An inspection of the UK Border Agency’s handling of legacy asylum and migration cases

7/30/2019 An inspection of the UK Border Agencys handling of legacy asylum and migration cases

1/76

An inspection of the UK Border

Agencys handling of legacy asylumand migration cases

March - July 2012

John Vine CBE QPM

Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration


2/76

Our Purpose

We ensure independent scrutiny o the UK Border Agency and the Border Force,providing condence and assurance as to its eectiveness and efciency.

Our Vision

o drive improvement within the UK Border Agency and Border Force, to ensure

they deliver air, consistent and respectul services.

All Independent Chie Inspector o Borders and Immigration inspection reportscan be ound atwww.independent.gov.uk/icinspector

Email us: [email protected]

Write to us: Independent Chie Inspector o Borders and Immigration,5th Floor, Globe House,89 Eccleston Square,

London, SW1V 1PNUnited Kingdom
http://www.independent.gov.uk/icinspectormailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.independent.gov.uk/icinspector


3/76

1

Contents

1. Executive Summary 4

2. Summary of Recommendations 8

3. The Inspection 9

4. Background 14

5. Inspection Findings Operational Delivery 18

6. Inspection Findings Safeguarding Individuals 49

7. Inspection Findings Continuous Improvement 54

Appendix 1 Inspection Framework and Criteria 65

Appendix 2 Glossary 66

Acknowledgements 70


4/76

2

In 2006, the then Home Secretary made a commitment that the UK BorderAgency must deal with the legacy o unresolved asylum cases no later than thesummer o 2011. Te Case Resolution Directorate (CRD) was subsequentlycreated in 2007 to conclude these cases. At the time, a conclusion was generallyunderstood to mean that an applicant would either receive a grant o IndeniteLeave to Remain (ILR) or be removed rom the UK. Cases would also beconsidered as concluded because o data errors, duplicate records, or because

applicants could not be traced.

In March 2011, the Agency stated that it had achieved its aim, having completed its review oall cases in the legacy cohort. Tis was a dierent outcome rom the conclusion o cases that wasthe original goal o CRD. However, 147,000 cases remained unresolved: some where barriers toconclusion existed as well as archived cases where applicants could not be traced. As a result, theCase Assurance and Audit Unit (CAAU) was created in April 2011 to deal specically with thoseoutstanding cases. My inspection examined how well the transition o work rom CRD to CAAU

was managed, as well as the eciency and eectiveness o the handling o legacy asylum andmigration cases generally.

I ound that the transition o work rom the Case Resolution Directorate to the new Case Assuranceand Audit Unit was poorly managed. Te volume o the remaining work to resolve legacy cases wasnot anticipated by the new unit. As a result, CAAU was quickly overwhelmed by the casework andthe associated high levels o correspondence rom MPs, legal representatives and applicants. I havecommented previously about the importance o eective governance during major business changeinitiatives. I was thereore disappointed to nd that a lack o governance was again a contributoryactor in what turned out to be an extremely disjointed and inadequately planned transer o work.Such was the ineciency o this operation that at one point over 150 boxes o post, includingcorrespondence rom applicants, MPs and their legal representatives, lay unopened in a room inLiverpool.

I ound that a considerable number o cases dealt with by this new unit ell within CRD criteria but

had not been progressed by CRD. Furthermore, an examination o controlled archive cases showedthat the security checks which the Agency stated were being done on these cases had not beenundertaken routinely or consistently since April 2011. I also ound that no thorough comparison odata rom controlled archive cases was undertaken with other government departments or nancialinstitutions in order to trace applicants until April 2012. Tis was unacceptable and at odds with theassurances given to the Home Aairs Select Committee that 124,000 cases were only archived aterexhaustive checks to trace the applicant had been made.

As a result, the programme o legacy work is ar rom concluded. At the time o inspection, theAgency estimated that up to 37,500 applicants would be located and that their cases will need tobe considered. On the evidence it is hard not to reach the conclusion that cases were placed in

the archive ater only very minimal work in order to ull the pledge to conclude this work by thesummer o 2011. Tis has serious consequences or asylum seekers who had already waited manyyears or the resolution o their case. In addition, through the ineciency and delay o the Agency,those who would otherwise have aced removal will have accrued rights to remain in the UK.

Foreword from John Vine CBE QPMIndependent Chief Inspector of Borders

and Immigration


5/76

3

Te implementation o a policy change in July 2011 to grant legacy asylum applicants DiscretionaryLeave or three years (where removal rom the UK was not considered appropriate), rather than ILRas had been the case previously, was also fawed. Exceptions allowing or the continued grant o ILRto applicants whose cases the Agency had promised to resolve by July 2011 were not initially in place,nor were they communicated eectively to sta. Tis adversely aected a number o applicants,

including ormer unaccompanied asylum seeking children, whose cases should have been dealt within a timely ashion. Tese applicants were not at ault or the signicant delays in their cases. Itshould make no dierence whether they had been in contact with the Agency themselves, or whetherany contact was via their legal representatives or MP, or whether litigation was contemplated orpending. I consider that applicants who had been told that their case would be dealt with by July2011 had a reasonable expectation that their cases would have been resolved by that date. It wasreasonable or them to expect that, i a decision to grant had been made in the stated time, the policyapplied would be the relevant policy at the date o decision, which would have resulted in a grant oILR.

As with many o my previous inspections, I identied that customer service outcomes were poor. I

ound signicant opportunities to improve both general correspondence handling and complaintshandling.

Te Agency had started to tackle the problems at the time o my inspection. A business plan orCAAU had been created by the time o my inspection and a stronger perormance ramework hadbeen put in place. Governance o CAAU had improved and signicant numbers o additional sta

were being recruited. I also ound that a much more robust approach had been introduced to locateand trace applicants within the controlled archives.

Te Agency must now make a new commitment to the resolution o legacy cases and stick to it. Atthe same time, inormation about progress presented to Parliament and other stakeholders must beabsolutely accurate in order that the perormance o the Agency in this high prole area o work canbe evaluated eectively.

John Vine CBE QPM

Independent Chie Inspector o Borders and Immigration


6/76

4

1. In July 2006, the Home Oce published a report entitled Fair, eective, transparent, and trusted Rebuilding condence in our immigration system. In this report, the then Home Secretarycommitted the UK Border Agency to dealing with the legacy o unresolved asylum cases within veyears or less.1 In 2007, the UK Border Agency created the Case Resolution Directorate (CRD) toconclude approximately 400,000-450,000 unresolved legacy records. A conclusion was considered tobe:

a grant o permanent residence;

2

the removal o an applicant rom the UK;

a record being closed, or example through data errors or duplicate records being resolved; or

where applicants could not be traced and their cases were placed into the controlled archive.

2. Te clearance o legacy asylum casework has remained aprominent area o interest or a wide range o stakeholderssince 2006. Te Agency provided regular updates toParliament on the progress it was making to complete this

work by the summer o 2011. Tese updates included

the Agency adding approximately 40,000 older migrationcases (mainly predating 2003), to the work o CRD in2009 or clearance by the summer o 2011.

3. In March 2011, the Agency stated that it had completed its review o all outstanding legacy cases andcreated a Case Assurance and Audit Unit (CAAU) in the North West Region to manage those legacycases which it had been unable to conclude, typically because cases:

either aced signicant barriers to conclusion (23,000 cases); or

had been archived, as exhaustive checks had ailed to locate the whereabouts o applicants (98,000asylum legacy cases and 26,000 older migration cases).

4. Tis inspections primary ocus was on the work o CAAU and the progress it was making inresolving the legacy o asylum and migration cases. We assessed whether all live asylum cases hadaced signicant barriers to conclusion and what eorts were being made by the Agency to resolvecases in the asylum and migration controlled archives.3

5. We identied a number o prominent organisational ailings linked to the transition o thiswork rom CRD to CAAU in early 2011. Tis included a lack o eective strategic oversight andengagement at senior levels, an inadequate resourcing model, poor quality management inormationconcerning the remaining caseload and ineective handover processes.

1 Fair, effective, transparent, and trusted Rebuilding condence in our immigration system (Home Ofce, July 2006).

2 Cases that are accepted by the Secretary of State as falling under the R(S) criteria will be

granted Indenite Leave to Remain subject to certain exceptions or caveats relating to the

conduct of the applicant or where the applicant, not the UKBA, was responsible for the

relevant delay.

3 In 2008 the controlled archive was dened as a hold for those cases where CRD had tried to establish contact with the applicant through

the current set of processes and had been unsuccessful.

