Ye Gods, I've got a traditional HRT appeal, I'm feeling old

A bit of a strange one as well. Mother of a refugee comes over for the 1st time on a family re-union visa and is refused IS on a claim made 2 days later... HRT.

Reg 21AA (4)(g) IS (Gen) says a refugee is not a Person From Abroad.

Pre-amble B of the '67 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees sets out the Principle of Family Unity and states that a refugee's family are to be granted the same rights as said refugee. This, so it is stated elsewhere, is the basis for the family re-union scheme.

CPAG seems to back up my position i.e. mum's not PFA, however the decision maker in my case doesn't and I can't find any authority to the contrary. The citation in CPAG refers to the now non-existent reg 21ZB.

Is there a decision that pre-dates the Comm'rs website that'll help or hinder I wonder?

As ever, answers on a postcard please!

Having read CIS 1972 2003 I think the question is whether the 51 refugee convention and the 67 protocol have been enacted into UK law.

And what definition, if any, of "family" it includes. Is there, for example, any requirement for a relative in the ascending line to show dependency?

I couldn't see a "family" definition when I was reading it.

I may have an additional dilemma as well. Preamble b of the protocol says family members have the same rights, however art 23 of the EU refugee directive, believe it or not 2004/83/EC, states that a family members benefits need not be the same,despite annexing the convention and the protocol with prejudice. That'd possibly give space for an HRT to be imposed.

I'm not at work now so won't quote, but your thoughts would be very welcome as this is likley to go all the way. With any luck if it moves quickly enough Mark Rowland will still be busy with his R2R caseload and someone a bit more pragmatic might get it

Hi,

I'm not sure if this helps, but their is a a dwp circular - DMG Memo JSA/IS 101 that refers to the issue of family reunion and states that those joining family members via family reunion should be entitled to benefits immediately a link to this can be found in the news article on the rightsnet website on 15th July 2005, "Benefits & refugee 'family reunion'.

Latifah - Refugee Resettlement Officer - RASAP

Star

That seems to have been removed since '05 though. It doesn't appear in the memos list in the DMG

Hi Dan,

I can email you a copy if you like?

latifah

Cheers but I think I've cracked it.

The bit in the directive only applies to family members people in "subsidiary protection" which I equate to Humanitarian Protection.

There's still the equation of the family member's benefits being the same as a nationals' ents which of course is liable to the HRT, but where it's not imposed on the refugee then I can argue it would be in breach of our international obligations to impose it.

The directive still says "in accordance with national procedures" so it's not watertight but worth running with.

Well this is listed tomorrow morning so the debate will necessarily be brief.

Art 2 2004/83/EC (the refugee directive) defines a family member as spouse or child, however HMG clearly uses their discretion to accept direct descendants as family members, and states as much both in HC395 and in policy guidance from ACI.

Is it arguable that, in accepting them as family members on the one hand, that the requirements laid out elsewhere in the refugee directive are binding?

Family members of refugees have available to them via art 23 of the refugee directive and art 24 of the '51 convention social security for family responsibilities, i.e lone parent IS, subject to national procedures, whereas it's only family members of subsidiary protection where a state can define conditions.