UK defends use of anti-terror rule against highly-skilled migrants

Britain’s Home Office has defended its treatment of highly skilled workers — many from India — who were denied the right to settle in Britain because of the changes made to their tax submissions, using a controversial anti-terror rule. “I am confident that the overall handling of these cases, including the application of paragraph 322 (5) has been correct,” wrote Immigration Minister Caroline Nokes in a letter to the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, made public.

The department had concluded the first stage of a review of the use of 322 (5) — used to deny settlement rights to those deemed a criminal or a security risk — after MPs pushed it for answers, following a public campaign by highly skilled workers from across the sub-continent, who linked the use of the policy to a wider “hostile environment” being enforced by Britain’s Home Office.

“We are very disappointed by her response,” said Aditi Bhardwaj of the Highly Skilled UK campaign group. “These are the same arguments that she has been giving before and we have addressed these in the past.”

Crucial grounds

During a debate in Parliament earlier this month, MPs accused the government of using “cruel,” “inappropriate,” and “heavy handed” tactics over its use of Immigration rule 322 (5) to prevent over 1,000 highly skilled migrants including doctors, lawyers, IT technicians, and engineers, — many from India — from settling in the UK, and threatening them with deportation.

However, in her letter Nokes insisted that in the cases reviewed to date the applicants had not been refused on the grounds they had made errors in their tax returns but because of “exaggerated” earnings to the Home Office or under-reported earning to tax authorities to “evade” dues. “In either scenario, their character and conduct is such that their applications should not be granted,” she concluded, adding that many cases raised in Parliament fell into that category. The full findings of the review are expected to be published within the next few weeks.

She insisted suggestions that the use of the paragraph 322(5) risked tainting a person’s ability to get visas anywhere in the world were “simply untrue.” “Paragraph 322(5), which is a long-standing paragraph…covers a wide range of reasons…and our decision letters confirm that applicants are being refused on character and conduct grounds, not security concerns.”

‘Careful review’

It was essential that applicants who had made minor errors were not “inadvertently” caught up in tackling a “wider pattern of abuse,” she acknowledged. “We are carefully reviewing any cases where the evidence is less clear-cut to be sure that the refusal decisions were correct.” Since the debate in Parliament, Nokes has faced criticism from fellow MPs over the suggestion that no judicial reviews had been successful after members of the public and lawyers, swiftly pointed to such cases where they had succeeded. In her letter she acknowledged that in a “small number” of judicial reviews applicants had been successful at a substantive hearing.

She also acknowledged that there were 38 cases where applicants who challenged the government via an appeal had won. “Although the earnings issues were considered on appeal, the majority were overturned solely on human rights grounds rather than because of decision-making errors relating to earnings,’ she wrote.

“It does show they were making mistakes,” says Bhardwaj. “I hope they take note, and we don’t continue to see these refusals especially in regard to appeals where the disproportionate use of this paragraph has taken place. This paragraph was used disproportionately and this should tell them that at the very least not to refuse people where there are serious human rights grounds, such as family ties here and where children are involved.”

COMMENT NOW