§ Lord Hyltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many cases of rejected asylum seekers are being held by the Home Office, or the Immigration and Nationality Department, before being released to the Immigration Appellate Authority for hearing. [HL791]
§ Lord Bassam of BrightonProvisional figures for 2000 indicate that at the end of the year about 9,000 asylum cases were being prepared by the Home Office2WA for the appeals process. In addition there will be a small number of cases where refusals are issued on the grounds of non-compliance where it subsequently emerges that a statement of evidence form has been received within the prescribed time, and such cases are reconsidered. Statistics on the numbers of cases to be reconsidered which are in progress, are not collected and could only be produced at disproportionate cost. For the year 2000 as a whole, it is estimated that up to 5,000 cases were reconsidered, or less than 5 per cent of all decisions.
§ Lord Hyltonasked Her Majesty's Governments:
How many asylum claims have been rejected on the grounds of non-compliance during the last three months, both in total and as a percentage of all rejections during that period. [HL792]
§ Lord Bassam of BrightonNon-compliance refusals (under paragraph 340 of the immigration rules and paragraph 180F prior to October 1994) are for failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period. From November 1991 these include refusals for failure to respond to invitations to interview to establish identity under the measures introduced then.
The information requested is provided in the table.
Total Refusals p 1.3 Refused on Non-compliance groundsp 1.2.3 Number Number Per Cent October 2000 7,250 3,110 43% November 2000 10,105 4,425 44% December 2000 7,850 2,840 36% Total October to December 2000 25,200 10,375 41% 1 Figures (other than percentages) rounded to the nearest live. 2 Non-compliance refusals (under paragraph 340 of the immigration rules and paragraph 180F prior to October 1994) are for failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claims within a reasonable period. From November 1991 these include refusals for failure to respond to invitations to interview to establish identity under the measures introduced then. 3 Outcome of initial decisions only. p Provisional figures.
§ Lord Hyltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
With regard to asylum applications from (a) Sri Lanka, (b) Afghanistan, (c) Somalia, (d) Iraq, and (e) other countries, what has been the success rate 1 initially, and2 after appeal, for the last year for which figures are available.[HL794]
§ Lord Bassam of BrightonThe latest available information on the outcome of initial decisions is for April to December 20001,2, and is given in the following table.
3WA
Initial Decisions Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum % Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave % Granted asylum or exceptional leave under backlog criteria 3 % Sri Lanka 5,750 400 7 165 3 210 4 Afghanistan 2,390 355 15 655 27 5 * Somalia 11,535 5,580 46 3,650 31 50 * Iraq 4,865 770 16 1,970 41 5 * Other Nationalities 62,280 2,085 3 2,855 3 5.090 8 Total 86,820 9,190 11 9,295 11 5,365 6 1 Figures rounded to the nearest five. 2 Decision figures, by nationality, are not readily available for the period January to March 2000. 3 Cases decided under measures aimed at reducing the pre 1995 asylum application backlog. * less than 1%. The latest information available on the outcome of appeal by nationality is for 1998 and is given in the table below.
Outcome of appeals under the 1993 and 1996 Acts determined by adjudicators of the Immigration Appellate Authority excluding dependants, by nationality, 1998 Number of principal appellants Appeals determined by adjudicators2 Nationality Appeals sent to the IAA Total Allowed % Dismissed % Withdrawn % Somalia 15 25 5 18 20 67 5 15 Iran 35 150 60 40 75 51 15 9 Iraq 25 45 15 29 25 51 10 20 Afghanistan 15 15 5 36 10 64 — 0 Sri Lanka 745 1,040 495 48 510 49 30 3 Other nationalities 13,560 24,045 1,775 7 20,555 85 1,710 7 Total 14,395 25,320 2,355 9 21,195 84 1,770 7 1Provisonal estimated figures rounded to the nearest 5 with * = 1 or 2. 2Figures are based on the cases for which information is recorded on the Refugee Index. More up-to-date information providing a nationality breakdown of appeals is not currently available. We expect the information to be available as we move from using manual records to electronic data.
For all appeals determined by adjudicators of the Immigration Appellate Authority during April to December 2000, 17 per cent were allowed, 81 per cent were dismissed and 2 per cent were withdrawn. Note that only a proportion of applications receiving a refusal from the Home Office result in an appeal.
§ Lord Hyltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by Lord Bassam of Brighton on 14 February (WA 36–37), what was the cost to public funds of obliging 6,427 asylum applicants to travel to Liverpool and Leeds from the South East for their substantive interview. [HL845]
§ Lord Bassam of BrightonThe information requested is not available. Costs incurred for travel to asylum interviews cannot be separated from the overall travel costs incurred by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS). NASS reimburses local authorities by way of grant within unit cost limits for supporting asylum seekers. Travel costs are absorbed within these normal grant limits to local authorities therefore the cost of travel to asylum interviews is not4WA available separately. Those asylum seekers who receive income support are responsible for paying their own travel costs.
§ Lord Hanningfieldasked Her Majesty's Government:
For the last year for which statistics are available:
(a) what percentage of applicants for asylum have had their applications refused;
(b) what was the length of time between refusal and deportation; and
(c) whether they will provide the number of negative applicants who have not been removed from the United Kingdom. [HL946]
§ Lord Bassam of BrightonDuring 2000, the Integrated Casework Directorate took 110,065 initial decisions on applications for asylum. Seventy-eight per cent of cases resulted in a refusal (excluding cases decided as part of the backlog clearance exercise).
Information about the interval between the final refusal of the application—including any appeal—and subsequent removal of the person concerned, and about the number of failed asylum seekers remaining in the United Kingdom is not available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.