Fears new rules and lack of subsidy could force people onto the streets
Failed asylum seekers left without support if they make a new claim
Stranded foreign nationals face destitution and homelessness because of rule changes which demand they go to Liverpool if they want to make a new application for asylum.
Failed asylum seekers have had to travel to Liverpool to make submissions that could reverse their rejected claim since 14 October. People making the journey must fund it themselves and will not be given support by the government until a decision is made on their submissions.
Previously failed asylum seekers could inform the UK Border Agency of changes in their circumstances that may affect their claim by post.
Lisa Nandy, policy adviser at the Children’s Society, said: ‘The majority of families in this position are already destitute, and of course most don’t live in Liverpool.
‘There is also a logistical problem for families - most asylum seeking families are single mothers with young children so travelling is very difficult.’
Colin McCloskey, a solicitor at the Asylum Support Appeals Project, said the system was ‘inhumane’ and ‘unlawful’. He added: ‘Homeless and destitute people are not going to get to Liverpool.’
In 2008 immigration officials heard 167,835 appeals of which 35 per cent were allowed. The Home Office would not give numbers for further submissions which are made after the appeals process has been exhausted.
Hannah Ward, spokesperson for Refugee Council, said: ‘People should be able to make further representations by post.’
A Home Office spokesperson said: ‘Failed asylum seekers who have exhausted their appeal rights no longer have any right to remain in this country and it is our policy not to support them except under exceptional circumstances.’
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (4)
john bull | 13/01/2010 5:45 pm
Failed should mean failed. no appeals. 167,000 asylum seekers in one year!!!!.
Make it clear to one and all, to save time money and disappoinment.
We should not accept any more asylum seekers for another 20 years at least.
In Japan which is the second richest country in the world and with a population twice ours, in an eighteen month period accepted 3 people only. These were exceptional cases and one's family had come originally from Japan.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 13/01/2010 7:02 pm
So if 35% of appeals succeed that mean Home Office get one in three decisions wrong doesnt it? If I recall correctly in 2000 the number of appeals upheld was almost 60% meaning that more than half of original decisions were decided incorrectly.
It is clear that the HO refusal to release all figures is just an excuse to hide their incompetence further - note the wording above "The Home Office WOULD NOT give numbers for further submissions which are made after the appeals process has been exhausted." (My emphasis.)
If I had any confidence in the Home Office then one (independent) appeal perhaps, yet this ignores the pragmatic that getting evidentiary information from a former country from which you have fled (a warzone?) is not a straightforward matter.
These obvious matters of course fail to reach the mindsets of closet racists that hide behind pseudonyms. You like sending people back to be killed then John Bull?
As for holding Japan up as some paragon of virtue you might want to run that by British ex-POWs??
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Andy Jolly | 15/01/2010 4:41 pm
Where do you get your statistics from John?
The UNHCR website says that in Japan there are:
2,019 Refugees
2,288 Asylum Seekers
1,573 Stateless persons
That's pretty pathetic considering the size of Japans population (although to be devils advocate, they did contribute $110,871,125 to UNHCR - the 3rd biggest donor) but is a bit different to 3!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
atefeh | 08/02/2010 9:45 pm
i think the home office should give indefenet leave to remain to over stay failed asylum,because the failed asylum seekers which they stayed in the uk moor than 5 years .the home of should send them back home when there case been refused ,not after few years they dicide to send them back.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment