Women, asylum, and the need for fairer decisions

Guest Post from Debora Singer, Policy & Research Manager at Asylum Aid. Asylum Aid has long campaigned to safeguard the rights of women seeking asylum in the UK.

We publish this article today to mark International Women’s Day, a small contribution towards highlighting the plight of the more vulnerable women suffering at institutional injustice here in the UK.

In January Asylum Aid published Unsustainable, our research which examines in detail the quality of the decisions made when women seek asylum.  A copy of the report can be downloaded from our website.  But even before its publication, the UK Border Agency (UKBA) had acted on advance notice of our findings, and had promised to analyse further their own internal data on the decisions made for asylum seeking women.  So what did Asylum Aid find, and why is the UKBA right to be so concerned?

As many readers will already know, asylum seekers are routinely disbelieved by the Home Office when they claim asylum.  87% of the women in our sample were initially refused asylum, the majority because UKBA case owners did not accept the credibility of their claim.  Yet we found that exactly 50% of these refusal decisions were overturned once scrutinised by an independent immigration judge.  In every one of the successful appeals, the judge accepted the credibility of the woman’s claim.


Claims like Samira’s – not her real name – who was helped by Asylum Aid’s legal team.

After arriving in the UK from Iraq to join her husband, Samira experienced sustained domestic abuse.  Following months of rape and beatings, she was tricked into returning to Iraq, where her husband had spread malicious allegations of adultery.  Samira’s own brothers hunted her down in Iraq to her mother’s house, to avenge the perceived dishonour, and she fled for her life.  When she flew back to the UK, she discovered that her husband had cancelled her marriage visa.

Under threat of being killed in Iraq, unable to rely on the protection of the Iraqi police, and unable to return to her abusive husband, Samira claimed asylum.

The UKBA rejected her account of persecution.  They dismissed the threat posed by her family in Iraq, the domestic violence she had suffered, and her reasons for leaving the UK.  But the immigration judge who heard Sabrina’s appeal considered the case with care, accepted the truth of the violence she had suffered in the UK and the ongoing threat she faced in Iraq, and recognised Sabrina as a refugee.

‘A culture of disbelief’

Why does the UKBA disbelieve women like Samira?

One explanation drawn from Unsustainable was the striking failure of some case owners to understand the types of persecution to which women might be subjected, and the sorts of violence from which they might be forced to flee.  One case owner in our study claimed never to have heard of “female circumcision”; another confused forced marriage with arranged marriage.  One case owner ignored a wealth of objective information about the potential dangers facing lesbians in Uganda, and issued a refusal decision that relied instead on an article from the Manhattan gossip site gawker.com.

But when these cases came to appeal, many judges applied different standards to assess the credibility of the cases before them, and demonstrated far less doubt about the violence that many asylum seeking women had experienced.

In response to these findings the UKBA has acknowledged – for the first time – that its own figures also show a disproportionately high number of refusal decisions for women asylum seekers overturned on appeal.  Unsustainable provides substantial analysis of the possible reasons behind this, and the steps needed to address the problem.  We have already started work with the UKBA to ensure that women in urgent need of refugee protection receive it first time, as soon as they ask for it.

A crisis in legal representation

Unsustainable also found that women asylum seekers are affected by a desperate lack of legal representation.  Women can – as in Samira’s case – present some of the most complex protection claims, which require painstaking attention from experts in asylum legislation.  We have seen that initial decision-making can be very poor indeed; but the current legal aid framework actively discourages legal representatives from taking these sorts of cases to appeal.  By issuing a fixed fee to legal practitioners for each case they take on, the Legal Services Commission pays practitioners the same sum for one hours work as for ten.

The implications for women with complex asylum claims are stark: without any financial recognition for the extra hours required, many legal representatives cannot support the work that these cases demand.  Asylum Aid found that a worrying number of women lost their legal representation between the initial refusal and an appeal, and faced the immigration tribunal alone.  The situation was most severe in Cardiff, where half the women in our sample were unrepresented.  Interviewed for the research, the Welsh Refugee Council worried that pro bono providers of legal advice in south Wales were “overwhelmed by demand”; even elsewhere in the UK, support groups confirmed that the situation is “very desperate”.

Access to high quality legal advice couldn’t be more crucial to those seeking asylum.  That so many women are left without is a scandal, and one against which Asylum Aid will continue to fight.

About jcwi

Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants is a key campaigning voice in the field of immigration, asylum and nationality law and policy. It is completely independent from government funding, remaining entirely free from government influence. View all posts by jcwi

2 responses to “Women, asylum, and the need for fairer decisions

  • Women, asylum, and the need for fairer decisions « Joint Council … | U.S. Justice Talk

    […] Upakistan posted about this interesting story. Here is a small section of the postWe have seen that initial decision-making can be very poor indeed; but the current legal aid framework actively discourages legal representatives from taking these sorts of cases to appeal. By issuing a fixed fee to legal practitioners … […]

  • Shamila Tandy

    I am a Malay Muslim woman from Sri Lanka. I was forced into an arranged marriage bat the age of 17 to a 27 year old Malay Muslim by my family. After 9 years of hell having two young daughters, my former husband was a drunkard, drug addict and wife beater i divorced him. My family then started to arrange a second marriage for me against my wishes to another Malay Muslim. I met an Englishman and a Christian in 2005 in Sri Lanka and we married against my families wishes in 2005. I rejected my families demands to marry the man of their choice and a fellow Muslim. After marriage i gave bith to another daughter with my English husband. before she was born my family began a campaign of threats and intimidation against us which started with threatening phone calls and ended with violent attacks against our home. Please for protection to the Sri lankan Police British High Commission Colombo and Foreign & Commonwealth Office London either went unanswered or proved futile. In 2010 my husband brought me and our British daughter aged 4 to the UK. We were unable to bring my other two daughters here as they had Sri Lankan passports and whilst i was granted a UK visa theirs was refused as i did not have sole custody of them at that time. My former husband has now sworn an affidavit handing sole custody to me. he has not seen or supported them in any way since our divorce in 2003. In January 2011 i applied in the Uk was asylum under chapters 3 and 8 of the ECHR. My claim was dismissed in Birmigham by the UKBA although i was granted 3 years Discretionary leave to Remain here. However i was granted no right of family reunion here with my two teenage daughters still in Sri Lanka aged 15 and 12. I appealed this decision in the Tier 2 Tribunal. My appeal was dismissed. I appealed that decision and have been granted permission to appeal now to the Upper Tribunal as the Tier 2 Tribunal decision was found to be wrong in law. I cannot go back to Sri Lanka s my family are still threatening me and my two daughters there who are in hiding. My husband has spent £8000 on legal costs in the Uk so far. We have supplied sworn affidavits and statemenst from witnesses in Sri Lanka who know of the threats and violence which my family subjected us to there. But the UKBA has dismissed them without explanation. If i return to Sri Lanka i not only risk danger from my family but also a forced marriage as my marriage to my English Christian husband is not recognised by my Muslim family there. Can anyone advise us what we must do to obtain justice from the UKBA. My husband has 41 years of PAYE and NI contributions in the UK and served in the Royal Navy. I have not claimed a penny from the UK taxpayer since arriving here in October 2010 my husband supports me and all of our family here and my two daughters who remain in Sri Lanka. can anyone help us. My e mail shamilatandy@yahoo.com Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: