The New Asylum Model, introduced by the Home Office in 2006 to achieve faster conclusions to asylum applications, has strengthened aspects of the asylum process. The case ownership approach, in which a single individual manages an application from start to finish, has created a strong incentive to conclude cases and applications are being concluded more quickly, and there are also signs that the quality of decision-making is improving. But the new process is not yet working to its optimum efficiency and effectiveness. The UK Border Agency has done well to improve its handling of the casework. There was a rise in the proportion of cases being dealt with within six months, peaking above the target of 40 per cent in December 2007. The backlog of decisions to be made has however more than doubled in over a year, to 8,700 in the second quarter of 2008. At the point of application, the full screening interview is not taking place in a quarter of cases, so that key information about claims could be being missed. A separate process has been established to clear, by 2011, the backlog of 'legacy cases', unresolved before the introduction of the New Asylum Model, which is put at some 335,000 cases. The Agency has made inroads but the target looks challenging. Few removals of failed applicants are being achieved, hampered by a lack of detention space and problems obtaining emergency travel documents. Throughout the second half of 2007, the gap between unfounded applications and removals increased. The Agency missed its 'tipping point' objective, which is to remove more failed asylum applicants than the number who make new unfounded applications. Unfounded applications exceeded removals by over 20 per cent.

The Committee is pleased to note that the Home Office (the Department) has responded positively to recommendations made in a previous report (34th report, HC 620, session 2005-06, ISBN 9780215027795). The Department has implemented the New Asylum Model, whereby a case owner manages all new asylum cases from application to conclusion, at which stage the applicant is either allowed to stay in the UK or returned to their country of origin. The Department has also established a separate process to clear the backlog of 400,000-450,000 legacy cases unresolved at the introduction of the New Asylum Model. The New Asylum Model has resulted in the Department reaching an initial decision more quickly and in cases being concluded faster than in 2006. Legacy cases will be cleared by 2011. Amongst the many cases awaiting completion, there are undoubtedly many people who genuinely need humanitarian protection because they are fleeing oppression, as well as those with more tenuous claims to asylum. The Department still faces significant challenges, however, in bringing these cases to a prompt conclusion. Faster, more accurate completion of cases reduces both uncertainty for the applicant and the cost to the tax payer. Removal poses a challenge. It will be another four years before the Department has the total of 4,000 detention spaces that it needs to increase removals to optimum levels, and before its new IT system is fully operational. The Department also needs to work with the Courts, foreign governments and other bodies to bring about the legal changes and diplomatic solutions needed to resolve obstacles to removal that lie outside its control.

White Paper

In this Home Affairs Committee's report into the Work of the UK Border Agency, it criticises the Agency for failing to deport more than 600 foreign national prisoners who were released between 1999 and 2006 and are still in the country and for failing to clear the "controlled archive" of lost applicants. At the current rate it will take a further 4 years to close all cases. The Committee found that the Agency has still not resolved all of the asylum 'legacy' cases first identified in 2006. Instead, there are 17,000 ongoing cases still awaiting a final decision and the Agency appears to be discovering more cases. The Committee remains uncertain over the feasibility of the Government's e-borders timetable. It finds it difficult to see how the scheme can be applied to all rail and sea passengers by December 2014. It acknowledges that the Government must have a comprehensive e-border system if it is to be effective. However, it needs clarity on policy and practicalities for achieving this. The Committee makes a series of specific recommendations aimed at improving the working of the Agency, concerning: appeals, bogus colleges, data provided and use of statistics. It calls on the Home Office to act immediately to deal with the public scepticism over the effectiveness of the UK Border Agency and to require clarity in the information produced for both the public and Parliament.

This book analyses the practice of virginity testing endured by South Asian women who wished to enter Britain between the late 1960s and the early 1980s, and places this practice into a wider historical context. Using recently opened government documents the extent to which these women were interrogated and scrutinized at the border is uncovered.

