Like every Monday, yesterday was surgery day for me, and waiting for me were nationals of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Somalia and the West Bank/ Gaza, all hoping for news from the Home Office on their immigration cases. At the moment, I have just under 800 unresolved immigration cases with me, being the equivalent to about 1% of my adult constituents. In fact, the number is so large, I could devote myself as a Member of Parliament only to dealing with immigration casework.
I have previously written about how I have more immigration casework than any other Conservative MP (according to Home Office stats), and some of the awful stories I have uncovered - both of cases where the person is genuinely fleeing violence and has been let down by the Home Office, or, as is more often the case, hundreds of people who shouldn't be here, are told they shouldn't be here, but nonetheless aren't being evicted. In that case, the Home Office even apologised to one Hammersmith resident for the delays caused in considering his case, but the slowness was caused by him being "on the United Nations list of those belonging to or associated with the Al-Qaida organisation" and MI5 said he had been "involved in terrorism at the highest level."
Today threw up a blatant example of someone who should have been deported years ago. I have a large number of Somalis in my constituency, and many of these have fled terrible violence in Africa. Somalis are sometimes unpopular migrants in the community, often amongst other migrants, but I have worked with Somali individuals and organisations for some time, and have developed an understanding, a liking and respect for Somali culture.
This case caught my eye for various reasons. The young man before me came in, mobile phone in hand, shirt open from the waist upwards. I am not a stickler for formality, but it was rather irritating when the man took a call from a friend in the middle of the interview. What was really eye-catching, however, was the documentation he presented.
Mr Osman (not his real name) applied for asylum in 2002. His application was refused in 2003 as it was, in the words of the Home Office, "manifestly fraudulent". In fact, this is the strongest language I have ever seen in a Home Office letter regarding a failed asylum application.
Frequently, there is no time for detailed questions - the queue outside in the waiting room is normally too long, but today time was easier, so I asked Mr Osman why the Home Office concluded this. He told me it was the fault of a bad lawyer. Strangely, there was no value judgement there on his own case. He then told me he spent £800 on his legal advice.
Now, he proudly announced, he had a new lawyer. He showed me how his new lawyer has made a "fresh application" for asylum. He had paid £200 for this document.
His new document, 28 pages in length, was laughable. Its centrepiece was how dangerous in a general sense it would be to return to Somalia. This might well be true, but one needs to prove that the individual is likely to be in danger (due to e.g. published political views), not a problem with general disorder in the country or suchlike. His document centred on the Foriegn Office's advice for individuals seeking to travel to Somalia; in other words, for Brits travelling there. These advice sheets are normally pessimistic. In fact, no responsible government would advise its citizens to do anything other than avoid the country. For example, the Foreign Office advice, reprinted for Mr Osman, included elements clearly directed at cruise passengers, e.g. "piracy is a major problem along the Somali coastline". The document highlighted the problem of female genital mutilation in Somalia - a serious problem, but not, I suggest, for a male asylum seeker. From the headed paper, the lawyer appears to be operating out of a basement flat in Hammersmith. They say they are "regulated by the Law Society", as if that must make them respectable.
The Home Office letter about his previous application was clear: "Mr Osman has no outstanding applications or future representations with the Borders and Immigration Agency and has exhausted his appeal rights. As matters currently stand, he has no basis of stay in the United Kingdom and should make arrangements to leave the country as soon as possible."
That was the situation in 2003. Mr Osman is still here, living in the heart of one of Hammersmith's most desirable residential areas, with relatives (who I assume made a successful asylum application), and the house is probably paid for by you and me. He told me he lives off £20 (yes, twenty pounds) a week handout from his relatives, and a free bus pass.
So, what do I conclude from all this?
1. That the Home Office in this and hundreds of other such cases has no serious intent to actually expel the individuals concerned. They know where he lives, and have done for the last five years. Indeed, they correspond with him at that address. No action has resulted, even for someone whose claim is said by the same officials to be "manifestly fraudulent".
2. That dodgy immigration solicitors all across the country, but especially in London, are preying on failed asylum seekers, offering to provide them with "fresh applications" at a cost of hundreds of pounds in fees, where the new application looks more like an Alistair Campbell "dodgy dossier" than a real set of arguments for an individual to remain. Sometimes, the hapless applicant cannot speak enough English to tell the difference. It is often the case that the client would be better off doing nothing at all, confident in the knowledge he stands little or no chance of eviction.
3. That we are hosting someone here living off of £20 a week in funds, where he has no legal possiblity of employment or other recourse to funds, is simply a recipe for potential criminality. I saw no evidence that Mr Osman was so engaged, but many people here on £20 a week or similar, with no legal ability to get a job, and here for six years now, must surely be tempted to go down that route. Why do we facilitate this?
Shockingly, this is not a particularly exceptional case. Yesterday alone, three more similar letters from the Home Office arrived at my office, in response to my inquiries. All used the standard language that the person had exhausted all their appeal rights and should make immediate preparations to leave. The asylum applications dated from 1999, 2002 and 2004. Tellingly, the reaction of a constituent if presented with one of these letters is normally a shrug of the shoulders. I have hundreds of these cases on the books, with their fresh applications, waiting years to hear, whilst no action appears to be taken. The Government has announced a target date of 2011 to clear the backlog. Meanwhile, Britain is controversially deporting political refugees from countries like the Sudan and Zimbabwe (see e.g. here). The whole situation is a national scandal.
