Path to UK asylum far from assured

[webfact]

Path to UK asylum far from assured

By The Nation 

 

 

Most requests for asylum status in the United Kingdom are rejected due to a strict and complicated screening and placement system, with only 28 per cent of all requests approved last year, according to experts familiar with the process in that country.

According to the UK-based Refugee Council charity, 12,688 asylum applications were made to the British Government from January to August this year.

 

During that period, 10,836 decisions were finalized with 3,731 approvals for refugee status, humanitarian protection, discretionary leave and other grants. The rest, or 7,105 requests, were refused.

 

Fugitive ex-PM Yingluck Shinawatra has reportedly sought political asylum in the UK after having fled from Thailand just prior to being convicted and sentenced to five years in prison for neglecting to properly oversee her government’s corruption-plagued rice-pledging scheme.

 

Thanakrit Worathanatchakul, provincial attorney at the Office of the Attorney General, explained that the UK Home Office usually takes around six months to consider an asylum seeker’s request, but the time can vary due to each case’s complexity.

 

Asylum seekers to the UK must be able to show that they cannot return to their countries because of fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality or political opinions.

 

They may also present that they are at risk of being persecuted because of situations related to social, cultural, religious or political factors.

 

A request can be made immediately upon arrival in the UK. The claimant would meet with officers for interviews and document checking. The seekers must also show proof of where they are going to stay in the UK. They may be accompanied by lawyers during the interviews.

 

Asylum seekers can include their spouses and children aged up to 18 in their requests, if they are present with the seekers at the time of the request. Otherwise, they can make separate requests of their own.

 

The British Government does not consider requests from European Union citizens or from others who have already made asylum requests to other EU countries.

 

If granted approval, seekers can stay in the UK for five years. If they still fear persecution in their home country after that period, they may apply for residency in the UK.

 

They may also be granted humanitarian protection instead of asylum, which will also permit them a five-year stay in the UK.

 

Asylum seekers may appeal to the British courts if their requests are rejected by the UK Home Office.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/breakingnews/30328597

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-10-06

[greenchair]

I am imagine" didn't do your job properly as a prime minister "so go to prison 5 years, might be considered political persecution.

??? 

[trogers]

Perhaps a 100b asset would give strong support to the application...

[robblok]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

I am imagine" didn't do your job properly as a prime minister "so go to prison 5 years, might be considered political persecution.

??? 

You mean did not stop graft she knew about , with a connection of those benefiting to her brother.  That is corruption in any country mate. We had a case like this back in the Netherlands of a government official on city level making some rulings that benefited his brother and not him it was still called corruption even though it did not benefited the goverment official himself. 

 

 

[yellowboat]

She has a better than 28% chance.  She can push the political persecution issue and the poor conditions of her potential captivity.  She also will bring funds to the UK and she can afford the best law firms.  Her chances are around 78%.

[greenchair]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

You mean did not stop graft she knew about , with a connection of those benefiting to her brother.  That is corruption in any country mate. We had a case like this back in the Netherlands of a government official on city level making some rulings that benefited his brother and not him it was still called corruption even though it did not benefited the goverment official himself. 

 

 

So do you mean her brother benefited or the ones that benefitted knew her brother? 

[greenchair]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

You mean did not stop graft she knew about , with a connection of those benefiting to her brother.  That is corruption in any country mate. We had a case like this back in the Netherlands of a government official on city level making some rulings that benefited his brother and not him it was still called corruption even though it did not benefited the goverment official himself. 

 

 

Now Prayuth nephew got a government contract in his firm that had just recently opened. 

And he got a high positioned job with no prior experience. 

Would be similar to your Netherlands example. 

[halloween]

10 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Now Prayuth nephew got a government contract in his firm that had just recently opened. 

And he got a high positioned job with no prior experience. 

Would be similar to your Netherlands example. 

Was it Prime Minister?

[robblok]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

Now Prayuth nephew got a government contract in his firm that had just recently opened. 

And he got a high positioned job with no prior experience. 

Would be similar to your Netherlands example. 

I have always said that was a bad thing and commented on that example a few times. I said the junta was bias with its corruption investigation. Never said denied that or agreed with it. But at least that corruption did not cost 30 billion baht. But they should be investigated too and convicted if guilty.

