and painful to tell my story to the woman and in front of people who majority on the counters then were men. I felt really ashamed but I had to do this interview for my own life. Telling the story made me cry and woman did not show any sympathy or even ask if I was ‘ok’ or to give me more time to go and calm down or take me to a private room.

Interview finished, I was getting dizzy from not eating. After I had received my IND card, I and others were told to seat in the waiting room. They had allocated accommodation for me in Devon they had said. Around 4pm a minibus came to pick all asylum seekers allocated accommodation. We left Liverpool as the building shut down.

First stop was going to be Birmingham and then Devon. I did not know where on the map I was being taken. I just trusted the system. We made one toilet break. The drivers could see that we were famished. They went to buy crisps and water and gave us all. It was about 8pm when we arrived in Birmingham; the men were dropped off first at a hostel. We waited about an hour while they processed each claimant into the accommodation. The women were taken to a female only hostel. I was left alone in the car waiting to be dropped off in Devon. After checking in the women the driver was talking to the other driver and decided they would check me in here at the women hostel as well because it was too late to travel and it’s been a long day for everyone. I was very pleased as i was tired, hungry, needed the loo and a good rest. I got checked in a room with two women i did not know. They were from Somalia after talking and were Muslims too. The room smelled and the light did not work. We managed with mobile phone light to get to bed. In the morning the two women woke up to do their prayers, it was strange and disrupting my sleep. We soon discovered that the smell was because of the toilet that had no running water; sink in room had no running water. There was no toilet paper or soap. After complaining the management gave us separate rooms which had all things in working condition. After a month staying at hostel I was allocated a more permanent accommodation. By this time my claim had been refused for credibility. The Home Office did not believe my life was in danger if returned to Zimbabwe. I appealed against the decision until my case was taken to Tribunal. On day of tribunal I was ill and had been for days. I had a chronic cold and migraines. My solicitor told me I had to come to court or else I would lose the case. I forced myself by taxi to tribunal courts which costs me £20. As soon as the judge saw me he knew I was very ill. He then apologised and warned the solicitors about forcing me to come to court ill. He apologised again and asked me to go home and rest.

Another date was set and I went in good health. The Home Office respondent did not turn up. It took an hour before they found a replacement officer to represent Home Office. The delay meant we had to wait for a free slot. We waited till lunch time. By this time the tribunal services break for lunch. we sat outside and waited for opening time. After lunch we managed to get our case heard in front of a judge. I won my case 30 days after hearing.

Case Study 2

A – I came in the UK in 2004 I think it is, I was visiting my brother. It’s been a tough experience, good and tough. Because the only thing I was coming here was to visit, but then I saw that life was good, like when you don’t have education, you can still go ahead, to work, that’s the most many thing that I say I’m going to stay here. But, I tried to extend my visa to student, because it was 2004, you were allowed to extend to student, because my first move was maybe to go back home, or stay here, so I decided to stay here and extend as a student. So they denied me as a student. Then, I had found an opportunity to work, so I was working illegally, since 2004 to last year, I’ve been working illegally. So, for me to come into the asylum process, I really didn’t want to come here, it was the case that happened with my daughter. My daughter was abused by my baby father. Yeah, so, when those things happened, the police were involved, and the social service were involved. So they checked out my status, they saw that I had overstayed and everything, so the social service say I have to go into asylum. So, I didn’t know what this asylum process was all about. Yeah, so, I didn’t have any information, I was just saying, because I was getting threats from my baby father’s side, that I had put him in trouble, I’m a liar, I’m a liar, that I lied against him, that he did this to the child, the proof was there, the police had proof, the social service had proof, but they never took away my child from me. But, on the sad note, he came out of jail, he came out of detention, they said that there is not enough proof, enough evidence. So he is still here in this country. So, now the Home Office they are denying me, because, on top of that, I have been disowned as well from my dad because I got pregnant out of wedlock. And when I was coming here, I had a boyfriend, so when I was here, they told me, the boyfriend had paid some money for my wedding, that we was going to get married, he had paid some dowry to my Dad. So my Dad saw it as I had disgraced him, so he disowned me. And again, when this story happened between me and my baby father, his family were threatening me to say, ‘if you come back home, we will take that child away’, my daughter. Saying that they will do this FGM, because my baby father’s family, they are Muslim, that’s why she is mixed race, they are kind of, got Arabic blood in them, he is mixed race and they practice FGM. So they sent me messages, and I showed the Home Office as well that this is what they are saying, they will kill me, they will take away their daughter, either she will get killed as well, or they will do this female genital mutilation, to prove that she is one of their kind, that this child does not belong in my hands. But after what she, the police have got proof of everything, but the social services and everyone tell me that, it is very sad, but sometimes that’s what judges they do, they can back away people who have done wrong. But the social services never took away my child, because they see how I was still looking after her, up until now, she is in my care. So if the social service here in this country, they’ve got this child in my care, so what if I go back home, there’s no one like that who is going to protect until, she will end up being taken away, going back to my father’s family. So, I do not want that. That’s my main argument with the Home Office. The Home office, they said, if you go back, you can always relocate. But his family, they are scattered everywhere, so how can I go about in the country, like that?