1. Executive Summary

Te clearance o legacy asylumcasework has remained a

prominent area o interest or a

wide range o stakeholders since2006


7/76

5

6. Te absence o a strategic lead at Senior Civil Service level, covering all elements o the transer olegacy work, was a signicant management ailing. Assumptions outlined in the transition plan

were not eectively challenged and this meant that risks associated with the transer o work werenot properly considered or identied. Tis was compounded by a resourcing plan that ailed toadequately match resources with the amount o work CAAU actually received.

7. A key contributing actor to these work levels was the very demand-led nature o the work, causedby ever-increasing amounts o correspondence rom MPs and legal representatives. Tis increasein correspondence was at least in part caused by the Agency stating that the work o CRD wascompleted at the end March 2011, with outstanding cases either acing signicant barriers toconclusion or applicants not being located. Tis view was not shared by MPs or legal practitioners

who were aware o applicants who did not t these descriptions a view supported by our lesampling and interviews with sta.

8. Te issue o limited resources also created a signicant impediment to case clearance. As a result,timescales given to applicants or their representatives about the resolution o cases were requently

missed, even where litigation was being threatened.

9. While all sta highlighted the lack o resources engaged indeciding cases as the greatest challenge or CAAU, a widerange o sta also held the view that eective case clearance

was impaired by changing priorities. Tese changingpriorities oten resulted in cases being let incompletebecause sta were allocated at short notice to other pieceso work. One consequence o this was that security checks4requently had to be repeated because their three monthperiod o validity had expired. Tis urther delayed decision-making.

10. Asylum cases placed into the controlled archive had not been subject to regular and routine securitychecks against either the Police National Computer (PNC) or the Warning Index (WI) system sinceat least April 2011. Prior to April 2012, the Agency had also ailed to undertake any proactive data-matching with external government departments or nancial companies to locate and trace any o theindividuals in our sample o asylum controlled archive cases. Te same applied to migration controlarchive cases. Te public statements made by the Agency to the Home Aairs Select Committee onthis issue did not refect what we ound.

11. Since April 2012, the Agency had matched data or all asylum and migration archive cases(approximately 105,000 cases) against inormation held by both the Department or Work and

Pensions and a credit reerence agency, in addition to continuing checks against its own I systems.Te Agency expected up to 31,000 asylum and 6,500 migration controlled archive cases to becomelive as a result o this work (36%). However, we ound that once an individual was located CAAU

was unable to take immediate action to see these cases through to conclusion, because o other workpriorities. It is essential that the Agency ensure delays are minimised so that these cases are dealt witheciently, either through removal rom the UK or a grant o leave.

12. Te Agency should ensure that sta employed by contractors to carry out administrative work on itsbehal are properly trained. It is also important that Agency sta update the Casework InormationDatabase (CID) with inormation that is relevant, as we ound that les were wrongly included

within the controlled archive when they should have been excluded.

13. Nine thousand, three hundred and ninety-three cases within the live cohort o 23,000 cases hadnot been reviewed by CRD. Once these cases came to light, CAAU took immediate remedial action

4 Police National Computer (PNC) and Warning Index (WI).

We identied a number oprominent organisationalailings linked to the transitiono this work rom CRD toCAAU in early 2011


8/76

6

to send letters to applicants and/or their legal representatives via a mass mail-merge exercise (July/August 2011). Te letter either notied them o a potential grant o leave subject to security checks,5or inormed them they had no basis to stay in the UK.

14. Tis mail-merge took place at a time when the unit was already signicantly under-resourced and

was not coping either eciently or eectively with its existing workloads. Te mail-merge exerciseexacerbated this and added even more incoming correspondence to the unit, at a time when it alreadyhad a backlog o correspondence in excess o 100,000 pieces o post, the majority o which it hadinherited rom CRD prior to its closure in March 2011.

15. CID was not updated to refect the correspondence that was sent to applicants via this mail-mergeexercise. As a result, other parts o the Agency were unaware that several thousand applicants hadbeen advised about a potential grant o leave subject to security checks. Such communications shouldbe recorded on CID, as other parts o the Agency might subsequently take action which is out-o-step

with what has been agreed elsewhere in the Agency.

16. Approximately 30% to 40% o legacy asylum decisions made byCAAU related to cases that ell outside the cohort o legacy asylumcases that the Agency reported on to the Home Aairs SelectCommittee. Tis included active review6 cases. CRD had not madedecisions on these cases, on the basis that applicants, includingunaccompanied asylum seeking children, continued to benet romSection 3C leave.7 However, there was no eective system in placeto notiy applicants that their leave continued under Section 3C.

17. CAAU managers told us they had not been resourced to undertake this work and so had workedon the assumption that active reviews would be completed by asylum teams in the regions ater the

closure o CRD. Regions had not accepted this work and CAAU identied that it would have todeal with approximately 16,398 active review cases between April 2012 and April 2017. It was alsorecognised that a urther 17,000 cases, which may be granted discretionary leave between May 2012and December 2013, would require active reviews rom May 2015 onwards. While these cases ellunder CRD criteria (asylum claims made beore March 2007), they were not included within theasylum legacy reports provided to the Home Aairs Select Committee.

18. Te Agency made a policy change in July 2011 which meant thatlegacy asylum applicants would be granted Discretionary Leaveor three years (where it was considered that removal rom theUK was not appropriate or easible), rather than being grantedIndenite Leave to Remain the outcome most commonly

used by CRD when granting leave under the asylum legacyprogramme. Te rationale or this policy change was that as thevast majority o legacy cases had now been cleared, it was nolonger appropriate to grant ILR. Te change was also justied onthe basis that remaining legacy cases should not be treated moreavourably than reugees who were normally granted ve yearslimited leave.

19. Policy ocials had identied two exceptions where Indenite Leave to Remain could still be granted.Tey also provided urther advice on circumstances in which it might be appropriate to depart rom

5 Police National Computer and Warnings Index checks.

6 Asylum claims made before March 2007, but given a form of temporary leave (usually up to three years), who have to reapply for further

leave before the existing temporary leave expires.

7 Section 3C automatically extends the leave of a person who has made an application for further leave to remain during a period of extant

leave. Technically, the leave is treated as continuing. Section 3C then prevents such an applicant becoming an overstayer during the period

in which their application for a variation of leave remains undecided and, thereafter, while an appeal against any refusal could be brought or

is pending.

Nine thousand, threehundred and ninety-three cases within thelive cohort o 23,000cases had not beenreviewed by CRD

Our sampling o asylumgrant cases identiedthat applicants had been

disadvantaged becausethe exceptions to thenew policy were notimplemented eectively


9/76

7

the policy and exceptionally grant Indenite Leave to Remain. Te two exceptions and guidanceon departing rom the new policy were not introduced when the change took eect, nor were theyrefected in the updated guidance that was issued. As a result, caseworkers showed no awareness othem. Our sampling o asylum grant cases identied that applicants had been disadvantaged becausethe exceptions to the new policy were not implemented eectively.

20. Te quality assurance processes in place did not provide the level o condencenecessary or senior managers to be satised either that legacy asylum decision-making was eective and sound or that cases within the controlled archive

were being managed appropriately. We identied some poor and inconsistentdecision-making, as well as ailures by caseworkers to adequately set out thereasoning behind the decisions they took.

21. Customer service outcomes were poor. Correspondence rom applicants and legal representativesoten did not receive a response, even when queries were made on a repeated basis. Tere wasconsiderable room or improvement in complaint handling, with the Agency requently ailing to

address the actual subject matter o the complaint in its responses. As a result, repeat complaints werenot uncommon, with over a third o the complaints we sampled repeating inormation set out inearlier correspondence that had been sent to the Agency.

22. At the time o inspection, the senior management team in the NWRegion had started to deal with many o the problems that CAAUaced. Tis included developing a business plan that set more realistictargets or the nal conclusion o legacy asylum and migration cases.

A workfow plan had also been introduced which enabled CAAUto manage its work more eectively. Te ormation o a controlledarchive steering group to provide governance o internal and externaldata matching checks was also a signicant step orward, as wasrecruiting additional resources to deal with the work resulting romthe external data matching exercise.

Customerserviceoutcomeswere poor

At the time oinspection, the seniormanagement team inthe NW Region hadstarted to deal withmany o the problemsthat CAAU aced


10/76

8

We recommend that the UK Border Agency:

1. Routinely and regularly matches asylum and migration legacy cases against PNC and WIrecords, until the point at which cases are nally concluded.

2. Ensures that the inormation it provides to the Home Aairs Select Committee is accurateand includes all legacy cases where asylum applications were made beore March 2007.

3. Is clear and consistent in the terminology it uses, so that Parliament and the publicunderstand exactly what progress the Agency is making in concluding legacy casework.

4. Develops a realistic timescale to conclude all remaining legacy cases and makes a publiccommitment to do so.

5. Claries the inormation that should be stored on le and the Casework InormationDatabase and incorporates checks o this into the quality assurance ramework.

6. Introduces a protocol between CAAU and Local Immigration eams to ensure that, whenlegacy asylum and migration applicants are reused, removals are prioritised.

7. Works with the Home Oce to ensure that guidance on new policies sets out any relevantexceptions, and communicates these eectively to sta so that they are applied airly andconsistently.

8. Ensures that decisions aecting young people are dealt with in a timely way that minimisesany uncertainty that they may experience with their applications.

9. Manages complaint handling processes eectively, ensuring that:

complaints are recorded accurately;

responses deal with the substance o the complaint; and

published service standards are met.

10. Embeds a stronger quality assurance ramework within CAAU which ensures that decisionsare made in accordance with the law and its policies and are based on all available evidence.

2. Summary of Recommendations


11/76

9

In order to facilitate readers we have provided a summary of the key terms and a

chronology of key dates associated with this report.

Key terms used in this report

Case Assurance and AuditUnit (CAAU)

A unit set up by the Agency to manage legacy cases thatCRD had been unable to conclude, either because they aced

signicant barriers to conclusion or because applicants could notbe traced by CRD.

Case ResolutionDirectorate (CRD)

Te Case Resolution Directorate was established to deal with anestimated backlog o 400,000 to 450,000 asylum case records

which were dened as those not being processed as part o theNew Asylum Model (rom 5 March 2007 onwards) and whichhad not been concluded (removed, granted or otherwise closed).

Case InormationDatabase (CID)

An administrative tool, used by the Agency to perormcaseworking tasks and record decisions.

Non-cohort cases Cases which meet the legacy criteria but were either not part othe original CRD cohort, or were part o the CRD cohort andwere not transerred to the CAAU cohort.

Controlled archive Te controlled archive is a hold or those cases where CRDhad tried to establish contact with the applicant but had beenunsuccessul.

Discretionary Leave (DL) One o three orms o immigration status where permission toremain in the UK is given to a person whom the Agency hasdecided does not qualiy or reugee status or humanitarianprotection but who does need to stay in the UK temporarily.

Indenite Leave toRemain (ILR)

A orm o immigration status granted to a person who qualiesor permission to remain in the UK or an indenite period otime.

Legacy Cases Reers to unresolved asylum and migration cases.

Live Cases Legacy asylum cases which were not concluded by CRD becausethey aced barriers to conclusion.

Migration ControlledArchive

Reers to approximately 40,000 non-asylum cases that wereadded to CRDs caseload in October 2009, 26,000 o which

were subsequently transerred to CAAU in April 2011. Tese

cases typically related to amily applications (dependent spousesor other relatives seeking leave to remain), students and othertypes o migrants who had been given temporary leave to visitthe UK, but had sought to extend that leave.

3. The Inspection


12/76

10

Chronology of key dates associated with this inspection

19 July 2006: Te Home Secretary publishes a report on the Immigration and NationalityDirectorate (IND) called: Fair, eective, transparent and trusted Rebuilding condence in ourimmigration system, committingIND to clearing the backlog o asylum legacy cases within veyears or less.

19 February 2007: Te Agency sends its rst letter to the Home Aairs Select Committee,dealing with the Agencys plans to tackle a backlog o between 400,000 and 450,000unresolved asylum cases. Further letters rom the Agency ollow at roughly six-monthlyintervals (14 June and 17 December 2007, 23 July and 8 December 2008).

1 April 2007: Te Case Resolution Directorate (CRD) is established to consider these cases.

7 July 2009: Te Agency updates the Home Aairs Select Committee about its work to traceasylum legacy applicants and the procedure it ollows when this approach is unsuccessul.

19 October 2009: Te Agency inorms the Home Aairs Select Committee about a ring-enced cohort o approximately 40,000 non-asylum migration cases which is added to CRDscaseload.

19 July 2010: Te Agency repeats its assurances to the Home Aairs Select Committee aboutthe processes it ollows regarding placing cases into the controlled archive.

1 November 2010: Te Agency inorms the Home Aairs Select Committee about the numbero cases in the controlled archive, along with those cases that will in due course be added to itsconclusion statistics.

2 March 2011: Te Agency inorms the Home Aairs Select Committee it is condent thatit is on track to complete the legacy programme by the summer 2011. It reers to the Agencys

plans to create a small unit to carry orward the residual work on asylum cases that havebeen reviewed but not ully concluded, in addition to reducing the requency o checks oncontrolled archive cases to every six months.

1 April 2011: Te Agency establishes the Case Assurance & Audit Unit (CAAU) to takeorward work on legacy asylum and migration cases.

20 July 2011: Te Agency changes its policy in relation to the type o leave that it grantsunder Paragraph 395C o the Immigration Rules. Tis results in legacy asylum applicants beinggranted Discretionary Leave or three years (where it was considered removal rom the UK wasnot appropriate), rather than Indenite Leave to Remain.

July/August 2011: CAAU identies 9,393 asylum cases within the live cohort o cases thathave not been reviewed by CRD and subsequently sends out over 6,000 letters to applicants,either notiying them o a potential grant o leave subject to security checks (WICU and PNC),or that their cases have been reviewed and they have no basis to stay in the UK.

24 August 2011: Te Agency inorms the Home Aairs Select Committee that CRD began itsnal phase towards closure on 31 March 2011, having reviewed its entire caseload. Tis letteralso reers to a small number o cases where representations were made to the Agency late inthe programme, with a commitment that decisions on these cases will be made by the end o

August 2011.

12 September 2011: Te Agency inorms the Home Aairs Select Committee it completed itsreview o all legacy cohort cases at the end o March 2011. Te Agency also provides statisticsin this letter about the progress CAAU has made in relation to the 23,000 cases that CRD havereviewed, but where barriers to conclusion remain.


13/76

11

15 December 2011: Te Agency provides updated perormance statistics to the Home AairsSelect Committee in relation to legacy casework. It also includes details o the processes thatCAAU ollowed in relation to cases within the controlled archive, including checking casesregularly against Agency watch lists and PNC.

13 January 2012: Te Agency provides an update to the Home Aairs Select Committeeabout its work in relation to the controlled archive o 26,000 migration cases.

3 May 2012: Te Agency provides updated perormance inormation to the Home AairsSelect Committee in relation to legacy asylum cases acing barriers to conclusion. It alsoprovides updated perormance inormation in relation to the asylum and migration controlledarchives and sets out its aim to signicantly reduce both archives by March 2013.


14/76

12

Role and remit of the Chief Inspector

3.1 Te role o the Independent Chie Inspector (the Chie Inspector) o the UK Border Agency (theAgency) was established by the UK Borders Act 2007 to examine the eciency and eectivenesso the Agency. In 2009, the Independent Chie Inspectors remit was extended to include customs

unctions and contractors.

3.2 On 20 February 2012, the Home Secretary announced that the Agency and its Border Forcedirectorate would split rom 1 March 2012, with the Border Force becoming a separate operationalcommand within the Home Oce. Te Home Secretary conrmed that this change would notaect the Chie Inspectors statutory responsibilities and that he would continue to be responsible orinspecting the operations o both the Agency and the Border Force.

3.3 On 22 March 2012, the Chie Inspector o the UK Border Agencys title changed to become theIndependent Chie Inspector o Borders and Immigration. His statutory responsibilities remainthe same. Te Chie Inspector is independent o the UK Border Agency and the Border Force, and

reports directly to the Home Secretary.

Purpose

3.4 Te purpose o this inspection was to inspect the eciency and eectiveness o the handling olegacy asylum and migration cases, making recommendations or improvement where necessary. Teinspection ocused on:

the progress the Agency was making against its targets regarding clearance o legacy asylum andmigration backlog cases;

the actions the Agency was taking to resolve cases in the asylum and migration controlledarchives;8 and

whether live asylum cases had been reviewed and taken to the urthest possible conclusion.

Methodology

3.5 Te Chie Inspectors inspection criteria9 (set out in Appendix 1) were used to assess the eciencyand eectiveness o the handling o legacy asylum and migration cases under the themes o:

Operational Delivery;

Saeguarding Individuals; and

Continuous Improvement.

