Asylum Getting the Balance Right a Thematic Inspection

7/31/2019 Asylum Getting the Balance Right a Thematic Inspection

1/54

Asylum: Getting theBalance Right?

A Thematic Inspection: July November 2009


2/54


3/54

1

Asylum: Getting the Balance Right?

We are grateul to the UK Border Agency (UKBA) or its help and co-operation throughout the inspection.In particular we are grateul or the assistance across regions in providing case les and or arranginginterviews with sta, sometimes at short notice.

We are grateul also to those organisations and individuals who gave up their time to provide us with theirexperience o asylum.

Assistant Chie Inspector: Mark Voce

Lead Inspector: Gareth ElksInspector: Jake McClureInspection Ocer: Steve Embrey-JonesInspection Ocer: Denise Hotham

Analyst: Susanne Chan

Acknowledgements


4/54


5/54

3


Asylum is at the oreront o the UK Border Agencys (UKBA) business and every day the Agencys decisionsaect the lives o individuals who have sought protection in the UK. It is thereore a particularly importanttopic or me to inspect and to report on or my rst ull thematic inspection.

On 5 March 2007, the UK Border Agency introduced the New Asylum Model (NAM) to manage newasylum applications made on, or ater, this date. A separate process was introduced or managing cases

where the application had been made prior to 1 March and had not been resolved. Te UKBA estimatedthere to be between 400,000 and 450,000 such legacy cases. Tese were to be managed by a newly created

unit within the UKBA: the Case Resolution Directorate (CRD).

I have ocused this inspection on both the UKBAs handling o asylum cases within NAM and also thelegacy o older cases, which it is seeking to clear by 2011. In this report, I have considered in particular howand whether the UKBA is meeting its targets or concluding cases; how it is managing those cases whichall outside its conclusion target; and the quality o its decision-making. Critically I have also looked at theimpact o these on the individual asylum applicant.

Tis is a complex area o work. My overall impression is o the dicult balance that needs to be struckbetween a perormance culture that strives continually or improvement and the quality o decision-makingthat is essential when dealing with some o the most vulnerable people in society. Te testimony o someo those individuals is refected in my report and acts as a reminder to us all that, rst and oremost, this isabout peoples lives.

I am acutely aware rom the inspection that there are many other discrete areas which I shall need to inspectin uture years in particular, the use o country inormation, the allocation o people to the detained ast-track and the initial screening process. Preceding the main report, I have set out an executive summary andrecommendations which I believe would strengthen the operation o this procedure.

JOHN VINE CBE QPM

Foreword


6/54

4


1. Te UKBA has clear perormance targets which rightly ocus on concluding asylum cases and thesehave driven improvement. However, the Agency has been unable to sustain the perormance milestonescontained in its Public Service Agreement. On the basis o current stang levels and the complexity andvolume o cases, its target o concluding 90% o cases in six months is unachievable given the challengesaced in securing travel documentation or ailed asylum seekers and concluding legal challenges to decisions.Front-line sta had not been involved suciently in the setting o targets.

2. Te UKBA continues to resolve its legacy o older cases but needs to conclude over 11,000 cases a

month to achieve its July 2011 target. Even by July 2011, it is likely that there will continue to be people inthe legacy that do not qualiy to stay but cannot be removed.

3. Te UKBA has nearly 30,000 cases in NAM that have not been concluded within a six-monthperiod. Tese include cases where no initial decision has been made in addition to cases where, due to thesituation in particular countries, it is not possible or the UKBA to enorce removal. Tese cases are nowbeing actively managed, although some o the teams responsible had received limited training.

4. Tere is a sound quality assurance ramework in place which was developed in conjunction withthe United Nations High Commissioner or Reugees. Decisions refect careul consideration o evidenceprovided by applicants at interview and reasons or decisions are generally set out clearly. Tere are clearcriteria governing decisions on whether to grant cases in the legacy and regular Police National Computerchecks to detect whether applicants have been involved in criminal activity. Tere is a strong commitmentrom sta to make the right decision. However, there is no systematic analysis o the reasons why appealsagainst decisions are allowed.

5. Tere is clear commitment to the model o case ownership to ensure cases are managed rom start tonish. However, there were inconsistencies between the roles and responsibilities o Case Owners across theUKBAs regions.

6. raining provides a solid grounding in asylum law and interviewing and decision-making techniques.Tere is no involvement o reugees with direct experience o the system to reinorce the human impact othe asylum process and limited training on administrative tasks.

7. Tere are good examples o regional asylum teams working closely with stakeholders and strongevidence o new initiatives to improve perormance and quality. However, there is a need or the UKBA as a

whole to ensure it captures the lessons learned rom these and shares best practice accordingly.

Executive summary


7/54

5


We recommend that the UK Border Agency:

1. As a matter o priority, assesses how it can deliver perormance improvements consistently; and howit proposes to deliver its target o concluding 90% o cases within six months by December 2011

2. Ensures all uture targets take ull account o ront-line experience

3. Ensures that initial decisions are made as soon as possible on all applications currently outstanding orsix months or more; and ensures that all uture applications receive an initial decision within six months

4. Introduces clear targets or concluding cases that have not been concluded within six months

5. Produces an action plan to show how, in light o recent process and guidance changes, it can resolvethe legacy o cases by July 2011

6. Develops and communicates plans or managing those legacy cases in which leave may not begranted, or the applicant removed, by July 2011

7. Adopts a clear and consistent approach to when it will not be represented at asylum appeal hearings

8. Systematically analyses the reasons or allowed appeals and links this with its overall quality

assurance ramework

9. Ensures that the reasons why legacy cases are granted are recorded clearly on le

10. Denes the role and responsibilities o Case Owners including their role in presenting cases at appeal

11. Ensures that the Quality Audit eam samples decisions rom all Case Owners

12. Claries the inormation that should be stored on the le and the Case Inormation Database andincorporates checks o this into the quality assurance ramework

13. Ensures that applicants whose case is in the legacy, are given more inormation about when their case

will be considered, or an explanation o why this is not possible

14. Develops clear succession planning to reduce the risk o vital posts being let vacant

15. Invites reugees to contribute to its training programme or Case Owners to reinorce how theasylum process aects individual asylum applicants

16. Denes and monitors the management inormation to be recorded locally

17. Measures the quality and requency o contact between Case Owners and applicants

18. Introduces consolidation training or Case Owners as soon as possible

19. Ensures that applicants are provided with contact details o their Case Owner, including where theCase Owner changes

Summary of recommendations


8/54

6


1. Te terms o reerence or this thematic inspection were:

o inspect how the UK Border Agency is delivering ast and air decisions in respect o applications orasylum. In particular to inspect the UKBA approach in seeking to meet its published targets or concludingasylum applications and legacy cases; ensuring the quality o asylum decision-making; and providinginormation to applicants.

2. Te terms o reerence did not include any examination o the arrangements or the support o asylumseekers or ailed asylum seekers, the quality o country-o-origin inormation used as part o the decision-making process, or the arrangements or the integration o reugees ollowing a successul application.

Methodology

3. Te inspection was carried out against a selection o the Chie Inspectors Core Criteria1 covering theollowing our themes;

High level outcomes o the business

Processes and procedures including quality o decision-making and consistency o approach

Impact on people subject to UKBA services

Management and leadership.

4. A copy o the specic criteria used or this inspection can be ound in Annex A.

5. Te inspection was conducted over two phases rom JulyNovember 2009. Te initial phase involvedan assessment o policy and procedural documentation, data analysis and a sample o 147 case les selectedat random. Te second phase involved interviews with sta in our o the six o the UKBAs regions. Teregions we visited were London and the South East, the North West, the Midlands and the East o England andScotland and Northern Ireland. Te range o sta interviewed included Senior Management eams, RegionalManagement eams, Senior Case Owners, Case Owners, Case Workers, administrative sta and sta romthe corporate centre. We also oered a drop-in surgery or all members o sta where anyone could speak to amember o the inspection team.

6. Prior to and during the inspection, we also spoke to stakeholder groups with particular expertise in asylumissues, individual asylum applicants and to Members o Parliament. A ull list can be ound in Annex B.

1 Core Criteria o the Independent Chie Inspector o the UKBA can be ound at http://www.ociukba.homeoce.gov.uk/les/Criteria_or_core_programme.pd

The inspection


9/54

7


Background

What is asylum?

