The New Asylum Model (NAM) has been piloted and partially operated since May 2005, and since May 2007 has been applied to all new asylum seekers’ cases. It is a fast-track ‘end-to-end’ system, designed to process claims as quickly as possible, reduce new arrivals’ chances of successfully claiming asylum and speed up deportations. ALYSE THOMSON reports.
Asylum seekers are subject to an ‘initial screening’ process, after which they are ‘segmented’ and assigned to a ‘case owner’, who handles all aspects of their case. There are five ‘segments’:
1) Third Country (people who the Home Office believes have or could have applied for asylum in a third country)
2) Minors (unaccompanied minors and children in families who apply in their own right)
3) Potential Non-Suspensive Appeal (nationals from one of 14 countries that the government deems ‘safe’)
4) ‘Late and Opportunistic‘ (people who apply for asylum after overstaying and have extension of leave refused, including those who apply after having been a dependant of a refused asylum applicant)
5) General Casework (cases that do not come into any of the other segments).
Formerly, adult asylum seekers had ten days to complete a detailed ‘statement of evidence’ about their claim. This chance to present crucial information has now been removed. Decisions on many ‘fast-tracked’ cases are now being made in 11 days, while applicants whose cases are labelled ‘late or opportunistic’ have their asylum interview within two to three days, with the decision served within three to four days, and have only ten days to appeal.
These timescales mean that newly arrived, vulnerable and confused asylum seekers are bombarded with demands and often have insufficient time to seek legal advice and proper representation. Immigration lawyers are under pressure to conform to the time limits and do not have enough time to prepare cases properly.
The speed and nature of the processing of the claim, management of the case, access to legal representation and support arrangements are determined by which segment an asylum seeker is assigned to. Accommodation arrangements and the frequency and nature of ‘reporting’ arrangements – which include the use of electronic tagging or voice recognition monitoring – are also determined from this earliest stage.
‘Segmentation’ decisions are often arbitrary and once made are difficult to change. The entire pejorative category of ‘opportunistic’ labels asylum seekers’ claims as unfounded before any detailed evidence has been heard. For example, the Refugee Council cites the case of a woman who, following the refusal of her husband’s case, in which she was claiming asylum as a dependant, submitted her own claim, providing details of having been raped. A senior Home Office official confirmed she would be treated as ‘late and opportunistic’ without any real investigation of the reasons why she felt unable to make earlier disclosure, such as fear of stigma or wishing to avoid the trauma of recounting the experience.
The Medical Foundation for Victims of Torture states that policy regarding treatment of victims of torture is not always followed, and vulnerable and traumatised people can be subject to inappropriate clinical decisions by case owners. Women are particularly vulnerable as many have been subject to rape, sexual abuse and violence. Rushing their claims through cannot fail to cause them further trauma.
NAM is the latest vehicle for Labour’s attack on asylum seekers, who are systematically and ruthlessly being deported back to war zones, persecution at the hands of corrupt regimes supported by the British government, such as that in Democratic Republic of Congo, and poverty resulting from exploitation, corruption and plunder of natural resources by Britain and other imperialist nations. We must defend all asylum seekers against the relentless attack on their human rights.
FRFI 198 August / September 2007
