- BY Free Movement
More on alleged 6 year rule
THANKS FOR READING
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
TAKE FREE MOVEMENT FURTHER
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
Further to my earlier post on the alleged relaxing of asylum rules, see the Government response to media claims:
Asylum seekers – government response
09 October 2009
The government has responded to claims in the media that up to 40,000 asylum seekers will be allowed to stay in the United Kingdom because it would be too difficult to return them to their home countries.
Phil Woolas, [still] Border and Immigration Minister, said:
‘There is no amnesty.
‘Our guidelines were updated to provide case workers with a simple framework to judge cases, and to avoid long drawn out court battles.
‘No lawbreaker will be allowed to say, and each case is still decided on its individual merits.
‘The UK Border Agency continues to ramp up performance and is concluding several thousand cases a month.
‘Less than 40% of cases are being granted and I am confident that we will clear all of these cases by 2011.’
SHARE
3 responses
All this spin is making me dizzy.
Is there an election looming?
So 100,000 legacy cases are being streamlined due to the HO’s own inefficiencies at doing its job, and is allowing 40% to “SAY” – I think they mean “STAY”.
The UKBA in my experience is getting worse. Just the other day I saw that my AIT consultation response had been changed without me being notified let alone consulted.
If that’s the case Mr T, and if it has your real name on, i’d make some mutterings about data protection…..
DP
I decided to preserve my anonimity.
It had the Judges name on it, and the UKBA removed it due there being a supposed “allegation”. I veiw it as a statement of fact, but I think it fell on deaf ears. If one can’t describe an adjudication as inaccurate when it contains seven major mistakes, then I can only assume they are covering themselves.
By the by, the AIT consultation did have a consultation response from the judge as well.