1. Asylum is protection given by a country to someone who is feeing persecution in their own country.Te UK is a signatory to the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status o Reugees (theReugee Convention), which sets out the basis on which a person must be recognised as a reugee.

2. Tis requires an individual seeking asylum to show that they have a well-ounded ear o persecutiondue to their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership o a particular social group, and

the authorities in their country are unable to provide protection or the individual is, owing to that ear,unwilling to avail himsel o the protection o that country. Te denition is orward-looking, so even ia person has been persecuted in the past, they will not be able to successully claim asylum unless they candemonstrate that they will be persecuted in the uture. A person must also be outside their country o originin order to be recognised as a reugee.

3. A person can also apply to remain in the UK on the basis that they have a claim to humanitarianprotection. A person can successully claim humanitarian protection i they do not qualiy as a reugee butcan show that there are substantial grounds or believing that i they were returned to their country o origin,they would ace a real risk o suering serious harm. Serious harm means either the death penalty; torture orinhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; or a serious and individual threat to a persons lie or saetyin situations o armed confict.

4. A person can urther apply to remain in the UK on the basis that removal would breach their rightslaid down in the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (a human rights claim). Te conventioncontains a number o articles o protected rights. Most human rights claims are based on Article 3(prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) or Article 8 (right to respect or amily lie andprivate lie). A human rights claim can be part o an asylum claim under the Reugee Convention, or it canbe made in its own right.

The number of asylum applications in the UK

5. Between 1998 and 2002, the number o people applying or asylum in the UK rose rom 46,015 toa peak o 84,1302 in 2002. Since 2002, the number o applications has declined reaching 23,610 in 2006,

23,430 in 2007 but climbing slightly to 25,930 in 2008.

2 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmha/218/218.pd

Introduction


10/54

8


Graph 1: Total asylum applications 2002 to 2008

The Asylum Process

6. Asylum applications need to be made in person at a port o entry or at the UKBAs Asylum ScreeningUnit, which is based in Croydon. In exceptional circumstances, in-country asylum applications can bemade at Local Enorcement Oces. Ater the application, a person undergoes a screening interview toestablish their personal details, to provide biometric inormation and to set out brie reasons why they

wish to claim asylum in the UK. Tis interview also determines whether a person should be reerred tothe detained ast-track where they are held in detention and undergo a aster decision-making process or

whether they will be reerred to an asylum team in one o the six UKBA regional units, based in:

London and the South East

North West

Midlands and the East o England

North East, Yorkshire and the Humber

Wales and the South West

Scotland and Northern Ireland.

I not detained, the person may also be required to maintain contact with the UKBA by reporting on aregular basis.

7. Te person is then normally interviewed to set out the ull reasons why they ear persecution and

any other reasons why they should be permitted to remain in the UK. Te UKBA will then decide whetherasylum should be granted taking account o the evidence provided at interview, any additional evidenceprovided by the applicant ollowing the interview, inormation about the persons country o origin andprevious decisions rom the courts.

Total UK asylum applications 2002 to 2008

Numberof

applications

Calendar year


11/54

9


8. I the UKBA accepts that the person has a well-ounded ear o persecution or that removal wouldbreach their human rights then they will be recognised as a reugee and allowed to stay or an initial periodo ve years, at which point a decision will be made on whether a person is eligible or permanent status.

9. Tose whose applications have been reused can appeal to the independent Asylum and Immigrationribunal (AI) and are permitted to remain in the UK until their appeal is determined. I their appeal isrejected or i they do not appeal they must leave the UK3, subject to any application or judicial review.Failure to do so can result in the person being detained and removed. Tis process is summarised in Annex C.

The New Asylum Model (NAM)

10. In March 2007, the UKBA introduced the New Asylum Model (NAM), which was designed to:

Ensure the removal o a higher percentage o people who did not qualiy or asylum

Enable quick decisions or those who did need protection

Deter those with unounded claims rom seeking asylum

Improve the cost-eectiveness o the system.

11. Key eatures o the model were: specialist Case Managers to manage cases rom application through

to grant or removal; maintaining contact with people throughout the process; an improved screening processto ensure claims were dealt with according to their specic characteristics; and an improvement in quality.

Detained Fast-Track

12. Where the UKBA considered that a decision could be made quickly in a case, the applicant may bedetained and their case processed under the Detained Fast-rack (DF) process. Under this, applicants

were detained in an Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) until their case was concluded.

13. We did not examine the DF process in detail, as this is an area that we will be examining as part oa uture inspection.

The Case Resolution Directorate (CRD)

14. In its paperFair, Eectie, ransparent and rusted; Rebuilding condence in our immigration systempublished in July 2006, ministers set out a plan to deal with the legacy o 400,000450,000 unresolvedasylum cases within ve years. Te Case Resolution Directorate was established within the UKBA to deal

with these cases and conclude them by July 2011.

3 Where the Secretary o State certies that a claim is clearly unounded under Section 94 o the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 a right o appealcan only be exercised rom abroad the appeal does not suspend removal rom the UK.


12/54

10


Te inspection ocused on whether there were clear and realistic perormance targets to drive improvement;and whether there were eective arrangements to manage claims or asylum to reduce existing backlogsand minimise uture backlogs.

Were the performance targets clear?

1.1 We ound that there were very clear perormance targets or concluding asylum applications.

1.2 Tese were set out in the Public Service Agreement 3 (PSA) to ensure controlled, air migration

that protects the public and contributes to economic growth. Te PSA contained a set o perormanceindicators and required the UKBA to conclude 90% o asylum applications within six months4 by December2011. Te PSA also set out a series o interim targets as stepping stones:

35% o applications within 6 months by the end o April 2007

40% o applications within 6 months by the end o December 2007

60% o applications within 6 months by the end o December 2008

75% o applications within 6 months by the end o December 2009.

1.3 Te PSA also stated that perormance should be monitored to ensure it did not dip below previous

milestones. An application was concluded where a person was granted leave to remain in the UK or wasremoved rom the UK.

1.4 We ound that the PSA also set out that certain applications were not subject to the target mostnotably where a General Legal Barrier prevented the removal o a person to a particular country. Anexample o this was where the Government had decided that removal should not be enorced due to theparticular situation in a country. For cases to be excluded rom the target, the application must have beenreused and any appeal rights must have been exhausted. We also noted that any applications that were

withdrawn due to the person not attending an initial interview and ailing to set out that this was due tocircumstances beyond their control were also excluded rom the target.

1.5 We ound that sta at all levels and all regions were ully aware o these conclusion targets and how

they contributed to them. We also ound sta supported the ocus on the overall conclusion o a case. Tiswas one o the most signicant changes brought about by the NAM. Prior to its introduction most targetsrelated to individual parts o the process such as the time taken to make an initial decision and there hadpreviously been no routine measurement o the time taken rom the date o application through to the timea person was granted reugee status or removed rom the UK.

1.6 However, we ound there was very limited understanding o how the targets had been calculated orthe actors that had been taken into account when they were developed. Although senior managers did reerto detailed modelling carried out by analysts prior to agreement o the PSA, there was no evidence o widerinvolvement o ront-line sta.

1.7 All teams had clear targets and processes designed to contribute towards the national conclusion rate

target. Case Owners in all regions were required to deliver a number o key events, which were actionsconsidered critical to the conclusion o a case. Tese events consisted o conducting an asylum interview,issuing a decision; and, in some, but not all regions, presenting a case at an appeal hearing.

4 Six months is calculated as being 182 days.

Chapter 1:

Findings High-level outcomes ofthe business


13/54

11


1.8 We ound that achievement o these key events was closely monitored by managers and refectedin each individuals Perormance Development Review (PDR). However, we noted that other actionsundertaken by Case Owners, such as responding to telephone enquiries rom an applicant or theirrepresentative were not measured as key events and not measured specically in sta appraisals despite theamount o time this took.

1.9 Tere was fexibility or managers in each region to determine the number o key events that CaseOwners were expected to deliver per week; and fexibility or managers to determine whether Case Owners

must deliver their key events in a set way such as two interviews and two decisions; or whether this was letto the discretion o the Case Owner. Tis fexibility had produced inconsistency one region required CaseOwners to complete ve key events per week; others required our key events to be completed.

