This poem is written by Estelle, and is her contribution to this year’s theme ‘Our Home’. Estelle works as RAMFEL as an immigration caseworker, but also has her own personal lived experience of the immigration system.

Our Home

Our home is a little house,
Not too tall, nor too small.
It is not shy nor loud,
It makes friends with the leaves and talks to the tree.
Our people are our pride and joy,
We are happy with what they have become.
Our home is your home, a home filled with love and joy.
A home with the same blood,
A home with peace and love.
A place where Mum is Queen and Dad is King,
A place where everyone is heard and seen.
Sharing laughter’s, smiles and hugs,
While enjoying tasty cuisine and drinks.
A home without heartrate nor discrimination,
We have been through wars and thorns but now we rest and enjoy our lives.
We are one family and gladly receiving praise through others testimony.
A home where no one is rich nor poor,
A home where no one is white nor black.
A home where no one is strong nor weak,
A home where equality leads.
A home where everyone belongs,
A home of refuge.

This poem is written by Basir, and is his contribution to this Refugee Week's theme, Our Home.
​Basir is a 23-year-old student currently on the verge of finishing CELTA Level 5, as well as Level 3 courses in IT and Interpreting.

Our Home

​From Adama's sun and Dire Dewa’s skies,
In Ethiopia's heart, my young spirit flies.
Where Oromia’s whispers and mountains greet,
A home of love, of warmth so sweet.

My father's boutiques, our bustling streets,
Mom’s soothing songs, and sibling feats.
But shadows came, with boots of might,
They shattered peace, turned day to night.

In the UK’s embrace, my journey led,
To dreams anew, and tears unshed.
A year and nine months, in the hotel’s tight space,
Government’s shelter, a resting place.

With humour bright, I took each day,
Though struggles came, I found my way.
Homeless nights for forty more,
Yet hope remained, and my spirit soared.

Now, books in hand, I chase the light,
Learning anew, my future is bright.
Though walls may shift, and roofs may change,
My heart knows home's a range.


From Ethiopia’s sun to London’s rain,
Through trials tough and joy from pain.
In this new land, I plant my seed,
A future rich, with love and deed.

I dream of a home where laughter rings,
Where warmth and peace, each day brings.
With friends and family, love's embrace,
A world united, one human race.

For homes not walls, nor roofs alone,
But where the heart is, love is grown.
From Ethiopia’s heart to UK’s shores,
My story’s woven, forever more.

​Today, RAMFEL releases its report, Safe Routes to Nowhere: The UK’s Broken Promises on Family Reunion, exploring how the UK’s family reunion systematically fails to provide safe routes for refugees to bring their family members to the UK.
The result of nearly 2.5 years of work, this report draws on RAMFEL’s casework experience and government data, which they have either made available or which has been obtained through Freedom of Information requests. This evidences a system where:

• Many people in conflict zones are prevented from even applying for family reunion as they cannot attend a Visa Application Centre (VAC) to enrol their biometrics, a mandatory requirement. As of February 2024, the government had only allowed one person to be exempted from this requirement, despite there being no operational VAC in Sudan, Gaza and Afghanistan, countries where many people are desperately trying to apply for family reunion.

• The government’s default position is to refuse family reunion applications. In one of the few family reunion routes open, Appendix CNP, the government refused 83% of applications between April and September 2023, whilst in another route, Appendix Adult Dependant Relative, the refusal rate was 96% between 2017 and 2020.

• Despite this, the vast majority of people succeed in overturning family reunion refusals at the Immigration Courts. Between 2019 and 2022, around two-thirds of refusals were overturned on appeal, whilst RAMFEL have never failed to overturn a family reunion refusal.

• Government delays in processing family reunion applications are compounded by an average waiting time of 43 weeks for a court date if they refuse the application. For those in conflict zones, they cannot just sit tight for such lengthy and protracted periods.

The inability to make family reunion applications, coupled with the lengthy delays and government propensity to refuse applications forces many people to seek alternative and dangerous routes to safety and their families. This is not speculation; the government’s own analysis confirms that family ties are one of the driving factors motivating refugees to try and get to the UK.
This is evidenced by our own experiences working with those in Sudan. When last year’s conflict started we were working with 14 people there, 13 of whom were children, seeking to apply for family reunion in the UK. One year on, only 2 have been given UK visas, with many either stranded in Sudan or having attempted dangerous journeys and suffered serious abuse en route.
Our report makes 5 recommendations to improve the family reunion system, ensuring people can safely and swiftly make applications, greatly reducing the need for them to take dangerous journeys. The report can be viewed here.