3.6 A number o stages were completed prior to the on-site phase o the inspection, which took placebetween 28 May and 1 June 2012. Te pre-inspection activities included:

a pre-inspection amiliarisation visit to the Case Assurance and Audit Unit (CAAU) on 29February 2012;

an examination o management and perormance inormation provided by the Agency, includingtransition planning documentation detailing the transition o work rom the Case ResolutionDirectorate (CRD) in Croydon to CAAU in Liverpool;

surveys o MPs and Legal Representatives; and

8 When the Controlled Archive started in 2008 it was dened as a hold for those cases where CRD had tried to establish contact with the

applicant through the current set of processes and had been unsuccessful.

9 All criteria of the Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency can be found at: http://icinspector.independent.gov.uk/wp-

content/uploads/2010/03/Inspection-Criteria.pdf
http://icinspector.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Inspection-Criteria.pdfhttp://icinspector.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Inspection-Criteria.pdfhttp://icinspector.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Inspection-Criteria.pdfhttp://icinspector.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Inspection-Criteria.pdf


15/76

13

le sampling 325 les, broken down between:

145 asylum cases in the controlled archive;

69 migration cases in the controlled archive;

86 asylum cases either granted a orm o leave or reused; and

25 asylum cases decided without sight o paper les.

3.7 During the on-site phase o the inspection, we also sampled 40 complaint les and undertook ocusgroups and interviews with 65 members o sta. Figure 1 provides a breakdown o the sta we spoketo by grade.

Figure 1: Agency staff interviewed during inspection

Grade Number

Administrative Ocer (AO) 13Executive Ocer (EO) 30

Higher Executive Ocer (HEO) 14

Senior Executive Ocer (SEO) 4

Assistant Director / Grade 7 1

Deputy Director / Grade 6 3

Director / Grade 5 2

otal 67

3.8 We also interviewed two senior Agency managers who had previously worked in CRD, to providegreater detail about the transition o work to CAAU.

3.9 Five days ater the completion o the on-site phase o the inspection, the inspection team providedeedback on high-level emerging ndings to the UK Border Agency. Te inspection identiedten recommendations to improve the eciency and eectiveness o CAAU. A ull summary orecommendations is provided on page 11 o this report.


16/76

14

4.1 In July 2006, the then Home Secretary published a report on the Immigration and NationalityDirectorate (IND).10 It was called: Fair, eective, transparent and trusted Rebuilding condencein our immigration system.11 Te report was produced ollowing INDs ailure to consider oreignnational prisoners or deportation. Te report identied ve key objectives that needed to bedelivered to meet public expectations or change. One o these was to deal with the legacy ounresolved asylum cases within ve years or less.12

4.2 Te report set out that all cases would be dealt with on theirindividual merits and that the work would be prioritised todeal with legacy asylum applicants who may pose a risk to thepublic rst, ollowed by individuals:

who could more easily be removed;

who are in receipt o public support;13 and

who may be granted leave.

4.3 On 19 February 2007, the Agency wrote to the Home Aairs Select Committee or the rst timeregarding its plans or tackling the backlog o unresolved asylum cases. Tis work subsequently cameto be known as the Legacy Casework Programme and was managed by a special directorate theCase Resolution Directorate which was established by the Agency to undertake this work.

Case Resolution Directorate

4.4 Te Case Resolution Directorate (CRD) was established on 1 April 2007 to deal with an estimatedbacklog o 400,000 to 450,000 asylum case records. It did not deal with new asylum claims, butexisted solely to ocus on concluding older asylum cases that had yet to be ully resolved. Tese cases

were dened as those not being processed as part o the New Asylum Model (rom 5 March 2007onwards) and which had not been concluded (removed, granted14 or otherwise closed).

4.5 At the outset, the Agency made it clear to stakeholders and Parliament that CRD had beenestablished to conclude cases. A Director or CRD set out that a CRD conclusion is one that haseither been:

granted permanent residency; or

removed rom the country (this includes voluntary departures, assisted voluntary returns, andenorced removals).

10 Now the UK Border Agency.

11 Referred to as the IND Review.

12 Asylum claims which are incomplete and which are not being processed as part of the New Asylum Model (NAM), which was created on

the 1 April 2007 to deal with all new asylum claims.

13 Financial and/or accommodation support.

14 Certain applications for further leave, for example applications for active review from persons previously granted Discretionary Leave as

Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children, and who remain under 18 years of age at the time of their further applications, were included

within the asylum work assigned to CRD.

4. Background

Te Case ResolutionDirectorate (CRD) wasestablished on 1 April 2007to deal with an estimatedbacklog o 400,000 to450,000 asylum case records


17/76

15

4.6 Te Director o CRD added that cases could also be considered concluded where or exampleapplicants had been given status prior to July 2006 but did not show as such on the Agencyselectronic database, or were incorrectly identied in the asylum backlog in July 2006, required nourther action or were duplicate records.

4.7 We established that legacy case records started to be allocated to sta in December 2007, once thecase work teams and processes necessary to support their work had been put in place. Approximately800 sta in Croydon and Liverpool were assigned to this work. Te Agency also engagedapproximately 350 temporary sta during 2009 and 2010, through an arrangement with SERCO,15to meet the deadline imposed to conclude this work by the summer o 2011.

4.8 Te Agency reiterated that the priorities or CRD in working through these cases were as thosedescribed in the IND review paragraph 4.2 reers.

4.9 In October 2009, the Agency added approximately 40,000 migration cases to CRDs caseload.Tese cases included amily applications, students and other types o migrants who had been given

temporary leave to visit the UK, but were seeking to extend that leave. A signicant number o thesecases predated 2003, with some going back to 1983. Te Agency stated that, as the work to clearthe asylum backlog started to draw to a close, it would devote more resources to concluding thesemigration cases by summer 2011.

4.10 Te Agency provided regular six-monthly reports to the Home Aairs Select Committee aboutthe progress it was making to conclude legacy asylum cases by the summer o 2011. Tese reportsincluded setting out the Agencys approach to:

the way in which it was tackling this workload, including the prioritisation that was aorded todierent types o cases;

locating individuals with whom it had lost contact, including checking individuals against bothinternal and external databases in an eort to locate them; and

archiving cases and adding them to conclusion statistics where its attempts to trace individualswere unsuccessul over a period o time.

4.11 Tese reports provided regular assurances to the Home Aairs Select Committee, Parliament and awide range o stakeholders that the legacy casework programme would be concluded in line with thecommitments made by the ormer Home Secretary in July 2006.

4.12 On 2 March 2011, the Agency inormed the Home Aairs Select Committee that there would besome cases that we will struggle to conclude beore the end o the programme, or example, because

they are awaiting removal, have impending prosecutions or ongoing litigation.

4.13 On 24 August 2011, the Agency changed the terminology it was using in relation to concludinglegacy casework. In this letter the Agency instead stated that CRD had reviewed the entire caseload,adding that a small number o cases were still outstanding because representations were made toCRD late in the programme. It set out that it would make decisions on these cases by the end o

August 2011. It also added that some removal cases would also remain outstanding: or example,where nal conclusion would depend on the outcomes o appeals and re-documentation processes.

4.14 On 12 September 2011, the Agency provided a nal update to the Home Aairs Select Committeeon the remaining legacy cases which had been reviewed but where there were remaining barriers to

conclusion. Te letter stated that 500,500 cases had been reviewed as part o the programme, withthe majority (455,000 cases) being ully concluded. Tis letter contained the inormation at Figure 2.

15 SERCO provided contract staff to perform basic administrative tasks in relation to CRD work.


18/76

16

Figure 2: Categories and number of les sampled

otal number o reviewed cases in the legacycohort

500,500

otal concluded 479,000o which

Grants 172,000 (36%)

Removals 37,500 (8%)

Other (duplicates, errors or controlled archive) 268,000 (56%) Including 98,000 in thecontrolled archive. A urther 500 willbe added i not traced within the next 6months.

Grants subject to nal security check 3,000

Remaining barriers to conclusion 18,000

Note: Figures have been rounded to the nearest 500, thereore there will be a discrepancy between thetotal concluded and the individual breakdowns.

4.15 Tis letter reerred to the establishment o the Case Assurance and Audit Unit, which was taskedwith dealing with 23,000 cases which been reviewed but had barriers to conclusion. It said that allthese cases had been decided and communicated to the applicants. Te letter also set out that o these23,000 cases, the Agency:

had ully concluded 1,500 o those cases;

issued around 3,000 grants which are subject to inormation rom the applicant in order tocomplete a nal security check; and

is actively managing around 18,000 cases which have been case worked to the urthest possiblepoint but barriers to their removal remain, such as ongoing litigation, impending prosecution,incomplete legal or criminal proceedings, non compliance or because they are rom dicult toremove countries.

