UNHCR attacks the UK’s new immigration plan

19 May 2021, 16 mins ago

In a scathing piece on the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s (“SSHD”) proposed “new plan for immigration”[1], the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) criticised[2] the Government’s plans for a “two tier system” approach to asylum, the SSHD’s interpretation of “safe countries”, the proposal of giving reduced weight to late evidence and the proposed acceleration of the appeal process.

On 24 March 2021, the SSHD published a detailed new plan for immigration, with the focal point being “fairness”[3]. The detailed report was broadly focused on addressing the following conclusions found in the “overview”:

  1. that many asylum claimants travel through “safe third countries” before claiming in the UK;
  2. the gender and age of those claiming is skewed towards young men;
  3. many of those claiming have arrived in the UK using small boats, which are particularly dangerous; and
  4. there is a massive backlog of cases which are expensive, causing huge cost and delay to the Home Office and the British taxpayer.

The UNHCR levelled criticisms against the UK on issues 1, 3, and 4 above, that can be highlighted as follows:

1. Safe third countries

The UNHCR have supposed that the SSHD’s interpretation of the “safe country” aspect of Refugee Law is in direct contravention with international law. The SSHD, in her “new plan for immigration”, argues that if someone has passed through a “safe country” en route to the UK, they should claim in that country and they do not retain the right to “choose” where to claim asylum. The UNHCR’s response suggests that whilst asylum seekers do not have the right to choose the country in which they wish to claim asylum, some might have very legitimate reasons to seek protection in certain countries. For instance, if individuals have familial ties, other meaningful links, or there are sufficient compassionate grounds, then people passing through “third countries” have legitimate reasons to do so.

3. Two-tiered system

In response to those arriving in UK on boats, the SSHD has proposed a two-tiered system, where those who arrive in the UK on boats may receive a “temporary protection status with less generous entitlements and limited family reunion”, stating that it is “unacceptable” that people enter the UK “illegally” in small boats.

The UNHCR are particularly concerned by this suggestion. In their response, they explained that the 1951 Convention was drafted when air travel was the least frequent form of travel. Deeming boat-travel as inherently less “virtuous” or “legal” would attack the fundamentals at the heart of the Convention. Further, the creation of a temporary status would create a sub-class of refugees, and opening the door to keeping asylum seekers “off-shore” would further exacerbate this problem.

4. The backlog of cases

The SSHD cited the backlog of cases as a massive cost and issue for the UK. Gherson have previously discussed the analytics of asylum cases in detail in a blog that can be found here.[4] The SSHD has suggested there will be plans to reduce the ability to appeal against asylum claim decisions and to streamline the entire process.

The UNHCR response to the new immigration plan is sympathetic to the cost and backlog issues, although they suggest tried and tested methods of addressing this backlog, rather than advocating a two-tiered system for asylum seekers and streamlining the appeal process “for reasons that are unrelated to their merits”, purely for the sake of moving things along.

The “new plan for immigration” has now been condemned by several international human rights watchdogs and only time will tell how the UK and SSHD will respond to this criticism.

Join Gherson’s mailing lists to stay connected with the latest on this story or alternatively follow us on Twitter.

The information in this blog is for general information purposes only and does not purport to be comprehensive or to provide legal advice. Whilst every effort is made to ensure the information and law is current as of the date of publication it should be stressed that, due to the passage of time, this does not necessarily reflect the present legal position. Gherson accepts no responsibility for loss which may arise from accessing or reliance on information contained in this blog. For formal advice on the current law please don’t hesitate to contact Gherson. Legal advice is only provided pursuant to a written agreement, identified as such, and signed by the client and by or on behalf of Gherson.

©Gherson 2021