Public Law Solicitors

Most asylum seekers arrive in the UK to escape their country of origin for fears of persecution, where the idea of state protection is unrealistic and or internal relocation is a possibility. Many have no intent or motive to come to the UK and only consider where they will be safe away from their perpetrators. They hope for a better future but instead, some spend their years in the UK stuck in an inefficient administrative process, in receipt of minimal support and suffering from emotional stress as a result of their traumas coupled with their inability to ever return to a life of normality.

This article seeks to question the UK’s policy on restricting asylum seekers right to work, specifically in cases where it is the failure of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to provide them with an adequate decision within a reasonable timeframe that is the cause of them continuing to remain as an asylum seeker.

In 2002, it became practice and policy that asylum seekers did not have the right to work in the UK. As a result, asylum seekers often had to rely on government support to survive whilst they awaited a decision in relation to their asylum claim.

The exception to the rule states that those who had waited over 12 months for an initial decision on their asylum claim; and who were not considered responsible for the delay, could apply for permission to work. This decision is not necessarily immediate and the asylum seeker can only apply for positions within the shortage occupation list.

Most asylum seekers do not come to the UK in the hopes of progressing through their career. Nor is it only those that specialise within the shortage occupation list, who have fled their country. Should the asylum seeker have chosen to come to the UK for the purpose of working within those specialist fields listed in the shortage occupation list, their claim would still need to fall within the criteria for asylum.

Therefore, this restriction is in itself discriminatory to those who may not have the qualifications to work in professions listed within the shortage occupation list by not affording them the right to work otherwise. The policy divides those it deems ‘useful’ for the Country, despite the professions listed not necessarily being a necessity to society, and those that it would neglect until their asylum matter can be progressed. This unfair practice effectively punishes the asylum seeker for a delay that they have no control over.

One reason given for the existence of the restricted provision was to ensure there was a distinction between economic migration and asylum. Further, there were concerns that allowing asylum seekers to work would attract many to claim asylum. However, both of these issues are prevented by the existence of the screening process and fast track / certification procedures.

The current Detained Asylum Casework scheme allows for the Home Office to expedite those claims that do not fall within the necessary criteria and instead are in the UK for economic reasons. The asylum seekers struggling on a route to destitution are that whose claim is deemed ‘complex’ and that is why a decision is usually not made within the allocated 6 months. Therefore, the justification provided for the restriction appears to be more an excuse than anything substantive, with no real evidence to support these claims.

As a result, there is a vulnerable minority of asylum seekers who have been waiting for four- five years, if not more, with the inability to work and completely dependent on society and government support. Many are left homeless, some choose to work illegally out of desperation, and others remain dependent on members of the community for support. It is important to recognise that many of these individuals have left traumatic scenarios for the sake of their lives, only to be forced to continue this torturous path of survival by any means available.

In addition, this harshly assigns asylum seekers with a label they cannot help or control. They are ignorantly assessed as individuals who are not able to benefit the community and instead rely on the benefits they receive to survive. This assessment is something that is difficult to change where the policy in place allows nothing more.

In allowing asylum seekers the right to work in any position within a shorter period of time could benefit the UK economy and reduce the costs to the taxpayers of supporting asylum seekers. It may also assist in alleviating the issues faced more commonly by asylum seekers, such as social and economic exclusion; and can improve their integration within the community.
Furthermore, permitting an asylum seeker to work would reduce their vulnerability and exploitation through working illegally.

Asylum seekers should not be punished for the uncontrollable delay in their decision. The ban on their right to work is degrading and humiliating; and instead consideration should be made on their right to move forward, to enjoy their personal lives and to establish a life away from the trauma faced in their country of origin, if only momentarily whilst they await an update in relation to their asylum claim.

About the author - Sangeetha Vairavamoorthy

Sangeetha Vairavamoorthy joined Duncan Lewis as a Public Law caseworker. Since joining the Public Law Department, she has assisted in Judicial Review applications, unlawful detention claims and other immigration matters. She has also worked on Prison Law matters such as Prison law Judicial Reviews, disciplinary hearings, recall matters and parole board hearings.
Sangeetha is currently working towards becoming an immigration accredited Level 2 Caseworker.