Case Assurance and Audit Unit

4.16 Te Case Assurance & Audit Unit (CAAU) was established in April 2011 to take orward work on147,000 cases, broken down as ollows:

23,000 live asylum cases which had not been ully concluded due to various barriers;

98,000 asylum cases which had matured16 into the controlled archive; and

26,00017 legacy migration cases placed into a separate controlled archive.

4.17 Te Agency stated that CAAU would continue to pursue cases placed into the controlled archive,checking all cases regularly against watch lists and the Police National Computer. When contact

with an individual was re-established, the Agency would update its records and then work the caseto conclusion. In relation to the residual work on live cases which had been reviewed and wereawaiting conclusion, the Agency stated that CAAU would continue to work on these cases and would

conclude them once all remaining barriers had been resolved.

16 Six months after les were placed into the controlled archive, they were considered to have matured if no further contact had been

made with the applicant. All such cases were considered as concluded for statistical purposes.

17 This had reduced from the original gure of 40,000 by the time CAAU assumed responsibility for this work.


19/76

17

4.18 At the outset (April 2011), CAAU had 98.75 ull-time equivalent posts and an annual grossexpenditure budget or 2011/12 o 34,349,261. By February 2012, the number o ull-timeequivalent posts had increased to 141. Te Agency advised us that CAAUs targets in March 2012

were to reduce the:

asylum controlled archive rom 98,000 (Case records) to under 83,000 by March 2012 and51,000 by March 2013;

migration controlled archive to under 22,000 by March 2012 and 15,000 by March 2013; and

make-up o cases within the live case cohort solely to case types where cases have been case workedto the urthest possible point but barriers to their conclusion remain. Te live cohort o casesshould all below 29,700 in line with projections which are subject to change.

4.19 Although the majority o CAAU work was carried outby sta in Liverpool, we were told that another teamhad been created in Manchester in February 2012. Tis

team was responsible or identiying and amalgamatingduplicate records18 on the Agencys casework inormationdatabase system and identiying cases which could beremoved rom the controlled archive as new inormationabout applicants came to light, either through internal orexternal data-matching exercises.

18 Those where more than one case was held for one person.

Te Agency stated that CAAUwould continue to pursue cases

placed into the controlled archive,checking all cases regularlyagainst watch lists and the PoliceNational Computer


20/76

18

Decisions on the entry, stay andremoval of people should be takenin accordance with the law and the

principles of good administration.Customs and immigration offencesshould be prevented, detected,investigated and, where appropriate,prosecuted.

5.1 Tis section gives the results and detailed analysis o the les we examined prior to conducting the

on-site inspection o CAAU, which took place between 28 May and 1 June 2012. In total, 360 caseles were requested. Tese were chosen randomly rom either decisions made between 1 September2011 and 29 February 2012 (or granted and reused cases), or rom lists generated by the Agencycovering les within the two controlled archives (asylum and migration). Figure 3 sets out the casecategories, together with details o the case les produced by the Agency.

Figure 3: Categories and number of les sampled

Category Requested Sampled Not received*

Asylum Controlled Archive 150 145 5

Migration Controlled Archive 75 69 6Cases granted asylum 75 64 11

Cases reused asylum 30 22 8

Decisions made without sight o le 30 25 5

otals 360 325 35

Note: *Te Agency was unable to locate these les or the purposes o our le sample.

Asylum controlled archive casesBackground

5.2 Our largest le sample was o asylum controlled archive cases, which we selected due to the high levelo parliamentary and public interest in these cases. When the controlled archive was established in

5. Inspection Findings OperationalDelivery


21/76

19

2008, the Agency dened it as a hold or those cases where CRD had tried to establish contact withthe applicant through the current set o processes and had been unsuccessul.

5.3 In July 2009, the Agency inormed the Home Aairs Select Committee that it had been unable totrace a number o the applicants within the asylum legacy caseload. It stated that it had made every

eort to trace such cases, checking a number o internal and external databases. I this tracing activityproved unsuccessul, cases were placed into a controlled archive and were included within conclusionstatistics i six months elapsed without the applicant subsequently coming to light. Te Agency addedthat cases within the controlled archive continued to be run against a number o internal watch listsevery three months, and cases would be reactivated and removed rom the conclusion statistics i theapplicant came to light.

5.4 Te Agency repeated these assurances to the Home Aairs SelectCommittee in July 2010. In a urther update on 1 November2010, the Agency stated that the controlled archive nownumbered approximately 18,000 cases, with a urther 43,000 cases

being placed into the controlled archive more recently. However,these cases had not been included in the conclusion statisticsbecause they had not reached six months maturity. Once they didso (i.e. no contact was made with the applicant), these cases wouldsimilarly be considered, concluded and incorporated within thepublished gures or asylum controlled archive cases.

5.5 In March 2011, the Agency provided a urther written progress update to the Home Aairs SelectCommittee, reiterating that the Agency made every eort to trace such cases, checking a number ointernal and external databases. I this tracing ails, the case is placed into the controlled archive. It

was also announced that the three-monthly watch lists checks would now take place every six monthsbecause o the low rate o success in tracing applicants.

5.6 Te Agency inormed us, ollowing our initial evidence request, that it had completed its internalreview o all outstanding legacy cases on 31 March 2011. We noted that the Agencys use o the termreview was very dierent rom the commitments it provided in regular written updates to the Home

Aairs Select Committee, where it always talked about concluding cases.

5.7 Te Agency told us that the initial cohort o cases within the asylum controlled archive transerred toCAAU consisted o 75,594 cases, with a urther 22,435 cases in the pipeline that would mature intothe archive ater six months an overall total o 98,029 cases. Figure 4 reers to the controlled archivecase statistics reported to the Home Aairs Select Committee.

Figure 4: Asylum cases placed into Controlled Archive (cumulative totals)

July 2010 November 2010 April 2011 September 2011

9,000 18,000 75,500 98,000

5.8 Tis table shows the dramatic increase in the cases placed into the controlled archive over the last tenmonths o CRDs existence. We noted that this increase had not gone unnoticed by the Home AairsSelect Committee, as they had identied as early as November 2010 that the controlled archive wasthe astest growing category o concluded cases.19

5.9 Te operational guidance issued to sta or the controlled archive made it clear that beore placinga case le into the controlled archive, it was important that all checks to establish the applicants

whereabouts needed to be made, and:

19 Home Affairs Committee Fourth Report The work of the Border Agency.

Te Agency inormedus, ollowing our initialevidence request, that

it had completed itsinternal review o alloutstanding legacy caseson 31 March 2011


22/76

20

i an applicant had been granted leave beyond July 2011, been removed or had voluntarilydeparted, the case should not be placed into controlled archive; or

i there was any inormation within the paper le or on CID which might provide a lead on theapplicants address or whereabouts, this action should be pursued, prior to the le being placedinto the controlled archive.

5.10 Te importance o carrying out all possible checks beore a case was put into the controlled archivewas emphasised in this document, in line with statements made by the Agency to the Home AairsSelect Committee, Figure 5 reers.

Figure 5: Agency statements to the Home Affairs Select Committee regarding thecontrolled archive

Te agency makes every eort to trace such cases, checking a number o internal and externaldatabases. I this tracing ails, the case is placed into the controlled archive. Once a case has been inthe controlled archive or six months it is included in conclusions statistics(2nd Report Te Work

o the UK Border Agency 8 December 2009);

I you look back at my description o controlled archives, we were always clear that, ater concludingthe signicant number o checks we do and ater putting them into the controlled archive and the

passing o time, we would regard them as concluded. Tat has proven to be appropriate so ar. A verysmall number in a sense have come alive again. A great proportion o these, we suspect, have let thecountry o their own volition or have been concluded under a dierent name or a dierent reerencewithout us completely being able to put the two together(Oral Evidence rom Chie Executive o

Agency to the HAC 9 November 2010);

Each o those cases has been the subject o the most exhaustive checks and scrutiny, both with thevoluntary sector oten people have come to light and been traced through their contact with MPs,

or example. We have also checked every single one o them against 19 databases Government,Home Ofce, private sector databases. As a result o that there is no trace o them(Oral Evidencerom Acting Chie Executive o Agency to the HAC 5 April 2011);

We have done the most exhaustive things we possibly can, that we reasonably and responsibly can.We have run those checks on a number o occasions in a period beore we transerred them into thecontrolled archive(Oral Evidence rom Acting Chie Executive o Agency to the HAC 5 April2011).

