Response to Asylum & Immigraton Tribunal Review

December 2005  

Introduction

Law Centre NI is a voluntary organisation which promotes social justice and provides specialist legal services to advice organisations and disadvantaged individuals.  Five specialist lawyers carryout our immigration and asylum work and we represent in a substantial number of all immigration appeals in Northern Ireland.  We are the main advisors on immigration law in Northern Ireland and (including both not for profit and private practice) there are less than 10 organisations in Northern Ireland specialising in advising on immigration law. We operate an advice line five days a week and answer queries in relation to all aspects of immigration law.  We also facilitate the Immigration Practitioners’ Group which consists of lawyers and voluntary sector organisations. It meets regularly to discuss all aspects of immigration law and practice in Northern Ireland.  Our written submissions have been informed by our knowledge and experience.  Law Centre (NI) is also a member of ILPA.

Our comments below cover the topics of particular interest to the review team.

Case Management Review (CMRs) hearings

The AIT hearing centre in Belfast is a satellite of AIT Glasgow, and generally sits on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The CMRs operate quite effectively in Belfast as part of the main list of hearings and are useful in terms of ensuring that parties are ready to proceed, witnesses, expert evidence etc.  Although there was no scope for first hearings in Belfast, Practitioners at Law Centre (NI) who experienced these elsewhere, generally find the CMRs much more useful than first hearings were.  There should be scope for practitioners to request CMRs on other, non-asylum hearings where the issues are complex.

Review and Reconsideration (High Ct & AIT)

Time limits are extremely onerous, and particularly risk penalising those appellants who, for whatever reason, change representative between initial representation and appeal, or between appeal and reconsideration.  This is particularly relevant in Northern Ireland where there is a very limited pool of immigration practitioners.  Applications for reconsideration are being decided fairly quickly, but those applications to the Tribunal pre April 2005 are still backlogged. 

Listing and Panel system

Although we have a significant number of appeals, where permission to appeal given (before April 2005) or order for reconsideration granted, none have yet been listed.  Law Centre (NI) is concerned how, in practice, cases involving NI appeals will be heard, for example, this may be by video link, as with the former Tribunal hearings.

We understand that there is no scope for panel hearings in Belfast, but would like this to be reviewed.  We would also like there to be scope for practitioners to request panel hearings due to the complexity or issues involved in a particular case, and for that request to be considered as part of the procedure.

Legal Aid arrangements

At present the legal aid provisions do not apply to Northern Ireland, as we are covered by a separate Legal Services Commission – although intended to start by at latest April 2006.  Therefore cannot comment on the legal aid arrangements at present.

Quality of Home Office/AIT decisions

One of the objectives of the new AIT was to reduce the proportion of appeals (including onward appeals) to the AIT, the High Court and the Court of Appeal by improving the quality of decisions on applications and appeals and introducing measures to discourage appeals with little merit.

In relation to Home Office and Entry Clearance decisions there is no evidence, based on initial decisions received since the AIT commenced, of any marked improvement, or indeed of any change at all, in the quality of initial decisions.  If anything, the quality of some decisions, notably those of the European group of the Home Office, appears to have deteriorated.  Decisions generally consist of one paragraph, of which only one sentence is materially relevant, namely “the Secretary of State considers that you have failed to provide evidence that you are a qualified person”.  This ground is applied notwithstanding that such evidence had in fact been submitted.  In these cases immediately prior to an appeal hearing the Presenting Officer will either withdraw the decision or concede the appeal.  This inevitably is a waste of time and resources in preparing for an appeal and is extremely frustrating for all concerned, particularly appellants.

Poor decisions also regularly occur in relation to asylum applications, variation applications, or applications for indefinite leave to remain.  There is also little indication how the onerous timescales will help improve the quality of AIT decisions.  However, the introduction of CMRs in Northern Ireland (where there were previously no first hearings) does appear effective in narrowing issues and focusing attention on key points.  It is too early to say whether this has led to an improvement of AIT decisions.

In relation to entry clearance decisions, there is as yet no evidence of any improvement in the quality of these decisions.  In addition, the listing of Entry Clearance Appeals is still anomalously slow.  The respondent is given an inordinate length of time to forward the papers, thus often substantially delaying the date for Entry Clearance Appeals.

Country Guidance cases

We have found the new practice of listing Country Guidance cases on the AIT website, generally very useful in the preparation and conduct of cases.

Conclusion

In relation to the speed of the asylum and immigration appeals process, cases do seem to generally be proceeding much faster than they would have done under the old system.  However, there are still anomalies, particularly with Entry Clearance Appeals.

The new AIT has only been operational for a relatively short time and, in Northern Ireland at least, not all the different facets of the new AIT have been fully run; for example, as explained above in Northern Ireland there have not yet been any reconsiderations listed that Law Centre (NI) is aware of.  We therefore feel it imperative that there be a full scale review in another 6-9 months time. 

Law Centre (NI) Immigration Unit - Maura Hutchinson, Fidelma O’Hagan, Buster Cox, Catherine Jackson and Ellen Weaver