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

New removals policy


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

UKBA have changed their removals policy, and not in a nice way. The announcement letter to stakeholders is available here and does not really tell half the story. In essence, the 72 hour notice period for removals is to be waived in a wide range of cases and no-notice removals will become more widespread. This prevents access to a lawyer or the courts, basically, and it means that unlawful (why we don’t just say illegal still escapes me) removals can go ahead unchallenged.

Irritatingly, the new policy allegedly becomes effective on 11 January 2010, but in the meantime the old policy has been removed from the UKBA website and only the new one is available.

UKBA have been secretly trialling no-notice removals over the last year or so. There have been several cases (I previously posted about one of them) that have exposed the existence of secret policy exceptions to the normal rule that all removees receive at least 72 hours notice. Indeed, it is these cases that for Free Movement and perhaps others provided final confirmation that UKBA are institutionally unlawful, in the sense that there is a pervasive lack of respect for the rule of law and an ingrained culture of acting contrary to the requirements of law.

The new policy is, of course, couched in the weasely words and siren sounds one comes to expect of UKBA press releases and policy documents. The section that most sticks in the throat (there is competition) is about a so-called ‘best interests’ policy for not giving children any notice of their impending removal. Apparently it is in their best interests only to find out when they rock up at the airport. The modern UKBA tendency to dress up way they want to do as what they should do in the best interests of children is a disgraceful development.

ILPA is furious about the changes, which have not been the subject of any consultation despite numerous attempts by ILPA to meet with UKBA about this issue. I’ve never seen such a strongly worded and genuinely angry letter from the organisation.

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.


5 Responses

  1. FM

    If only “exceptional” meant the same thing for the UKBA as it does for applicants.

    With e-borders, the ECJ considered it illegal.
    Some-how this balances it up. UKBA is illegally stopping people coming in , and now illegally removing people going out.

    The signature of the letter has a name that kind of fits his position !

  2. wondering what powers can stop UKBA officials now from persuing immigrants most especially at these holiday times and deceiving them so as to effect deportations, and to think we are in a developed country and can blast others on human rights abuses OMG!!!!!