1.10 We ound there was a very strong ocus rom managers or sta to deliver their key events and thuscontribute to the overall conclusion target. We also ound that no region weighted key events to take accounto any dierence in the time needed to interview an applicant, to present a case at appeal, or to make a decision.

1.11 Sta believed that the targets or the number o key events were challenging but generally achievable.However, there was a risk that, in order to meet the targets each week, sta conducted an interview ratherthan make a decision on a more complex case. Tis allowed them to deliver the requisite number o keyevents. We noted that some regions were assessing whether to weight key events to avoid this situation.

Are the targets realistic?

1.12 o assess whether the targets were realistic we considered the perormance o the UKBA in meetingthe series o milestones targets in the PSA.

1.13 Te initial target was to conclude 35% o each months intake o cases (reerred to as a cohort) by theend o April 2007: this was achieved. Te target increased to 40% by the end o December 2007. We notedthat although this was achieved initially, perormance had dipped in subsequent months. Between June andNovember 2008, 40% o cases were concluded in only one month (October).

1.14 Te UKBA had also achieved the target o concluding 60% o applications by the end o December2008 a signicant increase rom the previous milestone. However, the UKBA had not been able tomaintain this level o perormance consistently since December 2008. Indeed perormance had dropped toless than 45% by the end o November 2009 (although we noted this level o perormance remained abovethe level o earlier milestones). Tis was despite the PSA target stating that perormance would be measuredmonthly to ensure it did not dip below previous milestones.

1.15 Te Agency had ocused extremely strongly on meeting the target o concluding 60% o applicationswithin six months by December 2008. Tis meant that all regional teams had ocused in particular onapplications made in June 2008. One region inormed us that March, April and May cases were stockpiledto enable ocus around June. In addition, we ound that the UKBA was not always represented at appealhearings where applicants challenged a decision to reuse asylum thereby enabling resources to be ocused onthe conclusion target.


14/54


15/54

13


1.17 Most sta believed that achieving 75% was extremely challenging and ew believed it was easible toachieve this on a consistent basis. Tere was greater belie amongst managers that the target would be metand that it could be achieved consistently, subject to the number o asylum applications remaining at a levelo around 1,900 a month.

1.18 Signicantly, there was no belie that the ultimate target in the PSA o concluding 90% oapplications within six months was achievable. Tere was no evidence o how this target had been devisedand a very strong belie rom sta that this ailed to take account o the complexity o the issues.

1.19 In particular, we ound a consistent view that the target had ailed to adequately consider thediculties involved in obtaining travel documents or people whose applications had been reused and whoare required to leave the UK. Many people who are reused asylum either do not, or claim not to have apassport. In these cases, the UKBA oten needed to apply to Embassies or High Commissions to obtaindocumentation which would allow a person to be removed. We will be examining the UKBAs use o traveldocuments as part o a uture inspection.

1.20 Te time taken to obtain such documentation varied according to the requirements o other countriesand additional time would be required where countries did not accept that people were o the nationality thatthey claimed and so did not issue the UKBA with documents. In addition, the target took insucient accounto the length o time that it could take to conclude appeals to the Asylum and Immigration ribunal and, more

particularly, i an application or permission to apply or judicial review was lodged.

1.21 We also ound that the national target took no account o the dierent types o cases managed byregions. Tere was clear rustration that some regions were thought to have a greater chance o meetingthe target simply because they may have a greater proportion o applications rom nationals o a particularcountry. We noted that this issue had been considered by senior managers and rejected on the basis that it

would inevitably be subject to continual change due to the changing make-up o nationalities in each region.

1.22 We ound that making an initial decision within 30 days o application was a key actor i the overallconclusion target was to be met. And while perormance had improved, it remained below the deliveryplanning expectations and perormance varied widely between regions.

Managing cases that were not concluded within six months

1.23 We ound that, at the end o July 2009 there were 29,474 cases that had not been concluded withinsix months.7 Te UKBA had established processes to monitor the number o these cases and had set up newteams Out o Service Standard (OOSS) teams to deal with them. We noted there was variation betweenregions over when OOSS teams were introduced. One region had piloted an OOSS team between Februaryand July 2009, another introduced the team in June, whilst another was introduced in October.

1.24 We noted that one region introduced an OOSS team, giving only seven days notice to those stawho were expected to work in it, even though they had no previous experience o asylum decision-making.

7 Figure taken rom the UKBAs Immigration Group Monthly Perormance report July 2009.


16/54

14


1.25 We ound that these teams managed cases at varying stages o the process. Tis included caseswhere a decision had been made to reuse an application but the person had yet to be removed due to theexistence o a General Legal Barrier to removal or where the person had ailed to maintain contact with theUKBA. But it also included cases where the UKBA had not decided whether to grant leave or to reuse theapplication six months ater the claim had been made.

1.26 eams in all regions prioritised cases where applicants were receiving nancial support and caseswhere there was a greater chance o eecting a removal. However, although we ound a supervisory

ramework to assist regions in prioritising cases, it did not set out a clear order in which decisions should bemade. We ound that, although all teams had a target date by which they should make decisions in thesecases, these dates varied between regions.

Legacy cases

Are the performance targets clear?

1.27 We ound that sta were ully aware o the target or resolving legacy cases and understood how theirwork contributed to that. We also ound very clear awareness o the priorities or concluding cases thatministers had previously set out. Te priorities were cases where:

An individual may pose a risk to the public

An individual was in receipt o public support

It was likely that leave would be granted

An individual could be easily removed.

How the UKBA performed

1.28 We ound clear evidence o perormance being monitored and the Chie Executive o the UKBA hasprovided regular updates to the Home Aairs Committee describing progress in resolving the legacy o oldercases. By the end o September 2009, a total o 220,000 cases had been concluded.

1.29 Te ollowing table sets out the breakdown o these cases which was annexed to the Chie Executives

update to the Home Aairs Committee:8

9

10

Type of conclusion Total numberconcluded

Main applicants Dependents

Removal8 30,0009 (14%) 28,000 2,500

Grant 74,000 (34%) 41,500 32,500

Others 116,000 (52%) 100,500 15,500

otal 220,00010 170,000 50,500

Table 2: Breakdown of cases concluded to the end of September 200911

8 Tis includes people who let the United Kingdom voluntarily.9 We note the total o main applicants and dependants adds up to 30,500.10 Te total adds up to 220,500 i the total o main applicants and dependants is 30,500.11 Lin Homers letter to the Home Aairs Committee, 19 October 2009.


17/54

15


Total monthly conclusions 2009

Calendar month

Totalmon

thly

conclusions

2009

Other conclusions

1.30 We note that the inormation supplied to the Home Aairs Committee showed that 52% o thosecases that had been concluded had been categorised as other. Tis category included cases where the UKBAhad identied a duplicate or erroneous record or a case, or cases where an asylum application had beenreceived rom a national o a country that had subsequently become a member o the European Union. Italso included cases that had been entered into a controlled archive or a period o six months. Tis archive

was used ater unsuccessul attempts to contact an applicant.

1.31 We were satised that there were clear criteria governing the types o case that were entered into thecontrolled archive. Te criteria made it clear that cases o a certain type including cases where there wasevidence o criminality or whether there was any outstanding judicial action must not be placed in thearchive. We also ound that PNC checks were carried out routinely beore cases were placed in the archive;that quarterly security and background checks took place; and that i an individual did contact the UKBAthe case was taken rom the archive.

1.32 Te Chie Executives most recent update to the Home Aairs Committee12 (based on local managementinormation), showed that by the end o December 2009, the number o cases concluded had risen to 235,000cases. Tis was broken down into 13% removals (30,550), 35% grants (82,250) and 52% o conclusions(122,200) which were categorised as other.

Is the target achievable?

1.33 With progress to date, based on the estimate o 450,000 legacy cases, up to 215,00013 cases must beconcluded by July 2011. Tis requires an average o 11,000 applications to be concluded per month.

1.34 We noted that, between January and November 2009, the UKBA resolved an average o 4,573 casesper month (see graph below).

Graph 3: Legacy conclusions January to November 200914

12 Lin Homers letter to the Home Aairs Committee, 4 February 201013 Based on a total o 450,000 legacy cases.14 Data supplied by the UKBA.