[robblok]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

So do you mean her brother benefited or the ones that benefitted knew her brother? 

We can only prove that friends of her brother benefited.. the kickback her brother might or might not have gotten cant be proven. But its likely he took his cut. What can be proven in court is more often then not less as what really happened. 

Edited October 6, 2017 by robblok

[ukrules]

To think that she didn't have one of the best UK law firms working on this for weeks or perhaps even months in advance before flying to the UK would be very naive.

 

She will only went to the UK because her lawyers have told her that her case and subsequent claim for asylum is within the regulations.

 

There is no lottery, it's not up to the person rubber stamping the application. If you know the rules 100% then the outcome can be guaranteed. Most applicants have zero idea of what the rules are, hence the their rejections.

 

[wakeupplease]

She went to the UK as its not a house of lies and treats people fairly and knows bulls>>> when they see it.

 

Then the boys will come along and say the UK is not fair as they would not give my wife a visa and I am British, answer is do not tell the immigration your wife worked in a bar as they consider bar girls to be prostitutes and do not want them over there.

[retarius]

I suppose all those here harping on about how bad she is and stuffed her brother's pockets with ill gotten gains from rice sales will change their minds when the UK grants asylum based on political persecution?

Err no thought no, closed minds cannot change.

[oxo1947]

20 minutes ago, retarius said:

I suppose all those here harping on about how bad she is and stuffed her brother's pockets with ill gotten gains from rice sales will change their minds when the UK grants asylum based on political persecution?

Err no thought no, closed minds cannot change.

So its when....not if retarius ??

 

Unlike you, I do not know if the UK will grant her asylum, but maybe you could point out what you feel is the difference  between herself or her brother seeking asylum . Not only no asylum for him... but (reportedly ) he lost a chunk of money tying. The result as far as the UK  is concerned is , --we do not think your even a fit enough person to own a football team in this country....let alone anything else.

 

The British Government Home Office, meanwhile, revoked Potjaman and Thaksin's visas due to their convictions, while the Bangkok British Embassy e-mailed airlines directing them to disallow either of them to board flights to Britain.[206] In late 2008, Arabian Business reported after an exclusive interview that the UK froze $4.2 billion of his assets in the UK. However, the UK government has not confirmed or denied this claim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaksin_Shinawatra

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by oxo1947

[janclaes47]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

But they should be investigated too and convicted if guilty.

But that will never happen because, as you very well know, your heroes gave themselves a blanc amnesty right away.

[janclaes47]

6 minutes ago, oxo1947 said:

So its when....not if retarius ??

 

Unlike you, I do not know if the UK will grant her asylum, but maybe you could point out what you feel is the difference  between herself or her brother seeking asylum . Not only no asylum for him... but (reportedly ) he lost a chunk of money tying. The result as far as the UK  is concerned is , --we do not think your even a fit enough person to own a football team in this country....let alone anything else.

 

The British Government Home Office, meanwhile, revoked Potjaman and Thaksin's visas due to their convictions, while the Bangkok British Embassy e-mailed airlines directing them to disallow either of them to board flights to Britain.[206] In late 2008, Arabian Business reported after an exclusive interview that the UK froze $4.2 billion of his assets in the UK. However, the UK government has not confirmed or denied this claim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaksin_Shinawatra

 

So I guess he sneaked in the UK without a visa, and stay in his ~250 million Baht house in London, last week?

[ukrules]

2 minutes ago, janclaes47 said:

 

So I guess he sneaked in the UK without a visa, and stay in his ~250 million Baht house in London, last week?

 

We don't know his current status. After the announcement that was made in the news today Thaksin himself has just been made immune to extradition requests from pretty much every country in the world.

 

[oxo1947]

8 minutes ago, janclaes47 said:

So I guess he sneaked in the UK without a visa

 

No not sneaked in janclass-- Just like Thailand, there are Visa's & Visa's --he can visit, & anyone can buy property, in fact there are a lot of apartments where I come from that are brought by people that have never ever been to London. Its allowed.

 

If you feel Wikipedia is incorrect, maybe you would like to provide a more up to date link...where he got a visa, and is now living happily in London, because that's where he wanted to live.