5.11 Following an oral evidence session with the Chie Executive in July 2009, the Home Aairs SelectCommittee subsequently asked the Agency what partner agencies it worked with to re-establishcontact with applicants who tried to evade immigration control. In its response dated 19 October2009, the Agency stated that applicants were put through up to 19 dierent checks. Tese includedinternal checks against its own databases, together with a voters registry check or each case. Inaddition, the Agency stated that it could also conduct a number o external checks, or example withthe Department or Work and Pensions, Local Authorities, the Prison and Probation Services andindependent companies such as credit reerence agencies. It added that it was constantly assessingits relationships with partner agencies and seeking new possibilities with them in order to traceapplicants who attempted to evade immigration control.

5.12 Figure 6 provides details about how the controlled archive was designed to operate in cases where theAgency was no longer in contact with the applicant.


23/76

21

Figure 6: Operation of controlled archive

5.13 At the time o the inspection, we were told that the current Chie Executive had set a deadline tocomplete the tracing work involved in both this and the migration controlled archive by the end oDecember 2012. Tis would result in cases either being:

transerred to the live cohort o casework (where individuals were ound to be in the UK andwould thereore require their cases to be progressed, either to removal or some orm o leave toremain in the UK);

closed because they had let the UK or had been given some other orm o leave to remain in theUK (or the case was identied as a duplicate); or

closed as proactive tracing work, against both internal and external databases had ailed to ndany trace o individuals in the UK.20

5.14 Troughout our inspection, we noted the changing terminology that was used in relation to asylumlegacy work. For example, cleared, completed, concluded, reviewed and closed. We considered

that the lack o consistent terminology was conusing or stakeholders, especially as no singledocument set out exactly what these varying terms meant. We believe it is important that the Agencyis clear and consistent in the terminology it uses so that Parliament and stakeholders understandexactly what progress the Agency is making in relation to concluding legacy asylum casework.


Is clear and consistent in the terminology it uses so that Parliament and the public understandexactly what progress the Agency is making in concluding legacy casework.

File sampling methodology

5.15 We requested 150 les and received 145 because the Agency was unable to locate ve les. We thenremoved a urther 10 cases because they were out o scope. Tis was because: in six cases no asylumclaim had been recorded; one case was ound to be an EU national; one applicant had withdrawntheir asylum claim; and two applicants had been granted British citizenship. Tis meant that nearly7% o the le sample was wrongly allocated to the controlled archive cohort o cases. We examinedthe remaining 135 cases against a number o indicators to determine:

the accuracy o Agency statements in relation to the handling o these cases, most notably theextent to which internal and external checks had been carried out to locate individuals;

how proactive the Agency was in relation to apprehending and removing ailed asylum seekers;

and the impact o SERCOs contribution to case progression.

20 In July 2012, the Home Secretary and Immigration Minister endorsed the closure criteria that will apply in relation to controlled

archive cases.

Applicant

abscondsor Agency

loses

contact

Externaldatabase

checks

conducted

Case put incontrolled

archive

(checks

continue)

Internal

database checksconducted

(includes

writing to last

known address)

Six months later,

i contact notresumed, case

is concluded

and included

in conclusion

statistics


24/76

22

Data matching against internal systems

5.16 All cases in our sample had Police National Computer (PNC) checks conducted prior to the lesbeing placed into the controlled archive. However, we ound that, once les had been placed intothe archive, the Agency had not undertaken regular and routine database checks against either the

Police National Computer or the Warning Index system (WI) since at least April 2011, when CAAUbecame responsible or these cases.

5.17 Tis was at odds with what the Agency told us initially, which was that once cases were placed intothe controlled archive regular checks were made against the PNC and WI. We thereore asked orevidence that these checks (PNC and WI) had been completed regularly since April 2011 themonth in which CAAU was tasked with undertaking this work. We also requested inormationconcerning the total number o individuals traced by PNC or WI checks that had been undertaken.Figure 7 details the Agencys written response, which was provided to us on 24 July 2012.

Figure 7: Agency response re PNC checks on controlled archive cases

Agency response:

From April 2011 CAAU submitted 8000 checks yielding c 2000 returns. Results were retuned aspaper copies and linked to le but were not recorded electronically thereore results are unknown.

A separate electronic exercise was completed by CAAU closing 01/08/11. 7998 checks were submittedby CAAU yielding 6799 returns. O the 6799 returns, 1029 recorded a denite trace and 328recorded a possible trace.

On 02/08/11 937 checks were submitted by CAAU. Paper records exist recording the results odenite traces, which totalled 123.

Controlled archive cases are included in daily PNC checks where capacity existed ollowing checks orcases which ell to be case worked. It is not possible to dierentiate between case work and controlledarchive PNC checks; however, the controlled archive checks would be small in number due to PNCcapacity. Every case that alls to be granted within CAAU will have a current PNC and WICU checkbeore the grant can be implemented.

5.18 Te Agencys response shows that it had ailed to ensurethat PNC checks were completed routinely in order toidentiy whether any o the applicants in these cases hadcome to the attention o the Police. Tis was inconsistent

with the inormation provided by the Agency to the

Home Aairs Select Committee on 2 March 2011,where it asserted that these checks would be completedevery six months.

5.19 During our inspection the Agency told us that it intended to introduce in the near uture a acility orPNC checking against all remaining controlled archive records. In relation to WI checks, the Agencyinormed us that these were only completed when considering whether to grant a orm o leave they

were not undertaken routinely on controlled archive cases.


Routinely and regularly matches asylum and migration legacy cases against PNC and WIrecords, until the point at which cases are nally concluded.

the Agency had not undertakenregular and routine databasechecks against either the PoliceNational Computer or theWarning Index system (WI) sinceat least April 2011


25/76

23

Data matching with external providers

5.20 Te cases within our le sample had lain dormant or an average o 87 months beore they werereopened in 2010 or consideration. Te shortest period o inactivity was six months and the longestperiod o inactivity was 17 years and nine months. We noted that many o these delays occurred prior

to the establishment o CRD. We ound that only ve cases in our sample (4%) had been subjectto any orm o external check. Te checks took place well beore these cases were placed into thecontrolled archive, in March 2001, February 2007, March and August 2008 and August 2010.

5.21 Te Agency had not undertaken any proactive work within CRD tolocate and trace any o the individuals in our sample prior to placingthese cases into the asylum controlled archive. Tis was a serious ailing.Te Agency was also not meeting the commitments it had made to carryout extensive checks in these cases. It should have been much moreproactive in undertaking external data-matching exercises to identiy

whether any o these individuals were known to other government

departments or nancial institutions, or example:

the Department or Work and Pensions (DWP);

HM Revenue and Customs; and

credit reerence agencies.

5.22 Checks with these organisations would almost certainly have identied a considerable number oapplicants in the archive who had either claimed benets, paid tax, or held bank accounts/credit cardsetc.

5.23 Te Agencys ailure to introduce bulk data-matching against any o these organisations since the

inception o CRD in 2007 meant that cases were placed into the controlled archive (and consideredconcluded or statistical purposes) without any proactive attempts being made to trace individuals.

5.24 In view o the statements that the Agency had made about the level and types o checks it hadconducted, (as outlined in Figure 5), we requested evidence to demonstrate that checks hadbeen completed prior to cases being placed into the controlled archive. Te Agency replied thatapproximately 12,000 cases had gone through extensive checks, usually linked to cases withcriminality or cases where removal was considered likely. Tis work resulted in positive traces in5,107 cases (43%). However, we ound that these checks were undertaken by case workers on anindividual basis, through completion o an Intel tracing pro orma they did not orm part o any

wider bulk data-matching initiative prior to cases being placed into the controlled archive.

5.25 Te evidence we collected regarding checks was inconsistent with the inormation provided by theAgency to the Home Aairs Select Committee. We thereore asked the Agency whether it had takensteps to clariy these statements. In its reply the Agency drew our attention to the ollowing letters ithad sent to the Home Aairs Select Committee on:

19 October 2009 paragraph 22;

11 October 2011 paragraph 13; and

15 December 2011 page 9, under section 3.4.

5.26 We reviewed these letters and noted they did not correct the inormation that the Agency hadpreviously provided on this issue.

5.27 Our concerns in relation to this issue were well ounded, because during our inspection we oundthat the Agency had nally taken action to remedy this situation, having run all asylum and

Te evidence wecollected regardingchecks wasinconsistent withthe inormation

provided by theAgency to theHome Aairs SelectCommittee


26/76


27/76

25

5.34 A senior manager told us that SERCO sta handled approximately 250,000 cases and were instructedto put cases into the controlled archive i no reply was received rom the applicant. I a response wasreceived, then the letter was linked to the le and passed to a caseworker or consideration. Overallthey considered SERCO to be benecial in helping CRD to meet its commitment to conclude this

work by the end o March 2011.

