Right first time?

By Ellie Smith

This report assesses Home Office asylum interviewing and the Reasons For Refusal Letters (RFRLS) It refers to case studies from the Republic of Cameroon and, in part, follows on from a previous Medical Foundation report, Every Morning Just Like Coffee

Synopsis:

The first purpose of this report is to look in detail at Home Office Reasons For Refusal Letters (RFRLs) as evidence of full and reasoned decisions on asylum claims, paying particular attention to the ability of the Home Office caseworker to analyse and assess evidence of torture, including both medical evidence and applicant testimony. In addition, this report considers the use of standard paragraphs in RFRLs, examines some of the more common arguments raised in the RFRL that go to the applicant's credibility, and analyses the relationship between the content of the RFRL in so far as it relates to the factual situation in The Republic of Cameroon and the various sources of country-of-origin information available to the Home Office caseworker at the time of the decision, including the Home Office's own Country Assessments on Cameroon.

The report's second purpose is to consider the effectiveness of the current Home Office asylum interview as a method of gathering sufficient relevant information to enable the Home Secretary, acting through caseworkers, to determine correctly an applicant's asylum status. Statement of Evidence Form (SEF) interview records for clients in the sample have been analysed by a leading expert in the field of interview practice and procedure, with a view to assessing the ability of the interviewer and the efficacy of the process, to obtain full information relating to a claimant's experience of torture. In addition, attention has been paid to the impact of the structure of the interview, the approach adopted by the interviewer, and their skill in obtaining further information or clarification where necessary.

For the purposes of this report, a survey of RFRLs and asylum interview records was conducted in respect of the 46 Cameroonian clients who first sought the services of the Medical Foundation in 2001 and 2002 and in respect of whom the Medical Foundation has produced documentary evidence supporting allegations of torture, by way of a medico-legal report. Once a survey of those 46 files had been conducted, the RFRLs and asylum interview records of Cameroonian clients who sought the services of the Medical Foundation between May and December 2003 were considered and compared with those in the survey in order to assess whether problems had been rectified or improvements otherwise made.

This report follows on, in part, from the Medical Foundation's earlier report on Cameroon,"Every Morning Just Like Coffee": Torture in Cameroon, June 2002. Having documented in that report a systematic pattern of torture going back to the early 1990s, we now turn our attention to why the Home Office refuses such a high percentage of Cameroonian asylum applications.

Although basing this report on the experiences of clients from Cameroon, the impetus for this research was the significant number of poor quality asylum interview records and RFRLs that are typically seen in respect of Medical Foundation clients from many countries. As a result, unless specific to Cameroon, the points made are not intended to be limited to the chosen sample nationality, but relate equally to the experiences of clients from all refugee-producing countries, and to the asylum determination process as a whole.

This report seeks to indicate where improvements might be made in the interview and assessment processes, and so aims to identify both shortcomings and good practice where appropriate.

Conclusion and Recommendations:

Conduct of interviews

While there were some encouraging signs of impro+vement in the general adequacy of interviewing over the period of the sample, significant further improvements are needed in the quality of interviewing technique when seeking to obtain and examine information relating to torture. These improvements can come only through training, and unless and until an individual is appropriately equipped with the skills necessary to interview a survivor of torture, they should not conduct such interviews.

Presence of a representative

Given the worrying gaps in the official record of an applicant's account as a result of poor interview practice and technique, particularly in relation to torture testimony, it is essential that an applicant's legal representative be present at the interview. If the legal representative is unable to attend the interview, the interview should be postponed until such time as the legal representative can attend, or an alternate representative familiar with both the client and their case, can be located.
Standards of analysis and argument

With Government proposals to reduce the levels of appeal currently open to asylum applicants, it is now more vital than ever that initial decisions on an asylum claim are of the highest quality. The review of RFRLs in this study, however, revealed a consistently poor standard of analysis and argument in the consideration of an applicant's asylum claim, with no obvious signs of improvement in the 2003 sample. This major shortcoming inevitably leads to weak and arbitrary initial decisions.

Standards of guidance

On the whole, guidance provided to decision makers in Home Office APIs, although in some cases seemingly incomplete, was of a good quality.

Application of guidance

The RFRLs in the study sample suggested, however, that in practice these instructions were not always followed, and training of Home Office caseworkers is required if guidelines are to be understood and followed. In particular, substantial training is clearly needed on the legal definition of torture, its relationship to persecution and the evidential value of past persecution.

Need for individual scrutiny

In addition, it is essential that claims receive individual scrutiny, and the use of standard paragraphs, especially when transferred between countries, is largely inconsistent with this requirement. The RFRLs examined for this study indicated that little or no attempt was made to tailor standard provisions to an individual's case, with the result that claimants received worryingly similar refusal letters. This in turn is indicative of a general lack of individual analysis or assessment.
Opportunities to explain and expand

The study showed that where apparent inconsistencies, inaccuracies or mistakes were identified in an account, the applicant was not given the opportunity to address, counter or otherwise explain these. By the Home Office's own admission, such a practice weakens and devalues a decision, and it is essential that steps be taken in future to facilitate any potential rectification.

Consistency with country-of-origin materials

Further, RFRLs were frequently found to be at odds with contemporaneous country-of-origin materials, including, on occasion, the Home Office's own Country Assessments. In other instances, RFRLs distorted source materials, with the result that a claim was refused on the basis of unsupported, misleading, and occasionally inaccurate grounds. Clearly, if safe determinations are to be made, they must be based firmly on factually accurate country materials. It is therefore vital that caseworkers pay close attention to country information, and that they ensure that any RFRL is consistent with known facts about the applicant's country of origin. In addition, the caseworker must ensure that source materials are properly and accurately quoted or otherwise represented in refusal letters.

The types of distortion identified in this study occasionally occurred within the Home Office's Country Assessments themselves. It is beyond the scope of this report to analyse the adequacy of individual CIPU Country Assessments, other than to note that these materials must obviously be accurate, fair and unbiased. Past experience, however, suggests that this is seldom the case, and while steps are currently being taken that aim to rectify these problems, it is too early to say whether or not these will be successful. In particular, it is of concern that the body charged with the improvement of the reports, the Advisory Panel on Country Information, has only an advisory role.

Poor analysis of torture testimony

Finally, the RFRLs examined in this study revealed that caseworkers' analysis of torture testimony was consistently weak, and that medical evidence was frequently downplayed, ignored or even disputed. The handling of expert evidence is of great concern, since it indicates a failure to appreciate the corroborative value of evidence of past persecution, and strongly suggests a presumption, in the absence of contrary expert opinion, to know more than the clinical expert about facts and opinions contained in the medical report. Such conduct can only impair the quality and reliability of an asylum decision, and should not continue.