New UNHCR report recommends changes in the further submissions process

UNHCR has published a report following an audit of the UK’s further submissions procedures and decision-making, making recommendations for change. The further submissions process is that used where a person wants to make a fresh asylum claim, usually after a previous refusal.

The audit took place in 2023 and 2024 and comprised a visit to the Further Submissions Unit in Liverpool, an audit of 40 decided cases, interviews with nine legal practitioners and seven applicants and refugees. Of the 40 decided cases, 22 were made on the same basis as the initial claim. There were 20 grants of leave, 12 of those were refugee status, one was a grant of humanitarian protection and seven grants were on private life grounds. Of the 20 refusals, 13 were accepted as a fresh claim meaning there was a right of appeal and seven were rejected with no right of appeal. 28 of the cases took over a year to decide.

The Home Office does not publish statistics on further submissions, so it is interesting to see the data that UNHCR obtained. In 2022 there were 5,917 further submissions made, in 2023 this was up to 6,699. In both years the top five nationalities were Iraq, Albania, China, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Several issues associated with the need to attend appointments in person were raised and noted in the report. This included problems with the scanning and copying of documents by administrative staff at the service centres [at 42 and 43]. Those applicants who had gone to these appointments reported feeling scared, daunted and stressed by the need to travel to Liverpool by themselves, as well as a fear of being detained [at 44 and 45]. That fear is well-founded as evidence from one legal representative reported cases where this had happened [at 46].

Concerns were also raised about decision makers applying a higher standard of proof than they should, out of line with the published guidance [at 70]. Decision makers reported difficulty in switching between the pre and post-Nationality and Borders Act 2022 standards of proof [at 73]. Decision makers also had a limited understanding of how to approach a previous appeal determination and did not feel able to reach a different decision [at 76 – 85].

Several recommendations were made, including (in brief) that:

• Applications should be submitted via email or via an online portal instead of the current requirement that this is done in person at either Liverpool, Cardiff, Glasgow or Belfast.
• Triaging of cases to the most appropriate decision maker to improve the quality of decision making.
• Embedding a culture of case resolution, including encouraging decision makers to liaise with legal representatives where needed before making a decision and the use of interviews where needed for a faster resolution of cases.
• Training for decision makers on how to assess evidence to ensure that submissions are not rejected for unreasonable or inaccurate reasons.
• The quality of decision letters should be improved by better proof-reading or second review measures and strengthened quality assurance.
• Where medical information has been provided as evidence for an issue and not because the person is seeking leave to remain on medical grounds, decision makers should refrain from assessing those medical issues in detail.
• The Home Office should consider carrying out a review of its approach to credibility, which is only one part of the asylum decision, as the Home Office appears to rely heavily on written documents in order for credibility to be established and refugee status granted.
• A process should be established where withdrawn cases can be considered as an initial claim rather than in the fresh claims process.

With the move to increased digitisation of Home Office processes, the insistence on people making further submissions in person is even more retrograde than when first introduced, and can lead to situations like this. I have personally never got the impression than many people within the Home Office think it is a good idea, but there is obviously someone there who is determined to keep it in place.

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.

Buy now