MPs call for investigation into whether department unlawfully discriminated against the Windrush generation and continues to discriminate against ethnic minority Britons as a ‘direct result’ of hostile environment//May BusmanSocial Affairs Correspondent@maybulman
The Home Office has been referred to the equalities watchdog due to the Windrush scandal and wider “hostile environment”.
More than 80 MPs from six political parties have called on the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to investigate whether the department unlawfully discriminated against the Windrush generation and continues to discriminate against ethnic minority Britons as a “direct result” of its immigration policies.
In a letter by Labour MP David Lammy – chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Race and Community – 87 MPs argue the government is acting unlawfully and in breach of equalities legislation by “routinely” discriminating against British citizens on the basis of their race.
They have called on the EHRC to act “fearlessly and robustly” to expose the role of the Home Office in the development and operation of the hostile environment policy, as well as its impact on the Windrush generation and their descendants, and the department’s “wilful disregard” of its public sector equality duty.
Mr Lammy said: “The gross mishandling and abuse of the Windrush generation by the Home Office raises serious questions over whether British citizens were discriminated against on the basis of their race and ethnicity, in breach of equalities legislation.
“More than a year after I first raised this in parliament, nothing has changed. Justice must mean not only due compensation and reparation, but changes to the institution and immigration laws that created this crisis.
“This is why we are calling on the EHRC to investigate the Home Office, and in particular the hostile environment legislation, which appears to have led to discriminatory treatment against ethnic minority British citizens.”
MPs argue the Home Office has breached equalities law and the public sector equality duty, which commits public bodies to have “due regard” to the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic, including ethnic minorities, and those who do not.
They have asked the EHRC to investigate the treatment of the Windrush generation and, more widely, whether the implementation of the Conservatives’ hostile environment policies – which transfer immigration control functions to private citizens such as landlords, employers and NHS staff – represents institutional racism.
Jamaican immigrants being welcomed by RAF officials from the Colonial Office after the ex-troopship ‘Empire Windrush’ landed them at Tilbury.
A Home Office spokesperson said: “The home secretary and the immigration minister are committed to righting the wrongs experienced by the Windrush generation, and the recently launched compensation scheme is a crucial step in delivering on that commitment.
“The Windrush generation have given so much to this country and we will ensure nothing like this ever happens again, that is why the home secretary commissioned a lessons-learned review with independent oversight.”
The Home Office is facing over 300 court of appeal legal challenges from foreign students who believe they were wrongly accused of cheating in English tests, and dozens more cases are pending in immigration tribunals.
The Guardian has learned that a special team overseen by the Home Office was established in January 2017 to deal with the growing backlog of legal actions related to a Home Office decision in 2014 to revoke or curtail the visas of around 34,000 students whom they accused of cheating in a government-approved English language test.
The decision was made while Theresa May was home secretary as her department introduced policies designed to create a hostile environment for immigrants deemed to be in the country illegally. More than 1,000 students have been removed from the UK as a result and MPs have described this as Britain’s “forgotten immigration scandal”, which they say has the capacity to be “bigger than Windrush”.
Most students accused of fraudulently obtaining the language proficiency certificate required for a visa extension were unable to appeal, because of a parallel move by the Home Office to remove appeal rights and legal aid for most immigration cases. But many of those who have been able to pay for legal advice to challenge the allegation of cheating have found the evidence provided by the Home Office to be very insubstantial.
Bibi Rahima is one the students with an upcoming court of appeal hearing, listed for May. She said the Home Office’s actions had “shattered her dreams” and left her in “a state of despair”. Since being accused in 2016 of cheating in the Toeic test she took four years earlier, she has been unable to study or to work, and does not want to return to Bangladesh with her reputation tarnished by an allegation of fraud from the UK government.
The process of attempting to challenge the accusation has made her severely depressed; she was admitted to hospital last June, feeling suicidal. She and her husband have spent over £12,000 – all their life savings – on legal costs attempting to clear her name.
Rahima, 28, arrived in the UK in 2009 to study chartered accountancy. She chose to come to Britain because of the country’s reputation for excellent universities. Her English was already good when she arrived, because she had studied in a private school in Bangladesh where many of the lessons were in English.
The Guardian has learned that a special team overseen by the Home Office was established in January 2017 to deal with the growing backlog of legal actions related to a Home Office decision in 2014 to revoke or curtail the visas of around 34,000 students whom they accused of cheating in a government-approved English language test.
The decision was made while Theresa May was home secretary as her department introduced policies designed to create a hostile environment for immigrants deemed to be in the country illegally. More than 1,000 students have been removed from the UK as a result and MPs have described this as Britain’s “forgotten immigration scandal”, which they say has the capacity to be “bigger than Windrush”.
Her father, who owns his own business, paid for her initial tuition fees. Later she began working to help pay for her fees, and was a part-time manager in a Greggs store in central London. Her English is precise and clear, so she had no problem managing other members of staff.
A letter from the Home Office ruled unexpectedly in 2016 that her visa renewal application had been rejected, stating that she had “participated in an organised and serious attempt to defraud” the Home Office. The Home Office concluded that “her conduct, character, make it undesirable to allow her to remain in the UK.”
