Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law

Further submissions in asylum cases


Older content is locked

A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more


By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;

  • Single login for personal use
  • FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
  • Access to all Free Movement blog content
  • Access to all our online training materials
  • Access to our busy forums
  • Downloadable CPD certificates

asylum queueIt appears that UKBA have genuinely gone nuts. From tomorrow, 14 October 2009, they are requiring that any further submissions in an asylum case must be made in person by appointment. At the same time UKBA is now requiring that all initial claims for asylum made inside the UK (rather than on arrival at port) must be made at Croydon. It is no longer possible to claim asylum in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, it would seem.

Liverpool Asylum Screening Unit will no longer receive initial claims for asylum, only further submissions for claims made before 5 March 2007. Further submissions in claims made since that date can be made to regional UKBA teams but must still be made in person.

The press release can be found here and a statement by still Immigration Minister Phil Woolas here. There’s also a letter to stakeholders available here and the updated policy instruction is here. A new (non-compulsory) form and guidance is available here.

This really does seem mad. It means that if there is a change in circumstances in the country of origin and the asylum claimant wants to make submissions on it, he or she has to travel to Liverpool. If the asylum claimant receives a new document from abroad, it means a trip to Liverpool to hand it in. This simply isn’t going to happen – Liverpool is a long way from most places and travelling there on asylum support is impossible. Instead the new information will all come out if UKBA attempts to remove someone, at which point the fresh claim will have to be considered. The effect of this change is very likely to be an increase in last minute judicial review claims.

It is worth noting that the new policy does not obviously apply to Article 8 claims based on UK relationships or similar as it specifically refers to asylum cases.

As ever, there was of course no consultation on this. UKBA claims that legal representatives were involved in the drawing up of the non-compulsory further submissions form, but in reality the extent of that ‘involvement’ was simply to say that it was a very bad idea indeed and UKBA should not go ahead.

Interested in refugee law? You might like Colin's book, imaginatively called "Refugee Law" and published by Bristol University Press.

Communicating important legal concepts in an approachable way, this is an essential guide for students, lawyers and non-specialists alike.

Relevant articles chosen for you
Picture of Free Movement

Free Movement

The Free Movement blog was founded in 2007 by Colin Yeo, a barrister at Garden Court Chambers specialising in immigration law. The blog provides updates and commentary on immigration and asylum law by a variety of authors.


4 Responses

  1. I agree, this is nutty. Given also that UKBA will “aim to make a decision on any further submission before considering granting access to section 4 support” it begs the question of how those without support are going to make it to Liverpool; walk?


  2. This bit in the letter to stakeholders suggests to me that it is an attempt to make the ‘starving people into wanting to go home’ policy work more efectively. The alternative is it gives UKBA an opportunity to detain people instead of giving them s4 support, perhaps?

    “We will aim to make a decision on any further submission before considering granting access to section 4 support. This will ensure that our support is targeted effectively and where a further submission is clearly unfounded, no access to support will be granted. We expect those whose further submission is judged to be unfounded to go home.”

    I agree it sounds mad, but I suspect there’s method in it.

  3. This is not a random move. In order to make further submissions, you have to telephone ahead for an appointment. That gives people plenty of time to get things in place, say for example removal directions. What happens if you arrive for your appointment and do not get a decision there and then; hang around in Liverpool for a while – we have some nice parks and gardens.

    Yes, people will be travelling from all over to Liverpool and will in all likelyhood place an impossible burden on the already overstretched destitution services that charities currently have in place.

    With only 2 publicly funded solicitors in Liverpool, there is little capacity for people to pursue a fresh claim from here, so refugees should think twice before hoping on the bus. There are however private firms springing up if you’ve got money to burn.

    Tie this into the latest local authority NRFP bulletin which talks about closer cooperation with UKBA to stop fraudulent claims of people relying on things like Social Services support and it makes you relaise that the constant squeeze over the last decade has almost reached it’s climax.

    I wish I could sound more hopeful but I can’t. Cheers Ewan

  4. Let’s not forget that the Home Office have already revealed their prime motivation for changes to immigration law and procedure: to “ensure that living illegally becomes ever more uncomfortable and constrained
    until they leave or are removed.” (March 2007 ‘Enforcing the Rules: A Strategy to Ensure and Enforce Compliance with our Immigration Laws’

    Added to this, now there’s all those potential BNP voters to appeal to…