5.35 Tis was in contrast to what we were told by case workingsta, who were not complimentary about the work o SERCO.Tey thought that SERCO sta had not been properly trainednor had they understood the context o the work they wereinvolved in. Tey elt this resulted in signicant numbers ocases being incorrectly placed into the controlled archive.

5.36 We identied 119 cases (88%) where SERCO checklists had been completed prior to the le beingallocated to the controlled archive. We ound evidence o issues being overlooked by SERCO stain 14 cases (12%) and in some instances a thorough audit o le content had not been carried out

beore cases were archived. For example, in one case we ound the applicant had signed a disclaimerto ormally withdraw their asylum application and let the UK voluntarily in 2000. In another casewe ound that the applicant had been removed rom the UK in 2001. We noted in both cases that,while this inormation was recorded in the paper le, no corresponding entries had been made onCID.

5.37 Our le sampling showed that asylum case les contain a large amount o inormation, not all owhich is recorded on CID. Similarly CID may also contain inormation which case les do notcontain. It is thereore important that the Agency satises itsel going orward that contractors areproperly trained to undertake the work they are being asked to do, to ensure that the errors we havehighlighted do not recur.

5.38 It is also important that Agency sta update CID with inormation that is relevant, as in the twocases above the les were wrongly included within the controlled archive when they should have beenexcluded. Failure to update CID with relevant inormation also negatively impacts sta in other partso the Agency (or Border Force), as without sight o the le they are unaware o inormation thatmight be relevant to their work.

5.39 We raised this particular issue in our earlier inspection report Asylum: Getting the Balance Right,when we identied that Agency sta did not have a clear understanding whether inormation relatingto a case should be recorded on the paper le, on CID, or on both. Tis lack o understandingamongst sta about what should be recorded on the le, on CID, or both, continues to cause usconcern and so we thereore repeat our recommendation rom our earlier inspection.


Claries the inormation that should be stored on the le and the Casework InormationDatabase and incorporates checks o this into the quality assurance ramework.

Migration Controlled Archive casesBackground

5.40 Te Agencys in-country case working ts largely into three main categories: asylum, nationality andmigration. Te latter covers migrants who have come into the UK legally and then seek an extensionor change o leave. Migration cases account or the largest share o the Agencys total in-countrycasework load, with a desire to study remaining the most common reason or migration to the UK.

Our le sampling showedthat asylum case lescontain a large amounto inormation, not all owhich is recorded on CID


28/76

26

5.41 Prior to 2009, CRD only dealt with cases that had an asylum element. Tis changed on 19 October2009, when the Agency inormed the Home Aairs Select Committee o another set o historicalles where it was not known whether the applicant had let the country or remained and, i the latter,

whether he or she had been granted leave to remain or was here illegally. Te Agency added that all40,000 cases had been subject to security checks (PNC and Warnings Index checks) to identiy

anyone likely to cause harm. It added that it intended to deal with these cases in the same timerameas the legacy asylum cases by mid 2011 at the latest.

5.42 Te Agency inormed us that CAAU had reduced the migration archived cases rom 26,000 (April2011) to 21,500 at the time o the on-site phase o our inspection (May/June 2012). We were toldthat the majority o this reduction was driven by internal data-matching activities, or example,identiying through Agency records that an individual had let the UK.

Timeliness of decision-making

5.43 It took the Agency on average seven and a hal months to make a decision on the 64 cases wesampled, with no progress updates being sent to applicants or their representatives during that time.Te shortest time taken to make a decision was eight days and the longest was our years. In 10 cases(16%), we ound correspondence rom applicants to which the Agency had ailed to respond. By anystandards this was a poor level o service.

5.44 wenty-seven applicants (42%) had applied beore their current leave to enter the UK had expired.In a urther 36 cases (56%), applicants had made their applications ater their original leave to enterthe UK had expired. We consider that meeting customer service standards was important or dealing

with both types o applications, because these decisions had a bearing on whether applicants couldremain in the UK or should leave.

5.45 When the Agency reuses an applicant, individuals have 28 days to leave the UK, with a reusal notice

being sent to their home address, together with their travel document being endorsed with a reusalstamp. In 47 o the cases we sampled (73%), the Agency returned a valid travel document (i.e. apassport) to the applicant. While this might be a reasonable approach or those applicants who havecomplied with the Immigration Rules, the Agency should consider whether it should return validtravel documents to those applicants who have breached the Immigration Rules. Tis is because validtravel documents are key to removing people rom the UK who do not have valid leave to remain,and such applicants may deliberately destroy or misplace their travel documents to delay theirremoval.

5.46 We also identied ve cases that should not have beenincluded within this cohort o cases because they were out o

scope (three individuals had claimed asylum, one had beengranted leave and one had never had an initial decision made).

We also ound strong evidence in a urther three cases (5%)that indicated applicants had let the UK, because:

Semaphore21 identied that two had let the UK; and

another had subsequently made a visa application while overseas.

5.47 We also ound evidence in two urther cases that colleges had notied the Agency that studentshad cancelled their courses and returned home. Te Agency took no urther action to veriy thisinormation.

21 Semaphore receives advance information on passengers from carriers on journeys to and from airports outside the UK.

It took the Agency on average

seven and a hal months tomake a decision on the 64cases we sampled


29/76

27

General management of applicants documents

5.48 Applicants must submit their passports or travel documents when they apply or urther leave. TeAgencys guidance clearly states that original documents must be returned once case considerationhas been completed unless they are retained or a specic purpose.

5.49 Te Correspondence team told us that their main priority was to keep important documents insecure banks so as to prevent loss. Fourteen les (22%) that we examined had original marriage, birthand death certicates on le. Tese documents are clearly important personal documents and shouldhave been returned to applicants regardless o whether they were granted leave or not.

5.50 In some instances, returning an applicants passport to them was the last action taken by the Agencybeore the case was led away. Clearly there is a need to check whether applicants comply withtheir 28-day notice and voluntarily depart the UK. While we recognise that, without embarkationand ull e-Borders coverage, it is dicult or the Agency to easily identiy whether individuals havelet the UK voluntarily, we believe that the Agency needs to set out a structured approach to help it

determine whether or not applicants are compliant with their legal requirement to leave the UK.

Security checks

5.51 Although the Agency announced that CRD took over responsibility or these cases in the autumno 2009 and had immediately checked all cases against PNC and WI, we ound no evidence eitherin the paper le or on CID that these checks took place at the time. Our examination o cases did,however, show that these checks were undertaken in the majority o cases approximately 18 monthslater, between April and June 2011, when the Agency also wrote to all o the applicants in themigration controlled archive (a mail-merge initiative). Figure 8 is a typical example o one such case.

Figure 8: Example of CRD writing to last known address in May 2011 In October 2005, the applicant submitted an application to remain in the UK on the basis

o Article 8 o the European Convention on Human Rights (right to private and amily lie).Te application was reused in March 2007 and the applicant did not exercise their right toappeal. Te le was sent to storage.

It was not until May 2011 that the Agency reviewed the case by sending out an inormationrequest letter to the applicants last known address. Tey ailed to respond and the case wasput in the migration controlled archive.

In July 2012 the le was removed rom the controlled archive as the applicant had come tolight ollowing a credit reerence check (part o the April 2012 data-matching initiative).

5.52 Tis approach was ollowed to meet the assurance made by the ormer Chie Executive o the Agencyon 2 March 2010 that all legacy migration cases would be cleared by June 2011 with the remaindero the {asylum} backlog. When replies were not received and the security checks returned negativeresults, the les were placed into the controlled archive. We ound that once these les were allocatedto CAAU, no urther action was taken on them until April 2012.

Tracing / Enforcement action

5.53 In three cases (5%) we ound applicants who had applied or leave to remain in the UK who had notheld any orm o leave prior to their applications. Te Agency correctly reused these applications.

Although over two-thirds o the cases we examined had appeal rights, only 19 applicants (30%) choseto exercise these appeals, which were all dismissed. In 12 o these 19 cases we noted that, althoughthe applicants had valid travel documents, they were treated as a low priority by the Agency, with noactive attempts being made to ensure they let the UK.


30/76


31/76

29

Mr Ws sister was reused and ollowing an unsuccessul appeal was removed rom the UK inDecember 2004.