Nick Beales, RAMFEL’s Head of Campaigning, stated:
“The UK’s family reunion system is not fit for purpose and needs overhauling. In fact, for the vast majority of people in places such as Sudan and Gaza who qualify for family reunion, submitting an application is not even impossible due to the lack of visa application centre.
The lack of a functioning family reunion system leaves those in conflict zones with no choice but to take dangerous journeys. If the next government is serious about preventing such journeys, then creating a workable application process that allows those with UK family ties to swiftly and safely secure family reunion visas should be a priority on day 1.”

For further information, please contact Nick Beales at [email protected].

The High Court has ruled that the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s (SSHD) failure to provide people on ‘3C leave’ with the means to prove their immigration status is unlawful. Echoing the problems encountered by members of the Windrush generation, people on ‘3C leave’ – an automatic form of immigration status when a person applies in-time to extend their visa – are given no proof of their status, even though they are “entitled to remain here on exactly the same terms, as regards benefits or entitlements, as they had enjoyed during their previous period of […] leave”. This leaves potentially hundreds of thousands of people wrongly classified as lacking immigration status and trapped by the government’s ‘hostile environment’ policies.

Evidence from Ms Adjei, RAMFEL and others showed that this lack of proof of status led to serious hardships for a significant number of people – including loss of job offers and suspensions from employment, problems with renting and accessing higher education – was accepted by the court:

“the evidence clearly establishes that a substantial number of those on section 3C leave suffer real hardship through being unable to provide immediate documentary proof of their immigration status and attendant rights”. [paragraph 197]

Further,“[w]here these problems bite, the consequences are very severe indeed.”[200]  

The court ruled that despite the SSHD’s broad discretion in how to administer the immigration system, the failure to provide digital proof of status to those on 3C leave was irrational and therefore unlawful. The decision frustrated the purpose of 3C leave and indeed the aim of the hostile environment itself:

“The underlying purpose of the legislative framework is that there should be a hostile and unwelcoming environment for those who are unlawfully present and so who are undocumented.  The corollary of this is that those who are lawfully here should not face the hostile environment.   That can only happen if they are documented.” [204]

In a further indictment of the SSHD’s failures, the Court held he had breached his duties to safeguard and promote the welfare and best interests of children impacted by 3C leave. This speaks to the failure to identify and acknowledge the serious harm caused to thousands of families due to this counter-productive and failed policy and the SSHD’s refusal to take simple and reasonable steps to protect people with valid immigration status, including British citizen children.

The Judge accepted that the SSHD had long been on notice of these problems [91]. In September 2022, RAMFEL published a report estimating that 40,000 people a year could be wrongly suspended from or denied access to employment whilst on 3C leave. Despite this, the SSHD took no steps to address the problem. Ms Adjei, a former RAMFEL client who had been suspended from work as she had no document to show her employer, and RAMFEL issued judicial review proceedings to challenge this failure and compel the SSHD to take action. The court agreed with them, concluding that:

“this is a case in which the SSHD can take a straightforward step to avoid hardship for a substantial number of people, with no negative consequences for the Home Office or for the immigration regime.” [211]

The “ultimate consequence” of the order given by the court is that the SSHD is now compelled to take positive steps to “provide all those on Section 3C leave with a means of proving their status” [191]

You can read the judgment here.                                                                                                                                                                   
Ms Adjei said this of the court’s decision:
“What I went through while waiting for my visa to be extended by the Home Office was really stressful. I was unable to prove that I had the right to work so was suspended from my employment as a healthcare support worker twice, without any notice. I have two children and have to budget very carefully so we suffered real hardship when my wages suddenly stopped. I had to borrow money and visit a food bank just to get by. It was humiliating and scary as I didn’t have any way to prove to my employer that I still had the correct immigration status and the right to work. I am very happy that the court has made this ruling. It means that people like me who have to apply to extend their visas over and over, and who often have to wait a long time for an answer, will now be able to prove that we have the rights we say we have.”

Nick Beales, Head of Campaigning at RAMFEL, stated:
“Time and again, the government’s hostile environment traps and targets people with every right to be in the UK. They assured us they had learned from the Windrush scandal, but these words were clearly hollow.  People on 3C leave have had their lives disrupted for years because they have been unable to prove their immigration status. The government knew this, and in the court’s view could easily fix it. That they refused to do so demonstrates that not only have they learned nothing from Windrush but have prioritised appearing tough over managing a fair and functional immigration system. Whatever the outcome in the general election, the next government must end the hostile environment, as this framework is what continues to cause scandals such as this.”