Q – So, they believe your story, and they believe that his family is threatening you, but they’re just saying, you could move to a different part of your country instead?

A – They believed that this had happened to my daughter, because I have proof, I have letters from the police and the social services. They believe that this is what has happened to my child. But, they say that I can still go back home and start a new life in a new region.

Q – Yeah, just away from your baby father’s family, in a new region

A – Yeah, which is very hard, and difficult, because, you know, the police in our country, they are not effective as here, they are corrupt, and they are busy doing political issues, it’s nothing to do with the individual. People get killed everyday, so just imagine an innocent child, she doesn’t deserve anything like that.

Q – And your own family is upset with you, so you wouldn’t have any support?

A – No, I don’t have anywhere to go, not any support, I’m just caught in a corner. So, I’ve been telling such things to the Home Office, but they are not believing me, they are just saying, you have to go, you have to go.

Q – So, do you have any more appeals left?

A – I’ve finished all the appeals, so now I have to do fresh evidence. So, I don’t know what to do, I don’t have any other story. That’s all I have

Q – And, do you have a solicitor?

A – I managed to find, it’s called Emanuel Bravo project, I don’t know if you’ve heard of that.

Q – No I haven’t.

A – It’s in Leeds, it’s a charitable organisation, because, I had a lawyer before, but [unclear] legal aid, they can’t take my case any more. So I’ve been up and down, looking for a solicitor, up until I went to the Refugee Action in Bradford, they told me, there’s Emmanuel Bravo Project in Leeds, they take cases like that. Yeah, they take cases if they see they can, and you will not be able to pay. It’s run by solicitors, who are doing just for charity. They’ve got their own law firms, some are in private, some are in government. But after work, they come out to help people like us, just fo r charitable work. Because that organisation apparently was after one of their asylum-seeker friends killed himself, because they were sending him home, so they found him one day hanging, he hanged himself. So they made that organisation to help asylum-seekers, to reduce things like people killing themselves. Because some stories are true, some stories are not, so that’s what they got that organisation, apparently.

Q – OK, so when you did your first interview, was it a man or a woman who interviewed you?

A – It was a woman

Q – OK, and what was the experience like

A – The woman was feeling, looking sad, when I was explaining the story, she really felt for me, she wasn’t rude at all. It was just normal, the questions she was asking. But they kind of treated...she’s asking me the same questions over, and over, and already, I’m on anti-depressants, these things have happened to me, I’ve been traumatised. My daughter is there and everything...

Q – Your daughter was with you during the interview?

A – Yeah, she was there

Q – They didn’t have child care for her?

A – No, she was there. She was there in the same room, like me. Asking me the same question they’ve asked me a second again, in a tricky way, you know what I mean. I’m on anti-depressants, I’ve had trauma, this trauma as well.

Q – And that must have been very upsetting for your daughter, having to be there

A – Yeah, even up until now, I am still on anti-depressants. And my daughter, as well, she hallucinates sometimes when she sleeps at night. I’ve called in the social services so many times to say, come and help me. I even told my case owner, in Leeds, because I had gone for a, conference returns, what do you call it, Family Returns conference, whereby they will tell you your case is finished, you have to be going home. So, I said, I can’t go back home, you’re telling me to go home, I don’t have anywhere to go, my daughter does this in the night, she hallucinates, she’s still got all these things in her mind. So how do you expect me to go home? When I call these people, they said the case is closed, so what do you want me to do? In my country, there is nothing like this. Here, we do get all this care, the socials service, the hospitals are free, the police are there to protect you, and she is hallucinating, on top of that, I’m getting threats. How is that? So the social services, they came here, they talk to here, they seen her. So now, they’ve referred me to counselling in Bradford, where I’m going next week. But, mainly, I want for my daughter, because me, I’m a big girl, I can take care of myself, but I worry a lot for that little one.

Q – Is there any counselling for her, has she been referred for counselling?

