Mr S complained that, five years after he had applied for permission to stay permanently in the UK, UKVI had still not reached a decision.
What happened
In 2001 Mr S came to the UK from the Kurdish area of 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 late 2008 Mr S's representatives wrote to UKVI and asked it to reconsider Mr S's asylum claim on some new evidence. In autumn 2009 Mr S's MP asked UKVI when it would decide Mr S's request. However, UKVI found no trace of having received it.
Mr S's MP sent UKVI a copy of the missing letter. UKVI received the copy in late 2009, but instead of deciding it, added it to the backlog of 'legacy' cases it was dealing with.
UKVI told Mr S's MP it would decide his case by summer 2011, but it did not do so. Meanwhile, Mr S married and in spring 2013 he asked UKVI to reconsider his case again because his wife was expecting their first child. In winter 2013 UKVI finally decided Mr S's request to stay. It refused his requests for asylum, but granted him permission to stay in the UK for 30 months because of his new circumstances.
What we found
UKVI had mixed up Mr S's records with the records of another Iraqi asylum seeker. In autumn 2009 UKVI told Mr S's MP that it needed to correct this error and would contact the MP again when it had done so. UKVI corrected the error quickly, but then forgot to tell Mr S or the MP it had done so. It then put his case in its queue of cases to be decided, where it remained. In autumn 2010 UKVI told Mr S's MP it was on track to decide his case by summer 2011. UKVI should have decided Mr S's case by this time, and its failure to do so was maladministrative, as was its failure to answer any of Mr S's representatives' enquiries about when his case would be dealt with.
Putting it right
If UKVI had dealt with Mr S's first request to have his asylum claim reconsidered in mid-2011, when it should have done, UKVI would have refused him permission to stay in the UK. Therefore, Mr S benefited from its delayed handling of his case. However, he was inconvenienced by the need to pursue his case through representatives. UKVI apologised to Mr S for not dealing with his first request for his asylum claim to be reconsidered sooner, and also for not replying to his representatives' enquiries.
UK Visas and Immigration
UK
Not applicable
Apology