Janet Farrell, partner at Bhatt Murphy solicitors who represented the Claimants said:
“This is a significant victory for my clients and all those who, through no fault of their own, are left undocumented in an environment which demands proof of immigration status in order to access work, housing and healthcare or hold a driving licence or bank account.  Without the means to prove their legal entitlements under section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971, the Home Office left them vulnerable to the vagaries of the hostile environment, a system which, by design, is intended to make life as difficult as possible for those without proof of lawful status. My clients urge the Home Secretary to take the urgent steps necessary to remedy this and to provide those with legal rights under section 3C the means to prove them.”

NOTE TO EDITORS:
RAMFEL is a legal charity that supports vulnerable migrants living, providing casework support, on a range of legal issues, including immigration and asylum, destitution support, and crisis intervention services.

Ms Adjei is an individual who was adversely impacted by the SSHD’s failure to issue her with any means to prove her legal immigration status and right to work whilst she was on 3C leave, suffering periods of suspension from employment which caused real hardship to her and her two children.
RAMFEL and Ms Adjei were represented by Janet Farrell and Christina Bodenes of Bhatt Murphy solicitors, instructing Stephanie Harrison KC of Garden Court Chambers and Shu Shin Luh of Doughty Street Chambers.

For more information contact Nicholas Beales, Head of Campaigns at RAMFEL on [email protected]. 

Dear party leaders,
​
We are Freedom at 10, a group of 37 migrants who are reaching out, as you prepare your manifestos for the upcoming July 2024 general election. We are all on the 10-year route to settlement, like 170,000 other people, and are hopeful that you will consider our suggestions to reduce the 10-year family route to settlement under the current UK immigration system and protect our children’s interests. 

The majority of us have lived in the UK for over 15 years and some for as long as 24 years. We have worked, contributed to the economy, performed our civic duties in our communities, yet we and our children remain marginalised and discriminated against in comparison to other routes to settlement. 

We are our children’s primary carers, and we remain helpless and look on as our children suffer emotionally as they are unable to access their rights or live the quality of life they deserve.  This is despite being born in the UK, living all their lives here and having British passports. When you are an immigrant on the 10-year route, your children still live systematically in abject poverty.  

As parents on the 10-year route to settlement, we are not only contributing to the UK economy through our national insurance and taxes but also to the NHS as a whole. Additionally, we pay again for the NHS surcharge every 2.5 years when we renew our visa. We pay over £13,000 per person in the course of a 10-year period before we can get indefinite leave to remain. 

The huge financial burden and psychological pressure this places on families is catastrophic. It deprives parents of their ability to care properly for their children, massively harming their future prospects. In fact, the 10 years route is institutional child abuse as it deprives our children of financial and also emotional support.  
Adversely, this route serves as a catalyst that further exposes our children to the risk of child grooming or exploitation in the UK. Children are groomed for something as small as a box of chicken and chips. Whilst you may not care about us, we hope you do care about our children, who are the future of the UK; and who are suffering every day due to being stuck within the 10-year route. 

It does not have to be this way.  

​So, we are recommending that, the next government scrap the 10-year route and reduce it to 5 years. This has been done with other routes, such as Calais leave, which was initially introduced as a 10-year route in 2016 but this year was halved to 5 years. Children rely primarily on their parents, but if a child is British and their parents are not, then the child still suffers the same fate as their parents for the 10 years it takes for them to become settled. Children should not be made to suffer and reducing the 10-year route to 5 years would positively impact their lives by greatly reducing the family's psychological and financial pressure. 