 

There is one strong reason that Taksin didn't get Asylum, & I think it will also be the reason Yingluck doesn't get. But maybe I am wrong....unlike some of the posters on here, I am not 100% sure which way it will go....lets see

 

[hstew]

10 hours ago, webfact said:

Thanakrit Worathanatchakul, provincial attorney at the Office of the Attorney General, explained that the UK Home Office usually takes around six months to consider an asylum seeker’s request, but the time can vary due to each case’s complexity

What possibly could this Thai know about ANYTHING relating to political asylum, in the UK of all places! All thai's know is IDC, immigration det. center!

Only an ignorant putz makes such idiotic statements.

[gamini]

10 hours ago, yellowboat said:

She has a better than 28% chance.  She can push the political persecution issue and the poor conditions of her potential captivity.  She also will bring funds to the UK and she can afford the best law firms.  Her chances are around 78%.

But you ignore the fake rice deals that benifited her friends. There is no way she will get asylum. 5 years was a just punishment. Many countries would have given her more

[lamyai3]

4 hours ago, oxo1947 said:

There is one strong reason that Taksin didn't get Asylum, & I think it will also be the reason Yingluck doesn't get.

Yes, why would the British government want to invite a diplomatic headache on this scale?

[ukrules]

1 hour ago, lamyai3 said:

Yes, why would the British government want to invite a diplomatic headache on this scale?

No country will allow extradition for a crime which is not illegal in the country itself.

 

The new arrest warrants issued friday for Thaksin will assure his freedom, this is no accident.

[halloween]

10 minutes ago, ukrules said:

No country will allow extradition for a crime which is not illegal in the country itself.

 

The new arrest warrants issued friday for Thaksin will assure his freedom, this is no accident.

Has it occurred to you that every crime a person is wanted for would not be included in an extradition request. Would an extradition request for a murderer also mention that he is wanted for driving without a licence?

[wakeupplease]

Did Pridi Banomyong not have to get get asylum in France because of a similar problem

[ukrules]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

Has it occurred to you that every crime a person is wanted for would not be included in an extradition request. Would an extradition request for a murderer also mention that he is wanted for driving without a licence?

Of course it has.

 

Has it occured to you that the governments of the world are not so dumb that they would extradite someone who would then potentially be prosecuted for additional crimes once they arrive ?

 

[yellowboat]

4 hours ago, gamini said:

But you ignore the fake rice deals that benifited her friends. There is no way she will get asylum. 5 years was a just punishment. Many countries would have given her more

She new of the deal but did not benefit from it.  Many leaders, if not all, know of illegal activity while in office.  Had she, herself, stole money she might get refused.   Also, courts in other countries will look at the asylum seeker's country's judicial system as well.  They will decide whether or not it is susceptible to political influence.

[halloween]

27 minutes ago, ukrules said:

Of course it has.

 

Has it occured to you that the governments of the world are not so dumb that they would extradite someone who would then potentially be prosecuted for additional crimes once they arrive ?

 

No it hasn't, because only ONE charge has to be proved for extradition. In Thaksin's case, besides his conviction, there are multiple serious offences, many of which should be sufficient for extradition. Because extradition would not be granted on LM does not mean that all other charges are suddenly invalid.

If one of the other charges carried the death penalty, you may have a point, but no such charge exists.

Edited October 6, 2017 by halloween

[BangkokNicky]

Yingluck Shinawatra would be like this D'You Know What I Mean? 

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by BangkokNicky

[wakeupplease]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

No it hasn't, because only ONE charge has to be proved for extradition. In Thaksin's case, besides his conviction, there are multiple serious offences, many of which should be sufficient for extradition. Because extradition would not be granted on LM does not mean that all other charges are suddenly invalid.

If one of the other charges carried the death penalty, you may have a point, but no such charge exists.

Don't you think this smells the same as Pridi Banomyong who was a PM and was hounded out, but helped by the British and the US. Me, I think its how all the bull started.

[ukrules]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

No it hasn't, because only ONE charge has to be proved for extradition. In Thaksin's case, besides his conviction, there are multiple serious offences, many of which should be sufficient for extradition. Because extradition would not be granted on LM does not mean that all other charges are suddenly invalid.

If one of the other charges carried the death penalty, you may have a point, but no such charge exists.

Time will tell on this one, the LM charge will prevent him from ever returning. Quote me on that when it happens.