A – I don’t know, this kind of counselling, whether it’s for her or for all of us. But I would be really happy, because, since these things have happened, she hadn’t been for counselling. So when the social service came, after I had requested at the Home Office, they told me they will refer me to this organization they do counselling, I will go and find out whether they will accept her to do counselling. I said, please, because I can’t take my child anywhere, the way she does things, she hallucinates, she’s a lovely girl, but you know, you can tell something is not right in her head. So the expect me to go, I can’t go like that, I told them, I’m not going anywhere. So now I’m just waiting to do a fresh claim, they want fresh evidence and everything. I don’t know what to do, I’m just stuck here.

Q – And what about the, sort of, big interview, was that with a woman or a man?

A – It was a man

Q – OK, and were you comfortable talking about what had happened in front of a man?

A – Not really, but I had to, because you see, you hear all these things, like, if you make excuses, like ‘I can’t take a man’, sometimes, they will ignore your case. So, I just got on, like that, but I was not very comfortable.

Q – OK, and was your daughter with you that time as well?

A – No, that time they had put her in a place where she was playing, some kind of nursery in Leeds, there is a nursery there where they put kids.

Q – So, like, what is, do you have to sign on, at all?

A – I sign every two months, I go to Leeds to sign.

Q – Right. So, there’s no signing centre in Bradford?

A – No, there’s no signing centre as far as I know. It’s Leeds. And another thing, here, us women in Keighley, we would be very happy for organisations to deal with refugees here. Because it’s far for us to be travelling, Bradford-Leeds, Bradford-Leeds, on the bus and everything, with kids. It will be easier. Because there is too much isolation in this building, you can see. We get stressed, sometimes she’s not there, she’s gone somewhere, you just get stressed, no one to talk to.

Q – OK, so how do you find signing, when you have to go sign, what’s that like?

A – Because, I’ve only started signing, it was my second time, I’ve not stayed for a long time. I claimed my asylum last year, 2012. So, since this, I’ve only been there twice. But, I’ve always been on time, like early. Sometimes they ask me ‘why are you always coming early’. Then I say, ‘because I live far, in Keighley, I get a bus, I don’t want to be late, I don’t know the times of the buses, so I just come anytime as it is, before your said time, I just want to come and get things done’. They’ve asked me before, and then I said ‘is it wrong to come early? What if I came late? Yeah? Which is better, late or early?’

Q – And does your daughter go to school around here?

A – Yeah, she goes to nursery, there’s a nursery just on top there, she goes there.

Q – OK, does she like it?

A – Yes, she does, yeah, but, it was very hard for her to adjust. Because we used to live in Nottingham before I came here, so there, she was used to that environment. So, when she came here, it was so hard for her to be going, she would refuse, she doesn’t want to go there. But now, she’s settled in, and is getting on very well.

Q – OK, that’s good

[break, as recorder stopped recording]

Q – OK, can you say it again, ‘cause it wasn’t recording, what you were saying about the Home Office

A – Yes, it would be very good, if they would sit down and consider cases, not just denying before they start refusing. They have to look at the country’s situation first. And, you know, like the FGM, in my case, they denied that there’s no FGM in my country. There’s female genitalia in my country. They denied, said there isn’t. I wish they would sit down and consider the cases very well before they make the decisions, not just denying, because this what happened, this what happened, they should just sit down and consider.

Q – Yeah, you think they just make decisions too quickly, they don’t think about it properly.

A – Yeah, they just make decisions, because even though you give them evidence, enough evidence, they just say no. It’s not fair, really. Because, innocent children are suffering, you can’t send an innocent child that has been abused by his own father, and then on top of that, the family of the father, they are threatening, they will take her away, how can an innocent children live with that kind of family that have done that to her?

Case Study 3

My name is AX. I am a widow and in my mid forties and an asylum seeker.

I came to U.K. in 2002 after my husband was killed in an anonymous accident whilst on duty as an officer in the army. I, myself, was also working in the army as a junior officer and when I tried to make an inquiry on the death of my husband I began to experience a life of threats and was even monitored by private investigators. When I saw that things were getting out of hand, I sought to fly to U.K. without telling anyone with the hope that I would be safe and be understood.

On arrival at the airport of entry, I told my story and was detained whilst waiting for screening interviews. I have never been treated with disrespect, not believed and traumatized with all the experiences I faced. What better would a woman with children back home gain in this country when you have no one to mother? I came in U.K to seek refugee with the hope that I will live with my children safely.

My claim was refused, not believed and I am a destitute. I am living in agony, crying for my life as well as the lives of my four children in Zimbabwe.

I wish to say that the British Government would open eyes and realize how much torture it is causing to women refugees. THANK YOU.

Why Refugee Women

April 2013

©Parliamentary copyright

Prepared 11th October 2013