“I feel insulted and humiliated. I’ve worked, I’ve finished my studies, and then this comes up. It is inhuman. It has been almost three years – I can’t work, I can’t travel. I feel like my life is just a prison, everything has completely stopped,” she said.
The home secretary, Sajid Javid, has told the Labour MPs Stephen Timms and Wes Streeting that he is “sympathetic” to the situation that some of the students face; he is understood to have this issue at the top of his priority list, and hopes to make a decision on how to proceed in a few days.
A ruling in December 2017 meant that students would be entitled to an appeal in the UK; previously most had been told that they needed to return to their own countries to appeal but for many this was not a realistic prospect. It is not known how many cases have already been settled; lawyers believe hundreds of students whose cases were initially dismissed could take advantage of this legal shift.
Sonali Naik, a barrister at Garden Court chambers who has handled over 30 Toeic cases, said: “The biggest tragedy is that this was all entirely avoidable; the whole reason that this has arisen is that the Home Office took away the right of appeal leaving ordinary students with no remedy. The impact on the individual is very acute. Many have been waiting for five years and in that period they can’t study or work, they can’t clear their names, their reputations are damaged, they can’t progress with their lives.”
Most of the cases she has dealt with have provisionally found in the students’ favour, and the government has been told it must pay for the cost of the legal action.
Patrick Lewis, another barrister with the same chambers, said he had fought about 15 Toeic cases, and had only lost one. Judges had “demonstrated a real willingness to believe the evidence” put forward by students, he said, and “real concern about the quality of the evidence relied on by the Home Office”.
Rahima is distraught at the impact on her life. “You can’t do this to people without proper evidence. You can’t just ruin people’s lives in this way. I’m just sitting at home doing nothing. It is so painful.” Her parents have such faith in the UK justice system that they have become suspicious of her inability to extract herself from the accusation of cheating.
Rahima met her husband, Kamrul Hasan, at college. “We have been asking them to provide proof that she has cheated. “They have sent generic evidence; they didn’t give any specific evidence that she has cheated,” he said. “If you say that a person is guilty then you have to prove that. We’ve worked, paid taxes, never claimed any social benefits. The Home Office does not see the effect it is causing people. She has really suffered.”
The Home Office said 25 people involved in organised Toeic fraud had received criminal convictions, adding: “The 2014 investigation into the abuse of English language testing revealed systemic cheating, which was indicative of significant organised fraud. The home secretary has listened to the points raised by MPs and other groups and has asked for further advice from the department.”
AIWA! NEWS INTERNATIONAL|The Home Office has been accused of inflicting irreversible damage on the life of a pharmaceutical expert by misusing a controversial clause in immigration law to try to force her out of the UK.
Nisha Mohite finally received indefinite leave to remain (ILR) this week after a government review found she was one of more than 300 highly skilled migrants who the Home Office had wrongly tried to force to leave under paragraph 322(5) of the immigration rules.
The paragraph is a discretionary, terrorism-related clause that the Home Office’s internal guidance states should only be used when the applicant’s misconduct is on a par with “criminality, a threat to national security, war crimes or travel bans”. However, the Guardian has reported extensively on the Home Office’s use of the clause to try to force applicants – including teachers, doctors, lawyers and engineers – out of the UK for making minor and legal amendments to their taxes.
Appealing against a decision can take years, during which time the applicant cannot work or rent property, and neither they nor their immediate family can use the NHS. Many feel forced to appeal because accepting the decision makes it highly unlikely they will ever get a visa for any other country.
Since the Home Office used the clause to reject Mohite’s application for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in 2016 because of a tax amendment, she has lost her job and her home. Mohite, who specialises in the development of anti-cancer and anti-psychotic drugs, sold her possessions, spent all her savings on legal fees and is now heavily in debt.
On receiving her ILR, Mohite said: “While I’m delighted my two-and-a-half year torture is finally at an end, I’m furious and frustrated that the Home Office insisted on fighting through court after court, wrecking my life despite me proving repeatedly this was all an honest mistake. The damage they have done to me is irreversible.”
Apart from the 300 people found to have had the paragraph wrongly used against them, the review suggested that up to 87 highly skilled migrants had already been wrongly forced to leave the UK. They were mostly people who had lived in the UK for a decade or more and had British-born children. Many were given just 14 days to leave and were no longer eligible for a visa to visit the UK or any other country.
The review found that another 400 people may have been wrongly affected. However, the total number is likely to be substantially higher with hundreds of cases still to be heard; the first-tier tribunal has 372 outstanding appeals against paragraph 322(5) and another 242 cases that could be allowed.
Mohite’s accountant made a mistake in her 2010-11 tax return, resulting in her self-assessment tax return showing an incorrect income, even though she had paid all the tax she owed. A new accountant discovered the error in 2013 and Mohite immediately paid the money owed.
But when Mohite applied for ILR, the Home Office said the amendment was evidence of dishonesty and rejected her application.
The notes taken by the caseworker who interviewed Mohite said her evidence was found to be “genuine”. However, her refusal letter stated: “Paragraph 322(5) is a suitable rule which may be used in a wide range of cases. Your caseworker has correctly identified undesirable conduct.”
Mohite’s case was one of just 56 which the Home Office identified as requiring a formal reconsideration.
A Home Office spokesperson said: “Miss Mohite was granted indefinite leave to remain after her case was reviewed.”