18/54

16


1.35 We noted that the UKBA had taken action to increase the number o resolved cases. Project Advancesought to increase the decision-making capability o Case Workers by requiring a private contractor to perorminitial administrative and data-cleansing work. In addition, ministers had approved revised guidance whichenabled Case Workers to consider granting permission to stay in the UK to people who had been in the UKor six to eight years rather than ten to twelve years ollowing an assessment by the UKBA that, without such achange, there would continue to be up to 40,000 cases where it was not appropriate to grant leave to stay and

where removal to a particular country was not easible.

1.36 Tere was a clear view rom sta that, notwithstanding the revised guidance and urther eorts tostreamline the processes, there would continue to be some cases that could not be concluded by the target date.

Conclusions

1.37 Tere was little doubt that the targets or concluding cases set out in the PSA had acted as asignicant driver or improving the number o cases where people were either granted permission to remainor were removed rom the UK. Te act that every member o sta we spoke to had a clear understandingo the target and o each stepping stone demonstrated clear communication and strong direction rom seniormanagers. We also believed it was sensible to have targets which ocused on the overall conclusion o a caserather than, as previously, on individual parts o the process. Although there was limited evidence o howeectively the UKBA perormed prior to the introduction o the NAM, what we did see suggested thatperormance is now running consistently at a higher level.

1.38 However, we were concerned at the way in which the increasingly challenging targets were now beingapproached. Te PSA did set out that perormance should be monitored to ensure it did not slip belowprevious milestones. While this had in general been achieved up to the point where 40% o applications

were required to be completed in six months, it had very clearly not been possible to achieve the subsequenttarget o 60% on a consistent basis. We did not think it made sense to achieve a target in milestone months,only or it to dip in subsequent months.

1.39 O particular concern was the potential or the approach to be skewed by these targets. Te need tohit the next reported milestone was clearly the overriding objective and this was articulated by all sta. Tedesire to meet the target was laudable; the act that this on occasions meant prioritising some cases was not.

Tere was a clear risk that those cases not concluded within six months were seen as less important.1.40 Tere is a undamental question about how achievable the targets are. Clearly there needs to becontinual improved perormance but the ultimate target o 90% o cases concluded within six months wasnot considered to be achievable by sta.

1.41 Perormance against the target is reliant on a range o actors. Tese include the number o applicantsclaiming asylum in the UK and the length o time that it can take oreign governments to provide documentationor nationals in order to remove them. As the UKBA cannot itsel control all these actors, we have signicantconcerns about what it would need to do to try and meet the target o 90%.

1.42 Although sta were aware o the targets, we are concerned at both the lack o involvement o ront-

line sta when these were devised; or in subsequently communicating how they had been devised. We thinkit is ar more likely that perormance will be improved on a consistent basis where sta understand how theincreases are evidenced. Tis is not the case at present.


19/54

17


1.43 We were pleased that OOSS teams had been established to make decisions in those cases in whichno decision had been made within six months. Tis is essential i the UKBA is to avoid a urther legacy omany thousands o older cases.

1.44 However, we were concerned that some o the teams established to deal with these had been set upwith limited training and in one region sta had been moved rom unrelated areas o work. Tere is a needto ensure stronger management o these cases and being absolutely clear how these are broken down. TeUKBA should be able to see immediately where decisions have not yet been made within six months and

where cases are yet to be completed or other reasons. We do think it is essential that applicants should notbe expected to wait longer than six months or an initial decision, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

1.45 Considerable progress has been made in resolving 235,000 o the legacy o older cases and thereis a transparent process or updating Parliament on the latest gures. Tere has been clear monitoring oprogress and action taken once it transpired that a signicant number o cases could remain unresolved

without changes to existing guidance. It is too early to say what the impact o Project Advance and therevised guidance or considering legacy cases will be. However, it is likely that at the end o the project there

will be a number o cases where the UKBA will not have considered it appropriate to grant the applicantsleave to remain, nor will it have been possible or them to have been removed. It is important that thesecases continue to be actively managed once the target date o July 2011 is reached.

RecommendationsWe recommend that the UKBA:

As a matter o priority, assesses how it can deliver perormance improvements consistently; and howit proposes to deliver its target o concluding 90% o cases within six months by December 2011

Ensures all uture targets take ull account o ront-line experience

Ensures decisions are made as soon as possible on all applications currently outstanding or sixmonths or more; and ensures that all uture applications receive an initial decision within six months

Introduces clear targets or concluding cases that have not been concluded within six months

Produces an action plan to show how, in light o recent process and guidance changes, it can resolve

the legacy o cases by July 2011

Develops and communicates plans or managing those legacy cases in which leave may not begranted, or the applicant removed, by July 2011.


20/54

18


2.1 We considered in particular how the Agencyquality assured its decision-making, includingtraining provision; and the eects o case ownership on decision-making.

Case Ownership

2.2 Te New Asylum Model introduced the concept that asylum applications would be managed bya single Case Owner rom end to end. Te Case Owner15 would be responsible or interviewing, makinga decision, presenting the case at appeal (where relevant) and managing the integration or removal o theindividual at the end o the process.

2.3 Tis model was designed to increase the eciency and personal accountability, which would resultin more cases being concluded; and to reduce the time that it took or cases to be concluded. It was alsoenvisaged that by having one person responsible or the case rom start to nish, this would allow applicants,their representatives and Case Owners to develop a rapport, which would also improve the applicantsexperience o the process.

2.4 We ound that the concept o case ownership continued to be central to the model or managingcases within NAM. However, we ound that there were variations in the application o this conceptacross the UKBA regions. Whilst it remained normal or a Case Owner to both interview and thenmake a decision on a case, the variations were particularly evident in the way appeals to the Asylum and

Immigration ribunal were handled.

2.5 We noted that there were variations over whether Case Owners presented their own decisions, and,i they presented at all, the requency with which they would do so. In one region Case Owners rarelypresented cases at court; in another they attended on a rota basis which may or may not mean they presentedcases where they had made the decision; and in another region they attended around once a month. Wherethe Case Owner did not present the case, the role was undertaken by a Presenting Ocer sta with specictraining in this area.

2.6 Te principal reason or this variation was the need to ensure an ecient use o resources to achievethe conclusion targets. We ound that managers believed they could achieve this more eectively i CaseOwners ocused on interviewing and making decisions. Tis was particularly relevant where appeal-hearing

centres were located at a considerable distance rom the Case Owners oces. In addition, as the number ocases that each Case Owner was responsible or increased, so would the number o appeals that they wouldhave had responsibility or presenting.

2.7 We ound there were dierent views on the benets o Case Owners presenting cases. Mostsignicantly we ound very consistent evidence that, to present cases eectively in an adversarial systembeore an Immigration Judge, Case Owners needed to undertake the role on a requent basis to build andmaintain skills that were dierent to those required or interviewing applicants.

2.8 We ound signicant levels o rustration amongst Presenting Ocers. Tere was a lack o clarityabout their long-term uture and how they tted into the case ownership model. A pilot was underway to

test a hybrid team o Case Owners and Presenting Ocers, sharing the duties o presenting and decision-making. Te pilot is to be evaluated at the end o the 2009/2010 nancial year.

15 Tis is requently reerred to as single case ownership.

Findings Processes and proceduresincluding quality of decision-making and

consistency of approach

Chapter 2:


21/54

19


Quality of decision-making

2.9 We ound that all sta placed a strong emphasis on the quality o their decisions. Tere wasconsiderable pride in the work they undertook and a strong appreciation o the implications o theirdecision-making. A Case Owner told us:

Te consequences o making the wrong decision are immense.

2.10 Case Owners had clear quality targets, which they were assessed against. Tey had a target that 87%o their cases assessed by the Quality Audit eam would be assessed as being at least ully eective. Tistarget was contained in Case Owners Perormance Development Reviews.

2.11 All sta reerred to the balance they needed to strike between delivering their key events each weekto achieve the targets o concluding a set percentage o cases within six months and the need to ensure theymade the right decision on an individual claim. We did not nd any evidence that sta had come underexplicit pressure to rush a decision beore they had assessed the evidence. However, the majority o CaseOwners said they believed senior managers were more interested in the conclusion targets rather than quality.

