Mr H complained that, two years after he had applied for permission to stay permanently in the UK, UKVI had still not reached a decision.
What happened
In 2003 Mr H came to the UK from Iraq seeking asylum. UKVI refused his asylum claim, but gave him permission to stay on a temporary basis because of the situation in Iraq at that time. In spring 2011 Mr H asked UKVI to reconsider his asylum claim on some new evidence. In winter 2012, Mr H's Member of Parliament (MP) queried when UKVI would be able to decide his application. UKVI said it was actively managing Mr H's case, but could not say when it would be concluded. Mr H's MP remained in contact with UKVI.
In summer 2013, UKVI told the MP it would begin work on the case within six months. It did and in spring 2014 it decided Mr H's case. However, it refused his asylum claim and decided that there were no exceptional circumstances in his case that allowed it to grant him discretionary leave to stay in the UK. UKVI set out its reasons for that decision. But its letter incorrectly said Mr H had failed to report to it between 2004 and 2010. In fact he had not been asked to report during that period.
What we found
UKVI should have decided Mr H's further submission to his asylum application by late summer 2011. This was within the timescale it had publicly committed to. It did not. Instead, it put Mr H's application into a queue of complex and difficult cases that needed to be resolved.
When Mr H's MP queried the delay in his case in winter 2012, UKVI failed to realise the case should have been decided as a priority the year before. And, instead of deciding it, it misled the MP about how well the case was progressing. When UKVI finally decided Mr H's case, two and a half years later than it should have, its letter contained a factual error. This error had no impact on the decision on Mr H's case, but it meant that Mr H has not had an accurate explanation of UKVI's refusal of his application.
UKVI's failure to decide Mr H's application by late summer 2011, and its failure to give him an accurate explanation of the reasons for its decision, amounted to maladministration.
Putting it right
UKVI should have dealt with Mr H's request to have his asylum claim reconsidered by late summer 2011. As the decision was a refusal of Mr H's application, he benefited from UKVI's delayed handling of his case. However, Mr H has not had an accurate explanation of that decision.
UKVI agreed to apologise to Mr H for not dealing with his request for his asylum claim to be reconsidered sooner. It also agreed to send him a revised decision letter that more accurately sets out the events of his stay in the UK before his application was decided.
UK Visas and Immigration
UK
Not applicable
Not applicable