Mr Ws leave expired in December 2004 but he did not apply or urther leave till March 2005.On 01 April 2005, the Immigration Ocer who had reused his sister at the airport made

contact with the in-country case working team. Tis teams own subsequent enquiries led toa reusal o urther leave in May 2005 and reerral to an enorcement unit. An unsuccessulenorcement visit was carried out at Mr Ws home address nearly a year later, on 30 April 2006.

Although Mr Ws urther leave was reused in May 2005, the reusal notice had been wronglysent to his college and not his representatives who had applied on his behal, and so neither theapplicant nor his representatives were aware that he had been reused. His representatives sentin seven letters between April 2005 and June 2006 requesting progress updates and eventually,in August 2006, the reusal was rereshed and sent to the representatives along with Mr Wspassport and supporting documents.

In May 2011 the case was archived as there was no response to a standard CRD letter. InMay 2012, the case was retrieved rom the controlled archive as external checks with a creditreerence agency led to a trace on the applicant.

Mr Ws sister is now a UK resident ollowing the grant o a two-year spouse visa in 2006 inher home country. Te Entry Clearance Ocers issue notes show that her previous attempts atdeception were never considered.

Chie Inspectors comments:

Te delay in updating the Warnings Index (nearly 28 months) with the denunciatoryinormation was unacceptable and led directly to several people, including Mr W and his sister:

- gaining entry to the UK in April 2002 on alse pretences, when they should have beenapprehended and removed the rst time they arrived in the UK; and

- having their in-country applications to extend their leave in the UK approved, when theyshould have been reused.

Te consequences o the Agency sending reusal correspondence to the wrong address andmerely attaching correspondence to les without ully considering its content were clear. It wasnot until April 2006 that a caseworker decided to respond to the representatives letters. By thistime the applicant had already been in the UK illegally or sixteen months with no idea aboutthe outcome o his case.

Following his reusal in May 2005, Mr W was reerred to a local enorcement team. It remainsunclear why the applicants passport, which would have acilitated his return, was returned tohim, particularly in view o the original denunciatory evidence and the evidence uncovered in

July 2004, which showed he had abused his student visa. It is also concerning that it took theenorcement team a urther 11 months to undertake an enorcement visit.

Ater this unsuccessul enorcement visit, no action was taken by the Agency or ve years,until an inormation request letter was sent out to his last known address in May 2011. Tis isunacceptable, given that the Agency had denunciatory inormation which it had substantiated.

Whilst it was accepted that Mr Ws sister may have met the criteria or a spouse visa, we wereconcerned that she had not been interviewed about this application, nor had her previousadverse immigration history or deception been taken into account.

5.58 Te decision taken by the Agency to place these les into the controlled archive was wrong. We also

ound that the public statements made by the Agency regarding external checks carried out on casesthat had been archived did not refect the true position, as we ound only one case out o 64 that hadany orm o external checking.


32/76

30

5.59 Interviews with senior managers conrmed that these cases had not been data-matched against anyexternal databases. We were satised that plans had been put in place to rectiy this in April 2012,

when migration case records were data-matched externally against a credit reerence agency and theDepartment or Work and Pensions. Tis initiative, along with its internal data-matching work, wasexpected to result in 6,500 migration cases becoming live. Te Agency told us it intended to recruit

14 additional sta with migration case working experience to deal with these cases.

Legacy asylum cases granted leaveFile sampling methodology

5.60 We randomly selected 75 asylum cases which had been granted some orm o leave by CAAU(decisions made between 1 September 2011 and 29 February 2012). Te Agency was unable to locate11 o the case les we requested. Tis reduced our sample to 64 cases. During our le examination,

we identied that a urther seven o these cases were out o scope.24 We sampled the remaining 57

cases which were broken down between:

37 cases (65%) which had been contained within the livecohort o cases transerred by CRD to CAAU in April 2011;and

20 cases (35%) which were in the asylum controlled archivewhen received by CAAU in April 2011.

5.61 Eleven (19%) o the cases we sampled related to unaccompanied asylum seeking children. Wethereore report our ndings on these cases in the section on Saeguarding Individuals, where wespecically examine whether the Agency carried out its unctions having regard to the need to

saeguard and promote the welare o children.

5.62 We examined the remaining 46 cases against a number o quality indicators to establish:

the barriers that existed which meant that these cases could not be completed by the end o March2011;

the eectiveness o casework administration and decision-making; and

how well CAAU managed the move rom Indenite Leave to Remain (ILR) to DiscretionaryLeave (DL) in July 2011.

Asylum casework Prior to CRD

5.63 All o the 46 cases had an initial decision on their asylum claim prior to March 2007. Teearliest claim date was 22 June 1995, meaning that this applicant had already been in the UK orapproximately 12 years at CRDs inception. Te latest asylum claim date was 10 January 2007.

5.64 Our sampling showed that initial asylum decisions took on average eight months, with the quickestdecision being made the same day as the asylum application and the longest decision taking 3 yearsand 10 months to make. Tereater, it took the Agency on average 29 days to notiy applicants otheir initial asylum decisions. In ve cases (11%), applicants were not inormed o the outcome otheir asylum claim because our had absconded prior to their initial asylum decisions being made andone withdrew their initial claim. However, all subsequently put in urther submissions.

24 Three cases had been granted ILR prior to our le sampling period, two cases were granted without sight of the le and the last was a

migration case.

Te decision taken by theAgency to place these lesinto the controlled archivewas wrong


33/76

31

5.65 Figure 10 shows the outcome o the initial asylum decisions aecting all 46 adult asylum applicationsthat we examined.

Figure 10: Decision outcome in 46 cases sampled

Outcome Number

Reusal 40

Discretionary Leave 2

Exceptional Leave to Remain 2

Humanitarian Protection 1

Withdrawn 1

otal 46

5.66 O the 40 applicants reused, 35 (87%) subsequently appealed the decision. Tirty (86%) weresubsequently dismissed, two were withdrawn, one was struck out by the judge at appeal stage (theydid not have an in-country right o appeal), one was allowed and the last was allowed on humanrights grounds only.

5.67 Although 17 o these cases were subsequently reerred to an enorcement team or removal, we oundonly one case where the Agency made active eorts to remove the applicant. We noted that, once theappeal process was nished, neither applicants nor their legal representatives made urther contact

with the Agency or a number o years.

Asylum casework Since creation of CRD

5.68 Te Agency adopted a number o approaches to help re-establish contact with asylum applicantsollowing the creation o CRD in 2007, including:

using its website to encourage applicants to provide their current address to the Agency;

working with stakeholders to encourage them to update the Agency about any legacy asylumapplicants that they may represent; and

sending out mail-merge letters to the last known address or all applicants.

5.69 Contrary to the statements made by the Agency to Parliament, our le sampling showed that

ew cases had any signicant barriers to removal. We saw several examples o what we consideredinconsistent decision-making. For example, we noted some cases where CRD reviews had concludedthat applicants did not qualiy or leave, but soon ater CAAU was established these applicants weregranted. We reer to three such examples in Figure 11.


34/76

32

Figure 11: Examples of inconsistent decision-making

1 In March 2011 a CRD caseworker concluded that the case was not suitable or a grant o leaveunder 395C25 due to a lengthy period o non-compliance and multiple examples o deception. Tecase was recommended or removal action. Tis was agreed by a senior caseworker in CRD.

In February 2012 the applicant was granted 3 years DL by CAAU.


Tere was no inormation available to explain why the applicant, a single adult o a removablenationality,26 had not been removed rom the UK.

Tere were no details as to why this applicant qualied or leave in February 2012 and why theissues outlined previously were outweighed by actors in the applicants avour.

2 In March 2010 a CRD senior caseworker wrote a detailed note explaining why the applicantwas not eligible or a grant o leave because they let the UK ater the conclusion o their asylum

claim and returned to the UK in August 2008. In addition, they had been sentenced to 9 monthsimprisonment or raud.

In February 2011 a CRD caseworker reviewed the case and re-armed that the applicant did notqualiy or leave under Paragraph 395C due to these reasons.

Seven months later, in September 2011, the applicant was granted 3 years DL by CAAU.


No explanation was provided as to why the applicant qualied or leave in September 2011.

No details were provided to explain the reasoning behind this decision or that any consideration had

been given to the issues outlined previously that prevented a grant o leave.

3 In July 2010, a CRD caseworker concluded that the applicant did not qualiy or leave due to non-compliance. Tis decision was not communicated to either the applicant or his legal representative.

In November 2011 the applicant was granted 3 years DL due to his length o residence, strength o

connections to the UK and because there was a limited prospec

An inspection of the UK Border Agency’s handling of legacy asylum and migration cases

Documents

Transcript of An inspection of the UK Border Agency’s handling of legacy asylum and migration cases