Before July 2011, asylum claims that have been made before 05-03-07 and had been ‘unresolved’, which meant that there were still actions pending on their cases, were now having their cases resolved. The criteria here were more lenient than under the main immigration rules.
Practically we saw that people who would normally not get Indefinite leave to remain where now getting Indefinite leave to remain based on Article 8. Note that this was not necessarily a case where the floodgates were open to everyone who had a pending application, there were still migrants who were removed from the UK under the legacy cases provisions. However majority of the decisions normally led to ILR.
Importantly the Home Office have not specified the criteria upon which legacy cases are been decided. This presents a case for arbitrariness. How is it that one person gets ILR and the other person doesn’t? This therefore presents point of law for solicitors to scrutinise decisions in line with similar cases in the court of law.
Issues under legacy cases include matters relating to refusal of Indefinite leave to remain application under 10 years long residence and/or article 8 issues, delays in making decisions, granting discretionary leaves rather than Indefinite Leaves to remain and so much more.
The UKBA have offer very little information on Legacy cases, making it relatively difficult to come up with an encompassing definition that is accurately defines Legacy in meaning and accuracy. The best definitions however will include outstanding cases where asylum claims have been made at some point but has not been considered under the New Asylum Model. Where outstanding cases refer to cases where applicants have not been granted leaves but remain resident in the UK.
CASE RESOLUTION DIRECTORATE (CRD)?
The Case Resolution Directorate (CRD) of the United Kingdom Border Agency has been able to conclude an analysis of older asylum cases (also called Legacy cases). Though a small number of these cases have been analysed, the conclusions of the cases are still being expected. Examples of such expectant conclusion cases include:
Please note that this list is not exhaustive.
However, due to the quality of data at the time of making the asylum application, some cases have been omitted from the original CRD review.
For a case to be considered by the Case Assurance and Audit Unit (CAAU), the UKBA would have contacted the applicant and removed their case from the controlled archive. In a situation where contacting the applicant was not possible by the CRD, there is a probability that the case was placed in the controlled archive.