​As an immigration advisor on the Rough Sleepers team at RAMFEL, I represent migrants from many different backgrounds and histories who have found themselves rough sleeping due to a lack of immigration status. These are people who are highly vulnerable, as without immigration status, they have no right to work, no right to rent and no safety net to fall back on.
We work on a mix of immigration cases in order to help migrants get back on their feet. Some of the most difficult are applications for permission to stay for migrants who have lived in the UK for over 20 years – with or without immigration status.
In order to be granted permission to stay on this route, the government asks for at least one piece of evidence for every year the person has been living in the UK. While that may seem fairly straight-forward for the general population, who are likely to have work records, bank statements and utility bills for instance, this can be extremely difficult for those who have been homeless and living under the radar for many years.
Homelessness causes people to move around often, meaning people struggle to keep their belongings and crucial documents with them. Belongings and ID documents are often stolen from people bedded up on the street when they are sleeping.
On top of this, those without immigration status often don’t have any records as they have either not accessed services in a deliberate attempt to avoid detection by the authorities – understandably fearful of detention or deportation – or because the government’s “hostile environment” bars them from accessing many basic services. People have told me that they walk around London throughout the night, or sleep on moving buses and trains, in order to stay warm but also to avoid being noticed. This makes it much harder to trace any records of the person living in the UK.
It is very common for people who are making these kind of applications to have severe mental and physical health problems brought on by years of homelessness and destitution. I have seen how rough sleeping puts a huge strain on mental and physical health.
I have had clients who have spent so long rough sleeping that they have completely lost their memory to the point where they can hardly recall their past at all. Several others have suffered from strokes, which has affected their ability to understand their situation and recall their past, as well as causing physical difficulties. It is virtually impossible to obtain records for people when they cannot remember where they were, what they were doing and even who their partners and family are.
Despite these difficulties we have recently had a number of successes at RAMFEL. For instance, I had a client whose case I was worried about, as I could hardly find any evidence at all of his life in the UK. He had been living between people’s homes and on the street, rarely asking for help, so records were non-existent. However, fortunately, I found out that despite never attending any hospital or GP in the UK, he had miraculously been attending a dentist every year since he arrived, so we used these records to make his application. He was recently granted permission to stay.
At RAMFEL, we have also been urging the government to consider cases where people are homeless, and have been living in the UK for almost 20 years. This 20-year mark is arbitrary, and there is very little point in making people wait longer to apply when they are destitute, homeless and highly vulnerable and are eventually, without question, going to be granted leave to remain. As a result of years of homelessness, many of our clients have care needs and are provided with accommodation and financial support by their local authority. It is illogical to require local authorities to continue paying out for people with care needs, putting pressure on their limited finances, because the government stubbornly insists on people waiting until the 20-year threshold is met.
I have a client who has been living in the UK for 17 years. She has been homeless throughout her time in the UK, living on friend’s sofas or working for families in return for food and somewhere to sleep. In the last few years, her mental health has rapidly deteriorated. She now suffers from psychotic symptoms and cognitive impairment. She is accommodated by her local council, but mental health support is sadly limited as a result of her lack of immigration status. Human rights applications based on health and support needs are rarely granted due to an extremely high threshold, and so it would be unlikely that she would be granted permission to stay on this basis alone. Therefore, we will be making an application on the basis of her 17 years in the UK as well as her health and support needs. If she has to wait until she has been in the UK for 20 years, it is likely that without stability and access to services her mental health will deteriorate further.
Although these cases are difficult in terms of gathering evidence and working with extremely vulnerable people, they are some of the most rewarding. This is because after 20 years of homelessness, being granted permission to stay in the UK can completely transform peoples’ lives and provide a clear path away from rough sleeping. Once, when I called a client to tell him that his application was successful, he immediately hung up. He called me later and told me that he had been with some friends at the time, and he was so speechless and overwhelmed by the news he had to immediately put the phone down and walk away from his friends. This conversation has really stayed with me.
I am constantly in awe of the resilience of the people we work with. To me, it is unimaginable that someone can live for over 20 years without a safe place to sleep and food to eat. Yet, time and time again, we see these kinds of stories. It is a privilege to work with my clients and to help them on a path to live more stable lives away from rough sleeping.

AUTHOR: Ella Tritton, Immigration Advisor at RAMFEL

Government withdraws draft regulations removing HMO regulation from asylum seeker accommodation the day before trial
 
A judicial review challenge to the lawfulness of draft HMO (houses in multiple occupation) regulations to remove protection from asylum seeker accommodation was cancelled before it began this week. In the last working hour before the trial was due to start the court and claimants were informed that the Home Office had decided to withdraw the draft regulations.
 
The controversial draft regulations, which had already partly made their way through parliament, would have suspended the fire safety and other standards in HMOs procured by Home Office contractors to house asylum seekers, putting vulnerable people at great risk.

The proposal sparked widespread criticism. In May 2023 an open letter coordinated by the Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH), the Refugee and Migrant Forum of Essex and London (RAMFEL) and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) urged the Home Secretary and Secretary for State to abandon the plans. The letter amassed 137 signatories, including Crisis, Shelter, the Refugee Council and Amnesty International.

