Britain’s soft-touch asylum interviews
● Off icials are told: Don’t reject claims even if migrants lie ● The claimants can refuse to answer any ‘upsetting’ questions ● Assessors ordered not to be sceptical of applicants’ stories
BRITAIN’S extraordinarily ‘soft touch’ approach to assessing asylum claims by illegal migrants can be revealed by The Mail on Sunday today.
This newspaper has obtained a copy of official guidance issued to Home Office staff tasked with handling the backlog of 170,000 applications to stay in the UK by foreign nationals who arrive here in small boats or the back of lorries. Government documents show:
● Officials have been told they cannot reject the testimony of a migrant who is caught lying;
● They are ordered not to be sceptical when quizzing asylum seekers – including those who have come from safe countries;
● Asylum seekers must be reassured that they need not answer upsetting questions;
● Staff are ‘forbidden’ from asking questions about ‘sexual preferences or activity’ when migrants claim to be fleeing persecution due to their sexual orientation.
Rishi Sunak has vowed to slash the mountain of outstanding asylum claims – the highest since records began. The Home Office is recruiting 700 extra case workers, taking its total workforce to 2,500.
But the official guidance for staff who interview asylum seekers reveals how the system appears skewed towards approving claims.
Around three-quarters are given leave to stay – up from before the pandemic when only one third were granted permission.
Critics last night said the guidelines raise major questions over the Government’s ability to strike out fraudulent claims and identify criminals attempting to sneak in.
Richard Tice, leader of Reform
Lawyers charge up to £10k to make fake asylum bid
UK, branded the guidelines a ‘charter for fraud and abuse’.
Mr Tice, who was handed the documents by a whistleblower, added: ‘They are allowed to lie without sanction. Yet case workers assessing applicants are not allowed to be sceptical. No wonder the UK is considered the golden ticket, and a strong magnet for criminals, fraudsters and smugglers.’
Former Brexit Secretary David Davis branded the guidance a ‘formula for failure’ which would ‘reinforce the impression of startling incompetence’ at the Home Office.
The Daily Mail last month revealed how rogue lawyers are charging thousands of pounds to submit false asylum claims for illegal migrants. Some offer to help coach clients to tell lies for their Home Office interview.
Now we can reveal how lying during these interviews – or in the accompanying paperwork – does not necessarily mean that a claim will be thrown out.
A 67-page document, which details guidance to help case workers, states: ‘You must avoid dismissing as unreliable everything the claimant has said solely because they have lied about one aspect of their claim.’
Staff are instead told to ‘assess the relevance of lies in the context of the evidence in the round and you must give the claimant a chance to explain any inconsistencies in their account’.
A separate 71-page document, detailing guidance for staff conducting asylum interviews, says they must ask questions that ‘go to the heart’ of why a claimant has fled their country. But it warns staff that they ‘must not… approach the interview with scepticism’.
Claimants, meanwhile, are reassured that they may request a break at any point ‘if they are tired or if they are finding the process difficult or upsetting’.
The guidance adds: ‘Explain that the claimant should not feel obliged to answer upsetting questions, that it is reasonable for them to interrupt the interview to say if they feel too upset to answer questions on a particular subject…’
Staff are advised that those who are fleeing to the UK because they claim they are being persecuted on the grounds that they are gay, lesbian or bisexual do not have to prove their sexual orientation. Similarly, asylum seekers who claim they have been tortured do not have to prove they were abused.
Case workers are told to use ‘open... non-threatening’ body language, ‘for example, keeping your arms uncrossed and smiling where appropriate’.
Alp Mehmet, of Migration Watch UK which campaigns for tougher border controls, said: ‘It is nonsense that applicants must not be pressed about the very reason that prompts their claim.’
The Home Office said: ‘All asylum applications are considered on their individual merits in line with the asylum rules and the evidence presented. Our processes are underpinned by a robust framework of safeguards and quality checks, ensuring claims are properly considered, decisions are sound, and protection is granted to those who genuinely need it.’
‘Claimants can request a break if they feel tired’
DOES Home Secretary Suella Braverman know what is being done in her name by immigration officials?
Who wrote and approved the guidelines which are used in the questioning of those who seek asylum in this country?
It is often pointed out that the UK approves a much higher proportion of asylum applications than other European countries, such as France which in 2021 refused 76 per cent.
In the same year the UK did almost the exact opposite, allowing 72 per cent and refusing 28 per cent.
Yet, before the Covid crisis, only one third of applicants were successful. Whatever is going on? When we look at the guidance, it is not such a mystery.
They will, once admitted, be granted a level of trust simply not available in most places. In most cases they benefit from the taxes paid by UK citizens.
So it is reasonable to expect they deal honestly with us. In what other area of life, for instance, would the uttering of a proven lie not disqualify an applicant?
Yet Home Office staff have been told not to reject asylum claims from people who have actually been caught lying.
Also, asylum seekers are assured they need not answer questions they view as ‘upsetting’. Claims of persecution on the grounds of sexual orientation must be accepted without hesitation.
What sort of procedure is this? If civil service rules are as skewed as this, it cannot possibly do its job. This is institutional feebleness and it will make the problem worse, not better. Unless this policy is reversed, more will drown at the hands of people-smuggling gangsters. The Home Secretary must act now to reform this absurd guidance.