2.12 We ound that there was a comprehensive quality assurance ramework in place, developed through

close working with the United Nations High Commissioner or Reugees (UNHCR). Te UNHCR had,since 2004, provided six reports to ministers which set out its observations and recommendations on howthe UKBA could improve the quality o its initial asylum decisions.

2.13 We ound that 10% o asylum decisions made by each region were assessed by a Quality Audit eam.Te assessment was based on key aspects o asylum claims including the decision letter and application othe correct standard o proo and had been developed in conjunction with UNHCR.16 In addition, bothnational and regional reports were produced with recommendations to improve the quality and consistencyo decisions.2.14 Feedback was provided consistently to decision-makers, although the time taken to do this varied.

We ound it was not uncommon or Case Owners to wait a number o weeks or eedback and one

member o sta said that they had been waiting or over six months or eedback rom the team. All CaseOwners were supportive o the quality assessment and believed it was helpul in improving their decision-making and interviewing. However, there was a perception that the assessment was too rigid and did notalways take account o why particular questions had not been asked at interview.

2.15 Whilst the assessment ensured a specic number o cases were sampled rom each region, there wasno mechanism to ensure that all Case Owners were subject to an assessment. One Case Owner indicatedthat none o their decisions had been assessed in the previous 12 months.

16 A copy o the criteria against which decisions cases were assessed can be ound in Annex D.


22/54

20


2.16 We also ound that regions carried out local checks on the quality o decisions. Decisions made bynew Case Owners had to be checked and approved by a Senior Caseworker beore they could be issued.Tis process continued until the quality o their work was deemed to have consistently reached a satisactorystandard. All regions also reerred to Senior Caseworkers undertaking a dip sample o 10% o Case Ownersdecisions each month. Tere was conusion amongst some Case Owners and their managers over how casesor this sample were selected, as some Case Owners had not had any o their decisions sampled.

2.17 Tere were no requirements at a national level or particular types o decision to be routinely authorised

by a senior o cer or a second pair o eyes, apart rom decisions made to certiy cases as clearly unounded,as we identied last year in our pilot inspection o non-suspensive appeals. However, some regions hadintroduced their own checks although these varied. For example, in one region all grants o discretionary leavehad to be authorised by a Senior Caseworker; in another all grants o leave had to be authorised,

2.18 In our own scrutiny o les selected at random we ound very consistent and detailed records ointerviews with applicants. Decisions to grant reugee status contained detailed reasoning on the le anddecisions to reuse were based on evidence provided at interview and subsequent representations. Te scopeo our inspection did not extend to assessing how country inormation was used in decision-making and thisis an issue to which we will return in uture inspections.

2.18 In all cases a detailed Reasons or Reusal Letter had been issued. While we were aware osome concerns that these letters were on occasions too long and insu ciently tailored to the individualcircumstances o the case, we did not identiy any criticisms o the letters in any case that proceeded toappeal in our sample. We did identiy particular praise rom an Immigration Judge or the letter in one othe cases that we sampled.

Case Study 1.

N, a Bhutanese applicant arrived in the UK in June 2008 and claimed asylum the ollowing day.

N claimed that they had been persecuted in their country as a result o their Nepalese origin and that theywould be at risk o persecution were they to return.

Ns claim was considered by the UKBA and was reused it in August 2008.

N appealed against the UKBAs reusal, claiming that their return to Bhutan would place them at risko persecution. Tis appeal was heard by an Immigration Judge, who went on to dismiss it in October2008. In their determination the commented:

Te reasons or reusal letter is set out in some considerable detail. Te acts hae been extrapolated om thesource material. Great care has been taken in the analysis o all the eidence and a huge number o discrepancieshas been identied in the reasons or reusal letter as to times, dates and places so much that, in addition to thespecic circumstances to which I hae reerred, I also seek to incorporate the ndings o the Home Offi ce in the

reasons why I reject as not credible the eidence o the appellant in this appeal.


23/54

21


2.20 We also ound that the UKBA had assessed whether there was a su ciency o protection or them;and whether the applicant could relocate elsewhere within their country. In addition, and subject to thecase highlighted below, Case Owners had asked applicants to clariy issues where there appeared to beinconsistencies in the claim thereby allowing the applicant to give an explanation or apparent discrepancies.

2.21 Tree cases were o concern to us or very dierent reasons:

Case Study 2.

W, a Chinese applicant entered the United Kingdom using a valid multi-entry student visa. In June 2008they were ound by the UKBAs o cers to be working, which was contrary to the terms o their visa.

W claimed asylum on the basis that they were at risk rom a gang o triads. Tey claimed to have borrowedmoney to und gambling, which they had been unable to repay. W claimed that they had been beaten bythe gang in an attempt to make him repay the debt.

W was transerred to the Detained Fast-rack process and was detained in Harmondsworth ImmigrationRemoval Centre.

Ater interviewing W, the Case Owner drated a Reasons For Reusal Letter. However, beore the letterwas served on the applicant, their representatives wrote advising that they had arranged or W to beinterviewed by the Medical Foundation in July 2008.

Te UKBA thereore released W in line with the UKBAs policy and their case was transerred to anotherteam. Te applicant did not attend their rst reporting event with the UKBA, or the appointment withthe Medical Foundation.

2.22 When the Case Owner drated the Reasons For Reusal Letter they had said that even i the claimwere accepted at its highest (this means assuming that everything that the applicant said was true), it couldnot succeed.

2.23 We were concerned, that there was no record o the Case Owner having considered whether it wouldhave been appropriate to have certied the claim as being clearly unounded.17 Had the case been certied,the applicant could only have appealed rom abroad; the certication o the claim would have meant thatany appeal would not have suspended removal rom the UK.

2.24 In the absence o a le-minute, it is unclear whether certication was considered by the CaseOwner, who elt that it was not appropriate on the acts o the case, or whether the Case Owner had ailedto consider certiying the claim. Tis was an issue we highlighted in our pilot inspection o non-suspensiveappeals to provide greater assurance that the powers were used eectively.

17 Under Section 94(2), Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.


24/54

22


Case Study 3.

Ater Z, a Nigerian, applied or asylum in June 2008 their case was transerred to the Detained Fast-rack.

Following their interview, Zs representatives wrote to the UKBA, advising that the Medical Foundationhad accepted a reerral or Z and that they would carry out an assessment o Z in July. Z was releasedto allow them to be assessed by the Medical Foundation, in accordance with the UKBAs policy.Responsibility or managing Zs case transerred to a dierent unit, ater Z was released.

Te new unit wrote to Z to conrm that a decision would not be taken on their case until they hadbeen assessed by the Medical Foundation. However, beore the result o the pre-assessment was known,a dierent Case Owner, within the same region, reused the applicants application and certied it asbeing clearly unounded. As the decision had been certied, the applicant could only appeal against thedecision rom outside o the UK.

Neither the Reasons For Reusal letter, nor the Removal Directions, which the UKBA set or Z, wasserved on the applicants representative, despite their details being recorded on the UKBAs le.

Ater Zs representatives applied or permission to judicially review the UKBAs decision, the UKBA

accepted that the reusal should not have been made and agreed to withdraw the decision. Following this,Zs representatives withdrew their application or Judicial Review.

2.25 We are concerned that a decision was made in this case, despite the earlier commitment that hadbeen given. We noted that in response to enquiries made by the UKBAs Judicial Review Unit, the localitymanager or the casework team advised that we took a calculated risk on serving this case, with theknowledge that we could take the claim at its highest.

2.26 However, at no point was there any evidence that the UKBAs policy, nor the previouscorrespondence, had been considered when the casework team made the decision.

2.27 Tis appeared to be an isolated case and there was no evidence in any other case we sampled thatprocedures had not been ollowed correctly. Nevertheless, given the particularly vulnerable nature oapplicants claiming asylum on the basis o torture, the ailure in this case was deeply disturbing.

2.28 In the third case that was o concern to us, the decision-maker had based a decision in part on anapparent discrepancy in the applicants age. At interview the applicant had inormed the interviewer thatthey were 16 years old despite having also submitted an earlier witness statement stating they were 14 yearsold. Tis inconsistency was not put to the applicant during the interview.