At the time of issuing the letter, Gavin Smart, chief executive of Chartered Institute of Housings said:
“The licensing scheme for houses that are multi-occupied are designed to keep people safe, especially safe from fire. They need to apply to everyone, including people seeking sanctuary in the UK. That’s why we’re calling on the government to drop its proposal to exempt asylum accommodation from the HMO licencing arrangements.”

The regulations were not withdrawn by government and continued to make their way through parliament.
It then took a group of eight asylum seekers, represented by Duncan Lewis solicitors, to bring forward a legal challenge to the regulations. Chartered Institute of Housing along with eight other leading organisations all put forward evidence in support of the claim.
​
Nick Beales, head of campaigning at RAMFEL (Refugee and Migrant Forum of Essex and London) expanded on the evidence given commenting:
“It is worrying that the government states in its explanatory memorandum that part of the rationale for this proposed change is that subcontractors “have raised concerns that regulation is posing a barrier” to acquiring properties. It would appear that subcontractors have directly lobbied the government to introduce a piece of legislation that enables them to provide housing of a lower standard, and thereby increase their profits.”

Following the withdrawal of the case, Jeremy Bloom, lead solicitor on the claimants’ legal team from Duncan Lewis, said:
“The Claimants have achieved something amazing today: the government’s last-minute withdrawal of Regulations that would have reduced protections for asylum-seekers housed by the Home Office is a spectacular u-turn. The Claimants now have the enduring protection that they will not be placed in accommodation which does not meet licensing standards, which are so vital to fire-safety and to prevent overcrowding.”

Mary Atkinson at the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants further added:
“We celebrate the fact that this government has bowed to pressure over their obscene proposals, which would have left some of the most marginalised people in our society at risk in unsafe housing.
“Everyone deserves a home that is decent and safe – instead of treating people seeking sanctuary as second class citizens, the government must act to quickly and fairly process asylum claims, and make sure local authorities are properly resourced to provide safe housing for all who need it.”

“Please can you call me, my work have stopped me from working” – words of panic received in a text from my client. He had been suspended form work without pay, on the premise that his right to work in the UK had expired. He was told that if he could not provide a physical document showing that his leave to remain in the UK had been renewed by a certain date, his employment with the company would be terminated.
 
What his company failed to realise, was that my client’s right to work had been automatically extended under Section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 because prior to the expiry of his visa I had assisted him with submitting a valid application to renew his leave to remain.
 
Section 3C states that if a person with leave to remain applies to renew their leave before it expires, and their leave expires without their application having been decided, it will be extended until the Home Office makes a decision. This means that their right to live, work, study, and access benefits in the UK will subsist until a decision is made on their application. This is referred to as “3C leave”.
 
Many companies are unaware of the existence of 3C leave because the government fails to provide documentation that people can present as proof of their immigration status whilst they await a decision on their further leave to remain application. This has potentially cost tens of thousands of people like my client their jobs, homes, mental health, benefits and more. They are left to bear the brunt of the incompetence and negligence of a racist and anti-immigration government, whose policies exclude them under the guise that it is ‘the will of the people’. This is despite the fact that many of them are the parents of British or settled children, or partners of the same.
 
I wrote to my client’s company explaining that he had 3C leave and attaching proof of his valid visa renewal application to the Home Office. He was reinstated, but the impact of the incident remained with him. During his suspension word had erroneously spread to other employees within the company that he was in the UK ‘illegally’ and would no longer be working with them. This caused him distress and debilitating depression and he stopped eating as a result. He could not return to work and had to obtain a sick note from his GP to take time off to recover.
 
Other clients of mine have experienced similar things. One works for a well-known government agency which informed her that her right to work had expired and blocked her ability to book shifts for almost 2 weeks until she brought the situation to my attention. The fact that government agencies are unaware of 3C leave is astounding. Another client was stopped from working a day before her leave expired. Some clients are frantic weeks before their leave is due to expire because they are terrified of losing their jobs.
 
The hostile environment traps those who are here with visas on the “ten-year route to settlement”. They are being forced to live in fear.
 
On 17 July 2023, the Home Office announced that effective September 2023 people with pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme would automatically have their status extended by 2 years before it expires should they not yet have obtained Settled Status. The rationale was said to be so they can continue to contribute to British society without fear of losing their immigration status. Sadly, the parents and partners of British or settled people on the 10-year route have not been afforded the same courtesy.
 
