As a Community Organisation representing Sri Lankan Tamils, particularly asylum seekers and refugees, we wish to make a representation regarding failed (Tamil) asylum seekers threatened with removal.

SECTION 65 APPEAL

  In recent months, several of our clients faced removal and we sought to make section 65 Appeal. However, in most cases, the Home Office/Port refused to give an opportunity to appeal, which we believe, is illegal.

  Asylum seekers having exhausted all appeals and faced with removals have, as a last chance, the right to appeal under Section 65.

  This undertaking was given by the Secretary of State in the case of Pradeepan that the human rights application would be considered separately at the IAT and NOT with his asylum appeal. The Tribunal endorsed this undertaking.

  As a result many Sri Lankans made their human rights allegation when their asylum appeals failed. However, upon certifying a case, the Secretary of State denies the Section 65 of Immigration and Asylum Act Appeal Rights.

  The Section 65 appeal rights is exercised to protect applicants from human rights abuses but denying this appeal rights is a wrong practice and puts many applicants at risk. Therefore, we urge the committee review this matter and request the Secretary of State to allow the Section 65 appeal rights and stop the unlawful practice of denying Section 65 appeal rights. Three of our clients were denied Section 65 appeal rights and were deported this year.

ILLEGAL DEPORTATION

  The enforcement unit is in practice of unlawful removal. In most cases the potential returnee is detained and his removal is not informed to his legal representative. On other occasions adequate time is not given to the legal representative to challenge the removal direction in Courts. Asylum seekers are, at times, removed even when their representatives inform the port that there were sufficient grounds for a Judicial Review. The Enforcement Unit knowingly goes ahead with removal, without granting an opportunity to file an application for JR.

  One of our clients was deported to Sri Lanka in April 2001 and we successfully contested the removal and later he was brought back to United Kingdom from Sri Lanka the very next day after a Court order. The High Court has subsequently ruled out that his removal was illegal and has asked the Secretary of State to make compensation in this case.

COMPASSIONATE FACTORS

  Unaccompanied children and youth are not always given consideration on compassionate grounds and their asylum claims refused. Some of them exhausted their appeal rights.

  In other cases, minors are granted ELR until they turn 18 and are then refused. They too face removal.

  There are also example of families with children who have spent over 10 years in the United Kingdom without their stay being regularised. But their temporary admissions are renewed periodically. We have a few clients who come under this category.

VOLUNTARY REMOVAL AND COSTLY LONG-TERM DETENTION

  Instead of keeping failed asylum seekers in costly detention coupled with complicated removal procedures, we will suggest encouraging voluntary repatriation with financial incentives providing resettlement assistance and allow them to return back, if they feel their lives are in danger after the voluntary return. Allow failed asylum seekers for trial visit to gain confidence about their safety in their native Countries.

CONSTRAINTS ON REMOVAL TO SPECIFIC COUNTRIES

  The Sri Lankan Tamil returnees are deported to Colombo where they do not have any connections. Many Tamil asylum seekers are from North or East of Sri Lanka. They do not know the Sinhala Language spoken in the South of Sri Lanka. This coupled with problems like social life, accommodation, employment alienate the Tamil returnees from the majority Sinhala Community in South of Sri Lanka. This practice should be stopped and removal should be to his original home town.

October 2002