Have a question?
033 3772 0409

Immigration Solicitors

Migrants Left in Limbo On Appeals (4 February 2014)

Date: 04/02/2014
Duncan Lewis, Immigration Solicitors, Migrants Left in Limbo On Appeals

By Arj Singh, Press Association Political Staff

Migrants are left in ``a horrific state of limbo'' because Home Office officials regularly drop out of immigration appeal cases they think they will lose at the last minute, a former coalition minister has said.

Former education minister Sarah Teather said taxpayers are footing the bill for court costs as officials withdraw decisions on migrants' immigration status on the day of appeal hearings if they think that decision will be overturned.

The senior Liberal Democrat MP spoke out after Immigration Minister Mark Harper revealed the Home Office withdrew 3,153 of its own immigration decisions in the last year. Over one in five (549) withdrawals were on the day of the appeal hearing.

If the Home Office withdraws from a case it means the person appealing has to wait for a new decision on their immigration status and potentially have to appeal again months later. They also lose the payment they made to begin the appeals process, often over #100.

The figures have led to accusations that migrants are trapped in an unfair system that increases the backlog of cases at the Home Office because officials withdraw decisions in order to meet mandatory targets to win 60% of immigration tribunals and 70% of asylum cases. Withdrawing a decision means the case does
not count towards these targets.

The revelations come after reports that Home Office staff are being given gift vouchers for hitting the targets and ensuring a certain number of immigrants and asylum seekers lose their appeals.

Ms Teather, who chairs the all party parliamentary group (APPG) on refugees, said: ``When you consider how many appeals the Home Office loses coupled with the revelations that their lawyers can receive shopping vouchers for having a high win rate, it's no surprise that lawyers don't want to have to defend poor initial decisions.

``However, the result is that individuals are left in a horrific state of limbo while the taxpayer is left pick up the bill for lost court time and an even increasing backlog in the Home Office.''

Labour's Paul Blomfield, who chairs the migration APPG, asked for assurances from the Home Office that the practice of withdrawing decisions was not designed to massage statistics to meet ``questionable'' targets.

Mr Blomfield, who uncovered the figures in a written parliamentary question, said the target win rates raised serious questions about the fairness of the process.

The MP for Sheffield Central said: ``Following the revelation that Home Office guidance sets officials targets for winning a certain proportion of tribunal cases, we need assurance that this practice is not designed to erase these cases from the statistics.

``Whatever the Home Office reason for withdrawing the decisions, people are facing unnecessary delay and uncertainty. They also often find themselves out of pocket, since the tribunal fees they have paid are not returned when the appeal
hearing doesn't go ahead.''

``Target win rates raise serious questions about the fairness of decisions. There are now further questions about the lengths the Home Office is going to in order to be seen to be meeting these questionable targets.''

Immigration lawyer James Packer, who has been compiling evidence on withdrawals, said the overwhelming conclusion was that officials are under pressure to massage figures.

Mr Packer, of Duncan Lewis solicitors, also criticised the imbalance in the process with the Home Office able to influence the date of a case and drop out at any time whereas the person appealing must pay a fee and ``move fast'' to prepare their appeal.

He said: ``Appeal case officers have a mandatory win rate of a 70% success rate in asylum cases and 60% in immigration matters. There is only one conclusion to draw - and it is overwhelming - they will be under pressure to massage their
figures. As withdrawing the decision under appeal stops the appeal going ahead, and is not counted as a loss in their 'win rates', if they feel they are going to lose they can simply just withdraw the case.''

``Many have complained that in court the judge makes a comment such as 'you are going to have a hard time upholding this decision' and the officer just withdraws the decision.''

He added: ``The Home Office hold most of the cards in these matters. They influence the date when a case comes to court and the person appealing must then move fast and quickly prepare and lodge grounds of an appeal and supporting documents.''

``It is unfair that the case will be heard whether or not that person is ready, but the Home Office can avoid the hearing if it so wishes.''

``This is particularly unfair as the person appealing will not have their costs repaid if the Home Office withdraws, and there is nothing to stop the Home Office re-issuing the same decision on their immigration status months later, which will mean another appeal is required.''

A Home Office spokeswoman said: ``We ensure that only appropriate cases are pursued through the courts and appeals are only withdrawn after careful consideration of the facts''.

``It is not true that individual officers prioritise cases in order to meet targets. Any decision to withdraw a case has to be approved at a more senior level.''

James Packer is the Public Law Director & Solicitor at Duncan Lewis Solicitors


For all Immigration related matter contact us now.Contact Us

Call us now on 033 3772 0409 or click here to send online enquiry.
Duncan Lewis is the trading name of Duncan Lewis (Solicitors) Limited. Registered Office is 143-149 Fenchurch St, London, EC3M 6BL. Company Reg. No. 3718422. VAT Reg. No. 718729013. A list of the company's Directors is displayed at the registered offices address. Authorised and Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority . Offices all across London and in major cities in the UK. ©Duncan Lewis >>Legal Disclaimer, Copyright & Privacy Policy. Duncan Lewis do not accept service by email.