Every 2 and a half years, they must apply to renew their right to be in the UK before their visas expire or risk falling out of status. They must choose between paying inordinate and ever rising application and Immigration Health Surcharge fees or having every inch of their finances inspected by the Home Office in fee waiver applications if they cannot afford the fees. Once their applications for further leave to remain are submitted, they must wait; sometimes up to a year-long period on 3C leave, without any document to prove their status. The devastating impact of this has been brought to the government’s attention times without number, including in a report published by RAMFEL in 2022 with 4 recommendations for change. Yet, these calls to action  have fallen on deaf ears.
 
One of my clients described the 10-year route as a battle to which she has lost lots of friends – some due to depression, others because they died. The cost of an exclusionary immigration system is lives. And reflecting on the events of the Windrush Scandal it is clear that history  will repeat itself if swift action isn’t taken. This is why RAMFEL is taking the government to court. On 19 and 20 March 2024, the High Court will decide on the lawfulness of the government’s failure to protect those on 3C leave.
 
One can only hope for a favourable ruling that will change the lives of thousands of people  like my clients, by ensuring that their rights are protected on 3C leave so they can live in freedom, not fear.

AUTHOR: Joyinola Layonu, Immigration Advisor at RAMFEL

Press release: High Court to determine whether the government’s hostile environment is again targeting and trapping the wrong people

The High Court has granted RAMFEL permission to bring our judicial review challenging the government’s mistreatment of hundreds of thousands of people with valid immigration status called “3C leave”.

3C leave is automatically granted to people who are applying to renew and extend visas, and ensures that all existing rights, including the right to work, is protected whilst the application is processed. However, the government does not give people on 3C leave proof of their immigration status. As the government now takes at  least a year  to process even straightforward visa renewals, a result of them re-allocating significant resources towards clearing the asylum backlog, this means people spend this entire period with no proof of their status, rights and entitlements. A court will now finally consider whether the government’s conduct is unlawful.

The government’s hostile environment aims to prevent those who cannot evidence their immigration status from working and accessing basic services, such as opening a bank account. However, as the Windrush scandal showed, those possessing status are frequently targeted too.

For years, our clients on 3C leave have been wrongly suspended from work, seen disability benefits wrongly stopped and seen courses of study wrongly jeopardised. Our 2022 report found that 17% of people on 3C leave suffered serious detriment. Based on available figures, nationwide as many as 40,000 people each year could be facing wrongful suspension from work.

Our report made 4 recommendations to the government, including just simply providing confirmation of a person’s rights and entitlements whilst on 3C leave. The government though has refused to implement even this modest change, and we therefore were left with no option but to commence legal action.
​
The High Court case will be heard on 19 and 20 March 2024. If the court rules in our favour and finds that the government is failing to protect those on 3C leave, the changes could be seismic, with the government being forced to provide potentially hundreds of thousands of people proper proof of their immigration status, which we hope will drastically decrease the risk of them being trapped by the government’s hostile environment.

RAMFEL’s experts by experience coordinator, Yvonne Atieno, who herself has experienced time on 3C leave:

“Many employers and jobcentre employees do not understand 3C leave and insist on seeing physical visa document. Without physical proof you are left in limbo, basically allowed to stay in the UK but you have no rights.
You start getting anxiety every 2.5 years when your visa renewal is approaching. The uncertainty affects families in more ways than one. Innocent children suffer when there is no lifeline for their parents and families can be forced into destitution as a result.

It would make such a huge difference if after making your visa application you are given some form of documentation explaining and proving your rights while waiting for the government to process your case.”

RAMFEL’s Head of Campaigning, Nick Beales:

“The government assured everyone they had learned from the Windrush scandal, but this case shows that those words were hollow and meaningless. They have learned nothing and are more than happy for history to repeat itself.
The hostile environment sees people on 3C leave suspended from work and denied other basic services on a grand scale. What’s worse, the government knows this and is not only doing nothing to protect these people, but wasting public money defending its conduct in court.

It would be so easy for the government to just provide people on 3C leave proof of their status, but instead they want to ensure all migrants, irrespective of their status, find the UK to be as unwelcoming, hostile and challenging as possible.”
 
With thanks to our excellent legal team, solicitor Janet Farrell of Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, Stephanie Harrison KC of Garden Court Chambers and Shu Shin Luh of Doughty Street Chambers.
 
For further information, please contact RAMFEL’s Head of Campaigning, Nick Beales, at [email protected].