25/54

23


Allowed appeals

2.29 In assessing the quality we also considered the number o cases where the person had appealed to theAsylum and Immigration ribunal against the reusal o asylum and how many appeals had been successul.In 2008, 10,720 appeals against the reusal o asylum were determined by Immigration Judges.18 O these,23% (2,475) were allowed and 71% were dismissed.19

2.30 Despite the number o allowed appeals we did not nd any systematic analysis o the reasons orallowed appeals. Tis would have allowed the UKBA to identiy national or local trends that could have led

to an improvement in the quality o decisions. We noted that one region was undertaking a detailed pilot toconduct precisely this assessment.

2.31 We did hear consistent evidence that an allowed appeal was not necessarilythe result o faweddecision-making. Tis was because the ribunal makes its decision on whether the applicant would be atrisk o harm, based on the evidence beore it, rather than making an assessment o whether the decision wasreasonable or open to the UKBA.

2.32 We noted that the UKBAs decisions were oten based on whether the applicants account wasconsidered to be credible by the Case Owner i.e. that the Case Owner believed the applicants account othe reasons or them leaving their country o origin. At appeal hearings Immigration Judges may, having

heard the same evidence, consider that the account was credible and allow the appeal. In our le sample wedid not nd any case where the Immigration Judge, despite allowing the appeal, had criticised the UKBA orailing to consider evidence or its analysis o the evidence.

Training

2.33 We ound that Case Owners had received training covering the legislation relating to asylum andhuman rights; how to interview applicants, assess the evidence and set out reasons or decisions. Te originaltraining module o 55 days had been shortened to 25 days. While the original module was elt by many tobe too lengthy, there was concern, particularly rom managers and senior caseworkers, that the shortenedmodule had not prepared Case Owners adequately. We did nd that mentoring arrangements were in placein all regions to guide new Case Owners although there was no evidence o a standard procedure to ensure

consistency in the way mentoring was provided.2.34 We were pleased to note that a package o consolidation training or Case Owners was being nalisedand would be rolled out to Case Owners this year. Tis was an issue raised by a number o Case Owners and

we endorse strongly the potential value o such training.

2.35 O more concern was the lack o a standard training package or Case Workers within the Out oService Standard teams. Tese teams were responsible or managing cases that could be at least as complexas those managed by Case Owners. Tere was an inconsistent approach to the length and depth o training.

We noted that in some o the regions visited, Case Workers had undertaken the standardised Case Ownercourse lasting or 25 days. However, in one region, Case Workers had been oered only an eight-daytraining package, which was ollowed some weeks later by an additional ve-day course.

18 Control o Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 2008; http://www.homeoce.gov.uk/rds/pds09/hosb1409.pd19 Te remainder were withdrawn or abandoned.


26/54

24


Administrative

2.36 We noted that within both CRD and NAM, there was not a clear understanding amongst staover whether inormation relating to a case should be recorded on the paper le, on the UKBA CaseworkInormation Database (CID), or on both. Sta reported that they did not eel condent relying oninormation obtained solely rom either the le or rom CID; thereore i they wanted to know anythingthat had happened on a case, it was necessary to review both. Again, this was an issue we highlighted in ourinspection o non-suspensive appeals.

2.37 Te quality o le maintenance varied; the majority o cases were clearly minuted to show whataction had been taken, by whom and why. Relevant documentation was also attached. However, in somecases, the le maintenance was poor and in one case we ound that the le contained minutes relating to acompletely dierent person.

2.38 Despite the very clear ramework or assessing the quality o decision-making there was no parallelassessment to ensure that basic administrative actions were undertaken correctly, given the signicantnegative impact that administrative errors can have.

The effect of early legal advice

2.39 In November 2006, the UKBA had, along with the Legal Services Commission (LSC), introduced

a pilot, which sought to evaluate the benets o providing legal advice and assistance to asylum applicantsollowing their screening interview.

2.40 Under the pilot, applicants routed to the West Midlands20 were provided with independent legaladvice. It was intended that the applicants legal advisor and the UKBA Case Owner would agree the issuesthat were considered relevant to an applicants case, including those that were accepted by the UKBA andthose issues that were in dispute.

2.41 Whilst a detailed evaluation o the project took place, we ound that there was variable understandingo the specic purpose and the intended outcomes. We were pleased to see that a urther pilot was due to beginin October 2010 involving a larger number o applicants and a stronger ocus was being placed on agreeing the

precise purpose and criteria at the start with the involvement o key stakeholders.2.42 We did not undertake our own assessment o cases contained in the initial pilot. In light o thepotential or early legal advice to improve the quality o decision-making we think it is important or thisurther pilot to take place as soon as possible with clear criteria and a shared understanding o the outcomes.

Legacy cases

2.43 As with new asylum cases we ound there was a clear quality assurance ramework to monitor thequality and consistency o decisions made on legacy cases; and the UNHCR had assisted in its development.In all cases where a Case Worker thought it appropriate to grant an applicant a orm o leave, these weresubject to authorisation by a technical specialist within the Case Resolution Directorate.

20 Applicants had to live within 30 miles o Solihull to be included in the project.


27/54

25


2.44 In addition, technical specialists carried out two ormal assessments per Case Worker per month. Teseassessments were used by Case Workers managers in the Perormance Development Review (PDR) process, toassess their perormance. However, there was some conusion over whether these checks should be carried outonly on cases where leave had been granted, or whether decisions to reuse leave were also checked.

2.45 We ound evidence o clear criteria,21 against which sta assessed legacy cases when consideringwhether it was appropriate to grant leave. Sta had received training on this and were able to easily accessguidance on it, via the UKBA internal website, i the need arose.

2.46 Te actors considered by Case Workers were:

Age

Length o residence in the United Kingdom

Strength o connections with the United Kingdom;

Personal history, including character, conduct and employment record

Domestic circumstances

Previous criminal record and the nature o any oence o which the person has been convicted

Compassionate circumstances

Any representations received on the persons behal.

2.47 We noted that Case Workers had reerred to these actors in all o the cases that we sampled.However, we noted that in some cases, although there was a record that the criteria had been considered, theminutes did not record the consideration o the various actors, including the weighting attached to each.One such case is set out below:

21 As contained within para 395 C o the Immigration Rules.


28/54

26


Case Study 4.

A, an Iraqi national21 claimed asylum in January 2000, which was reused in July 2001 and RemovalDirections were set or their removal.

A appealed against this decision to the Immigration Appellate Authority; this was heard in January 2002

Te Adjudicator ound As account o why they had to leave to be untrue stating:

Een bearing in mind eerything that has been said on his behal and stressing that I need only look to thelower standard or proo I hae to say that I nd the account which he gies or his reason or leaing the KurdishAutonomous Area positiely untrue.

A made an application or this decision to be reconsidered; this was reused.

In October 2003, A made an application or asylum in a dierent identity; claiming to have earlier thatmonth. Routine ngerprinting o asylum applicants identied that A had previously claimed asylum in adierent identity and their application was reused.

Te applicant was subsequently granted leave.

22

2.48 Whilst the Case Workers le-minute records that consideration had been given to the applicantspersonal history, including character, conduct and employment record, it did not make reerence to the actthat an Adjudicator had previously ound the applicants account o events in Iraq to be untrue; or o the actthat the applicant had attempted to claim asylum in a dierent identity.

2.49 Whilst the decision to grant leave mayhave been the right one on the acts o the case despite thischronology, the lack o a record o any consideration o how these actors were weighted by the Case Workerdoes not allow us to examine why this decision was reached.

Training

2.50 Case Workers received a one-week classroom-based course on asylum, which included sections onthe Reugee Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Immigration Rules. Whilststa elt that this gave them a good grounding, the short duration placed pressure on them to get up to speedvery quickly. Mentoring was provided by experienced Case Workers, although no specic training had beenprovided to mentors.

2.51 We ound that sta were able and encouraged to undertake urther modular-based training todevelop their skills; training was based on a skills prole which was updated every six months. Staconsistently praised the work o the Learning and Development team or high quality o training that they

delivered and their proactive approach to developing sta providing them with the skills to do their currentrole, whilst also developing them or uture roles.

22 From the Kurdish Autonomous Region.


29/54

27


Conclusions

2.51 Te implementation o the original concept o case ownership, whilst simultaneously concludingan increasing number o cases, had proven to be exceptionally dicult. Te challenges that this created,has resulted in inconsistency in the role and responsibilities o Case Owners across the UKBAs regions.

