eVisas and the hostile environment: a disaster waiting to happen

There is now only a month left before all biometric residence permits and biometric residence cards will expire on 31 December 2024 and understanding of the changes among those responsible for enforcing the hostile environment remains dangerously low. From 1 January 2025 onwards, individuals will be expected to show their immigration status and entitlements through the eVisa system. The Home Office stopped producing and replacing biometric residence permits on 31 October 2024 and individuals who are granted status from this date onwards will have to get an eVisa.

As expected, there are already ongoing reported issues with the eVisa system. These include a person’s status not showing after they have completed the application, wrong details on the eVisa, difficulties in scanning ID documents, and many more.

Teething problem like this is obviously only to be expected, particularly on such a large-scale project involving technology. Yet, concrete steps have only been taken to progress with the transition this year, even though the plan has been in the works for much longer. Public advertisements around the need to apply for eVisa for example, have only started in the past month.

In any case, the biggest challenge that the Home Office and government has to grapple with seems to be none other than the hostile environment policy itself.

The hostile environment refers to the government’s ongoing policy agenda to make the UK as hostile as possible for migrants and people seeking asylum in the UK. A key feature of the policy is how – through different legislation and policies – the public and statutory services are turned into “quasi” border guards who have to check people’s immigration status.

Employers and landlords for example, are at risk of penalties if they were to employ or rent to individuals who do not have the right to do those things. Airline staff have to check that passengers have the right to enter the UK before they are allowed to board. Department for Work and Pensions decision makers, local authorities’ housing officers and social workers and NHS staff all have to check for a person’s entitlement to access (“have recourse”) to public funds, before they offer assistance and services.

This creates a significant and potentially insurmountable challenge for the Home Office’s transition to the eVisa system: how do they ensure that these quasi-border guards, who they don’t have any control over, exercise their function in a legally acceptable manner?

Lack of understanding of biometric residence permits expiry date and eVisa

At Migrants Organise, we are already seeing the issue manifesting. For example, we are working with a survivor of torture who was granted refugee status on 1 March 2021 for five years. His biometric residence permit is only valid until 31 December 2024 but that is not the date his leave expires, which is in 2026. He is in receipt of personal independence payment.

On 10 March 2024 he received a letter from the DWP confirming his ongoing entitlement to personal independence payment. That letter did not mention any imminent eligibility review of his entitlement. On 2 July 2024, he received another letter, stating that his personal independence payment would end on 31 December 2024. No reason from the DWP was given. The letter simply stated: “If you still need help with your daily living or mobility you will need to claim PIP again”.

We wrote to the DWP about this and the issue has been corrected. However, this has still prompted an immediate substantive eligibility review of his disability and entitlement, which is a very strenuous and stressful process.

Similar issues are being reported across the sector for example with child benefit not accepting eVisas as proof of a person’s immigration status. Likewise, banks are still not recognising eVisas and certainly with online banks (such as Monzo), the functionality is simply not there on the app to use eVisa as proof of status.

The Home Office states that, in line with their duties, they have tried their best to engage these departments and other quasi-border guards on the transition to eVisa. But again, failure seems ultimately inevitable given the far-reaching impact of the hostile environment policy.

The potential devastating impact on individuals cannot be overstated. Particularly for newly granted refugees who are in asylum support accommodation, it is of paramount importance that they are able to access banks, benefits and local authority assistance as soon as possible as they only have 28 days after they receive their status before they are evicted from asylum support and at risk of becoming street homeless and destitute.

The Home Office has been anxious to avoid comparisons between the eVisa roll out and the Windrush scandal but this is precisely what happened with Windrush – individuals who actually had a right to reside and access public funds in the UK were being denied services.

Duties of other public authorities

While there is rightly a lot of attention on the Home Office who is ultimately responsible for this transition, it is important not to forget that these quasi-border guards do have their own duties too, particularly in relation those exercising public authority functions including the DWP, NHS and Local Authorities.

These organisations are required to check individuals’ status and entitlements but they also have duties towards those trying to access their services, for instance, not to discriminate and to promote equality under the Equality Act. If children are involved, there is also often a duty to promote the best interest of children at play.

All of this is to say that it is also incumbent on these organisations to do a lawful check of a person’s immigration status and entitlement, regardless of how difficult or confusing it might be. For example, if a person’s eVisa is not showing correctly, then policy and systems need to allow for front line staff to correctly check a person’s immigration status in a different way. Reasonable adjustments also need to be provided as required.

The Home Office states that landlords, employers and other government departments are able to use the Status Verification and Enquiries Checking to directly check a person’s status with the Home Office. Organisations which obtain grant funding to provide help for individuals to transition to eVisa will also have a direct dedicated help line to the Home Office, so there’s an additional reason to signpost to these organisations.

Urgent change is needed

Together with the3million and 69 other organisations, we have written to government ministers in charge of the Department for Work and Pensions, NHS and social care to raise this issue. The hostile environment bars individual’s entitlements to statutory services on account of their immigration status. Policy decisions made by the Home Office necessarily impacts other government departments in charge of these services and those other departments must take action to ensure that they do not unlawfully exclude people from services they are entitled to, simply through a lack of understanding of and preparing for the move to eVisas.

In our letter we have requested that each governmental body:

provide essential training on the eVisa rollout and its significance for your decision makers;
provide clear guidance for your decision makers on the eVisa rollout;
make that guidance publicly available;
commit to not suspending support for individuals during the re-verification of their immigration
status;
commit to meeting with us to discuss these urgent and emerging issues in greater depth.

We hope the letter can also be useful in individual cases and advocacy. For example, if you are dealing with a job centre who refused to accept eVisa as proof of immigration status, you can refer and enclosed the letter. Annex B of the letter also contains different ways that public authorities can lawfully check a person’s immigration status.

If you encounter any issues with the eVisa system, please report it through this reporting tool set up by the3milllion and ILPA.