Europe is currently experiencing a migration crisis, demonstrated by millions of displaced people unseen since World War II. This book examines the interface between extraterritorial border and migration controls taken by EU member states, and the rights asylum seekers acquire from EU law.Control measures such as the enforcement of visas, fines on carriers transporting unsatisfactorily documented migrants, and interception at sea are investigated in detail in an effort to assess the impact these measures have on access to asylum in the EU. The book also explores the rights recognisedby the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights to persons in need of international protection, inclusive of the principle of non-removal to a place of persecution, the prohibition of ill-treatment, the right to asylum, and the right to effective judicial protection.The fundamental focus of the book is the relationship between the aforementioned border and migration controls and the rights of asylum seekers, and importantly, how these rights limit the nature of such control measures and the ways in which they are implemented. The ultimate goal of the book is toconclude whether the current series of extraterritorial mechanisms or pre-entry vetting is compatible in EU law with the rights of refugees and forced migrants.

FIRST PRIZE WINNER OF THE SLS BIRKS PRIZE FOR OUTSTANDING LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP 2011 How are we to assess and evaluate the quality of the tribunal systems that do the day-to-day work of adjudicating upon the disputes individuals have with government? This book examines how the idea of adjudicative quality works in practice by presenting a detailed case-study of the tribunal system responsible for determining appeals lodged by foreign nationals who claim that they will be at risk of persecution or ill-treatment on return to their country of origin. Over recent years, the asylum appeal process has become a major area of judicial decision-making and the most frequently restructured tribunal system. Asylum adjudication is also one of the most difficult areas of decision-making in the modern legal system. Integrating empirical research with legal analysis, this book provides an in-depth study of the development and operation of this tribunal system and of asylum decision-making. The book examines how this particular appeal process seeks to mediate the tension between the competing values under which it operates. There are chapters examining the organisation of the tribunal system, its procedures, the nature of fact-finding in asylum cases and the operation of onward rights of challenge. An examination as to how the tensions inherent in the idea of administrative justice are manifested in the context of a tribunal system responsible for making potentially life or death decisions, this book fills a gap in the literature and will be of value to those interested in administrative law and asylum adjudication.

Managing Migration

Immigration detention is considered by many states to be a necessary tool in the execution of immigration policy. Despite the apparently key role it plays in immigration enforcement, the law on immigration detention is often vague, especially in relation to determining the circumstances under which prolonged detention remains lawful. As a result, the courts are frequently called upon to adjudicate these matters, with scant legal tools at their disposal. Though there have been some significant judgments on the legality of detention at the constitutional level, the extent to which these judgments have had an impact at the lower end of the judiciary is unclear. Indeed, it is the lower courts which are tasked with judging the legality of detention through habeas corpus or judicial review proceedings. This book examines the way this has occurred in the lower courts of two jurisdictions, the UK and the US, and contrasts this practice not only in those jurisdictions, but with judgments rendered by the Court of Justice of the European Union, a constitutional court at the other end of the judicial spectrum whose judgments are applied by courts and tribunals in the EU Member States. Although these three jurisdictions use similar tests to evaluate the legality of detention, case outcomes significantly differ. Many factors contribute to this divergence, but key among them is the role that fundamental rights protection plays in each jurisdiction. Through a forensic evaluation of 191 judgments, this book compares the laws on detention in the UK, US and EU, and makes recommendations to these jurisdictions for improvement.

The November '10-March' 2011 report published as HC 929, session 2010-12 (ISBN 9780215559968 ). Earlier reports to that published as HC 406, session 2009-10 (ISBN 9780215553775) & its Government response, HC 457, session 2010-11 (ISBN 9780215554710). Those reports were follow-up to "The work of the UK Border Agency" (2nd report, session 2009-10, 105-I, ISBN 9780215542465) and "The E-Borders programme" (3rd report, session 2009-10, HC 170, ISBN 9780215542854). HC 370, session 2009-10 (ISBN 97802155544001) was the Government response to HC 105-I, session 2009-10. HC 587-I, session 2010-11 (ISBN 978021555861) and its Government response, HC 1027, session 2010-12 (ISBN 9780215559661) have also published since.