A signicant inconsistency exists over whether, and i so, how oten Case Owners present appeals at theAsylum and Immigration ribunal. Whether Case Owners are expected to present cases is relevant to whererecruitment is targeted; the training oered to Case Owners; and the retention o Case Owners.

2.52 We were impressed with the detailed quality assurance rameworks in place arising rom thecollaborative work with UNHCR. Tis does provide a solid basis or the UKBA to monitor and improvedecision-making, although we think it is important to ensure that the selection o cases covers all CaseOwners and that eedback is provided as soon as possible to them.

2.53 Te volume o allowed appeals continues to indicate that more must be done to improve initial decision-making. We do not believe there is a simple correlation; it is clear that a decision can be taken with ull accounttaken o the evidence but an Immigration Judge assesses that evidence dierently and allows an appeal.

2.54 Nevertheless, there is a need or more systematic analysis to eed into an overall quality rameworkand which links up more eectively the work already undertaken by the Quality Audit eam with the

reasons why appeals are allowed. We were pleased to see that some work is underway but would expect thisto be an essential part o the approach to improving initial decision-making.

2.55 Other than in those cases that we have highlighted, we were encouraged by the clear considerationo decisions in the overwhelming majority o les that we saw. Tat said, we do think it is essential that, orlegacy cases, Case Owners provide sucient additional reasoning as to how the various actors have been

weighted against any adverse immigration history.

2.56 We were pleased to see that a consolidation training package was due to be rolled out to CaseOwners. Tere is clear value in this and it provides an important way to ensure that improvements tointerviewing technique and decision-making can be made. We think it is important that the training asa whole contains greater input rom the perspective o asylum applicants to urther understanding their

experience o the system; and that sucient training is provided on the administrative tasks that CaseOwners are also required to do.

2.57 We were concerned at the variation between the training oered to those in the Out o ServiceStandard teams. We would have expected to see a clear identication o the skills needed in these teams anda consistent training package introduced or them.

2.58 Te lack o a clear understanding amongst sta over whether inormation should be recorded on thele, on CID, or both concerns us. Sta do not have the condence to rely on one source o inormation,

which consequently leads to duplication in eort. Tis is both inecient and there is a risk that inormationrecorded on the le and CID does not match, resulting in conusion.


30/54

28


Recommendations

We recommend that the UKBA:

Systematically analyses the reasons or allowed appeals and links this with their overall qualityassurance ramework

Ensures that the reasons why legacy cases are granted are recorded clearly on le

Denes the role and responsibilities o Case Owners including their role in presenting cases at appeal

Introduces consolidation training or Case Owners as soon as possible

Ensures that the Quality Audit eam samples decisions rom all Case Owners

Claries the inormation that should be stored on the le and the Case Inormation Database andincorporates checks o this into the quality assurance ramework

Adopts a clear and consistent approach to when it will not be represented at asylum appeal hearings.


31/54

29


3.1 We considered how ully the UKBAunderstood the experiences o people applying or asylum;how people were kept inormed about the progress o their cases; and whether they knewwho theyshould contactabout their application.

Understanding the experience of asylum applicants

3.2 For some applicants their contact with the UKBA will be the rst contact with a person in authority,ater feeing their country. Given these experiences, applicants may have pre-conceived ideas about theconsequences o interacting with those in authority and may be reluctant to trust and converse with the

UKBA sta.

3.3 Te asylum process is made up o a number o stages; at any o these, the UKBAs approach can havea positive or negative impact on applicants. In addition, administrative errors at any o these stages can alsohave an unhelpul and avoidable impact on applicants and their amilies.

3.4 We ound that all sta were aware o and were completing a mandatory Equality and Diversitye-learning package. Tis was a generic course provided or sta working within the UKBA. While thecourse was valuable in highlighting a number o important issues, its ocus was primarily on scenarios thata person could encounter within their workplace. Te course did not ocus on the issues that Case Owners

were most likely to encounter when considering asylum applications.

3.5 Case Owners demonstrated a strong desire to understand ully the experiences o asylum applicantsand gained experience o many dierent nationalities and ethnic groups simply through the number oapplications they considered. We also ound that Case Owners spoke in detail about the gender-specicissues that may aect emale asylum seekers, or example. However, there were limited opportunitiesor Case Owners to meet with asylum applicants or reugees, other than when they were consideringapplications. We noted that neither Case Owners nor Case Workers routinely met with asylum applicants,reugees or groups representing them to discuss applicants experiences o the asylum process.

3.6 Tere was clear evidence rom all the les sampled that Case Owners routinely asked applicantswhether they were t and well enough to be interviewed. Tey also oered applicants breaks beore andduring the interview process. Tis is in accordance with internal UKBA interviewing guidance.23

3.7 We also noted that, in accordance with the UKBA protocol governing conduct at interviews,24where interpreters were provided at the request o applicants, Case Owners were careul to ensure that bothapplicant and interpreter understood each other and the Case Owner, beore commencing the interview.Te Code o Conduct or the UKBA interpreters required interpreters to be impartial and to be seen to beimpartial at all times. We noted the UKBA policy was to try and re-arrange interviews where an applicantobjected to a particular interpreter.

3.8 However, we also heard that this process did not always identiy potential concerns that applicantsmay have about the use o interpreters rom dierent ethnic groups. A emale Rwandan applicant inormedus that she had been interviewed in the presence o an interpreter rom the ethnic group she claimed had

persecuted her.

23 Conducting the Asylum Interview, UKBA Asylum Guidance and Instructions24 Interviewing Protocol Governing the Conduct o Substantive Interviews and the Role o Interviewing Ocers, Representatives and their Interpreters, 1 January2003 (UKBA December 2008)

Findings Impact on people subject to UKBorder Agency Services

Chapter 3


32/54

30


Interviews

3.9 As indicated in Chapter 2, we ound strong evidence that Case Owners understood the implicationso their interviewing and decision-making and showed a strong desire to make the right decision. A CaseOwner said:

Youe done something to change that persons lie its a humbling experience.

3.10 Applicants themselves had diering experiences o the interviewing process. One applicant describeda very positive experience:

[Te] experience was ery easy and dierent om that o iends. Te lady who interiewed [me] was ery niceand gae adice to go to the Medical Foundation. Te Case Owner was good and made the decision clearly. Teletter came om her.

3.11 For another, the experience was ar more negative:

[It] eels more like an interrogation than an interiew. Very invasie, some [questions] are there to trap you.

Heaily traumatised, hard to get [the case] across to people

3.12 We were also inormed o a case where a emale applicant had been interviewed in the presence oher children and consequently ound it very di cult to talk about the details o her claim. Tis was in spiteo the UKBA interviewing guidance Conducting the Asylum Interview which stated that: Interiewingoffi cers should normally interiew principal applicants without the presence o the applicants amily members unlessthe interiewing offi cer considers it necessary or an appropriate examination to hae other amily members present.Te guidance also indicated that, where possible, child care acilities should be provided or amilies.

3.13 We were very pleased to see that one region had taken steps to counter the impact that this couldhave on applicants and their amilies. At the time o our inspection, a proposal to provide a limited25

childcare service or applicants dependents during the interview process was being piloted. Following areview, the region hoped to promote the use o this acility by distributing an inormation leafet at screeninginterviews and reporting centres. Consideration was also being given to inserting a paragraph into theinvitation to substantive interview letter, which advised applicants o the acility.

3.14 We also heard how simple administrative errors could have a disproportionate impact on applicantsand were not necessarily rectied during the asylum process. One applicant told us how their ApplicationRegistration Card recorded 0 dependents despite the act she had children included in her asylum claim.Tis had caused her particular concern but she did not believe there was any real attempt to change this.

A letter rom the applicants legal representative, pointed to the error and a request was made to change thedetails to refect the number o dependents. However, at the time o this inspection, the applicant said that

the UKBA had not acknowledged the solicitors letter.

25 Under the proposal, childcare acilities are only available or a maximum o ve children between 1-5 years old. Tere is currently no provision or childrenbetween 0-12 months old. Requests rom couples or childcare provision are not being accepted during the pilot stage.


33/54

31


3.15 Another applicant told us how the interviewing o cer had recorded their surname incorrectly andhad not corrected the error as it was considered a long process.

3.16 One applicant described how, over the course o a six hour interview, the comments made by theinterviewing o cer let them unsure as to whether their reasons or making an asylum application werebeing believed. Te applicant told us that at rst, the interviewing o cer said:

I cant beliee someone could do this to another human being.

3.17 However, as the interview progressed, the applicant told us that interviewing o cer then said:

I hae been doing this job or 15 years and I know who is lying and who is telling the truth.

3.18 Te applicant told us they could not then decide whether the comments made early on in theinterview had been empathetic or disbelieving.Contacting Case Owners

3.19 When the concept o case ownership was introduced, an intended benet was that Case Ownersand applicants would communicate regularly and develop an eective working relationship. Tis approachwas broadly welcomed by those representing applicants, provided that Case Owners could be contacted byapplicants and their representatives.

It is o the utmost importance or the success o the NAM that Case Owners are as accessible and responsie as theHome Offi ce has said they will be.25

3.20 We ound that ollowing the introduction o NAM, there was, initially, a signicant amount odialogue between Case Owners and applicants, which allowed applicants to contact their Case Owner toenquire what was happening on their case, or to update them with any changes to their circumstances.

3.21 We heard examples o applicants contacting their Case Owner to ask or advice on issues not directlyrelated to their asylum application, such as how to obtain a driving licence. We also heard how Case Ownershad managed the expectations o applicants during the appeal process.

3.22 We noted there were variations between regions over how, or i, contact between applicants and CaseOwners was ormally measured to assess Case Owners perormance. Some Case Owners had an objective intheir PDR to maintain contact with applicants. However, this was not the case in all regions.

3.23 Whilst all o the regions visited required Case Owners to deliver a number o key events, none hadregarded maintaining contact with an applicant as a measurable key event. As the caseload o Case Owners

rose and the conclusion targets increased, the amount o contact that Case Owners had with each applicantdecreased as Case Owners ocused their attention on delivering key events. One applicant told us:26

26 Paragraph 4.1, NAM: Reugee Council Brieng August 2007.


34/54


35/54

33


3.31 We ound the legacy o cases was not a straightorward queue where cases could be numberedand assigned a likely date or completion. Te UKBA had not sited through the cases at the start o theprogramme to identiy cases that were the result o, or example, duplicate records. Tis would have allowedthe UKBA to have established the number o substantive cases that needed to be resolved. However, theUKBA had taken the view that it was a better use o resources to begin resolving cases at the outset. We wereinormed that even had the UKBA been able to establish the total number o substantive cases that neededto be resolved having carried out such a sit, it would still not have been possible to tell applicants with anyaccuracy when their case would be resolved. Tis was because individual circumstances o each case may

change, which impacted on the overall priorities as set out in Chapter 1.

3.32 Neither applicants nor their representatives were routinely advised in writing o who their CaseOwner was. However, we ound that an on-line system was being introduced to enable applicants to identiytheir Case Owner and duty lines were in operation to deal with enquiries, the overwhelming majority o

which were asking when the case would be concluded.

3.33 We noted that cases were now managed according to the location o the applicant with the intentiono developing closer links with MPs and representatives.

Further submissions

3.34 In the course o our inspection the UKBA anounced change in procedures or applicants who,ater their claim had been rejected and appeal rights exhausted, submitted urther inortmation to supporttheir claim or asylum. Tis required applicants who made their asylum claim on or ater 5 March 2007to submit urther inormation in person at a specied reporting centre in their region; and applicants who

were in the legacy o older cases to make an appointment at the UKBA oce in Liverpool, subject in bothcases to any exceptional circumstances. We ound that the UKBA received approximately 300 350 urthersubmissions per week.

3.35 Although the issue o urther submissions had been discussed with stakeholders, the specic changeswere introduced without consultation. A detailed impact assessment had been published but we oundconsiderable concern that the changes would impact unairly on individuals, particularly where they neededto travel considerable distances in order to make their urther submissions.

3.36 Given the timing o the inspection we were not able to identiy the practical eect o the changes.However, this is an issue which we will assess as part o uture inspections.

Conclusions

3.37 We ound strong evidence that sta understood the impact that their decisions had on applicants.Case Owners were keen to ensure that they understood a persons basis o claim by asking applicants,during interview to clariy their claim and by asking ollow-up questions. Tey were also receptive torequests or interpreters o a specic gender. But, as the examples in this section show, understandingthe eect that the asylum system can have on an applicant is crucial to treating people with respect andidentiying areas or improvement.


36/54

34


3.38 Interestingly, we ound that small and easily rectiable oversights could have the most impact.Administrative errors, such as recording an applicants name incorrectly or recording an incorrect number odependents had a signicant and distressing eect, on those with outstanding claims. Simple errors suchas not recording an applicants name correctly could result in applicants worrying about whether the UKBAhad properly understood their claim. Te recommendation we have made or greater input rom reugees intraining or Case Owners would help in this regard.

3.39 A key benet o case ownership was seen to be the ability o the Case Owner, applicant and

representative to develop a relationship. Initially the model worked well, however, as targets and caseloadshave increased, the ability o applicants to liaise directly with their Case Owner is inconsistent across regions.

3.40 Case Owners are not measured, as part o their targets, on liaising with applicants. Whereapplicants are able to liaise directly, Case Owners with high caseloads have limited time to developrelationships with applicants.

3.41 Tere were no systems in place within NAM to notiy individuals or their representatives when caseswere transerred between individuals or teams, which can lead to delays and uncertainty.

3.42 Te lack o inormation about when cases in the legacy will be resolved has a signicant impacton some applicants. We were pleased to see that the UKBA is taking steps to increase the availability oinormation through the introduction o its web-based portal allowing applicants to identiy their CaseOwner. However, this initiative is unlikely to be o signicant benet to applicants unless they can be told

when their case will be considered.

3.43 We accept the diculties that the UKBA aces in accurately advising applicants when their case willbe resolved. Given the impact that the lack o certainty has on some applicants, we believe that the UKBAcould do more to communicate to both applicants and their representatives why it is not possible to givedates by which individual cases will be resolved. Whilst this would not completely remove the uncertaintythat is elt by some applicants, it would give them some reassurance that the UKBA had considered this.

Recommendations

We recommend that the UKBA:

Invites reugees to contribute to its training programme or Case Owners to reinorce how theasylum process aects individual asylum claimants

Ensures that applicants are provided with contact details o their Case Owner, including where theCase Owner changes

Ensures that applicants whose case is in the legacy, are given more inormation about when their casewill be considered, or an explanation o why this is not possible.

Measures the quality and requency o contact between Case Owners and applicants.


37/54

35


4.1 We assessed in particular whether there was a robust and comprehensive perormancemanagement rameworkand howbest practice was identied and disseminated.

Performance Information

4.2 We ound that the UKBA regularly monitors perormance or the New Asylum Model and orlegacy cases.

4.3 Te Senior Director or Immigration regularly met both the Strategic Director or Asylum and the

Director or CRD to discuss and review both predicted and actual perormance. In addition, meetings betweenRegional Directors and representatives o perormance monitoring teams occurred requently. Both actual andpredicted perormance were discussed, along with anticipated diculties that may impact on perormance.

4.4 We ound that sta in NAM were inormed o perormance within their region and how thiscompared to the national conclusion targets. Tis was done through email updates and both ormal andinormal meetings. Many o the regions also had perormance inormation on display in sta areas.

4.5 Sta within CRD praised the level o communication that they received on the Directoratesperormance. Perormance was reviewed and discussed in the regular electronic perormance updates romthe Director; an internal newsletter (Resolve), which was circulated to sta on a monthly basis; and team

meetings, both ormal and inormal.

Recruitment, retention and succession planning

NAM

4.6 Although a national campaign to recruit Case Owners had been undertaken, it had taken up to ninemonths or new Case Owners to take up post. All regions that we visited had experienced Case Ownervacancies during the eighteen months prior to the inspection. At times, this had placed additional pressureon remaining Case Owners, who had to manage higher caseloads.

4.7 We noted that greater regional autonomy, allowing regions to ll their vacancies was now being takenorward more switly with the aim o lling vacancies, including those at Case Owner level.

Documents

Asylum Getting the Balance Right a Thematic Inspection