Salary: Minimum £36,000 per annum, maximum starting salary dependent on experience.
Hours per week: These vacancies are full-time, five days per week. But for the right candidates there can be flexibility with this.
Location: This role is remote-working, therefore we encourage applications from anywhere in the UK.
Deadline for receipt of applications: Friday, 07 January 2022 at 11:59 PM
Contact for discussions about the role: Christopher Desira, Director, 07708 941 932
About the role and how to apply:
Seraphus is a leading law firm in the area of European citizens rights and UK immigration law. We are seeking to recruit a Senior Caseworker who can join, enhance and contribute to our excellent team. These vacancies will involve supporting a wide variety of clients with an interesting mix of advice, representation, policy and lobbying, and project management work.
The candidates will support the delivery of complex casework derived from our partnerships with the not-for-profit and charity sector. This includes supporting the homelessness sector with immigration advice, supporting charities delivering EU citizens rights advice under the EU Settlement Scheme and the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement, and bespoke projects to help vulnerable communities through our partnerships with the public sector including the Greater London Authority and Local Authorities.
The candidates will also assist us in the delivery of a range of other immigration matters derived from our partnership with www.freemovement.org.uk.
This is an exciting opportunity for two exceptional individuals with proven experience to provide advice and assistance to the most vulnerable of society. This role will suit those who are looking to develop their supervision and project management skills through the continued development of our not-for-profit projects.
We are an equal opportunities employer and we welcome applicants who self-define as LGBTQ+, Black or Minority Ethnic and those with disabilities. We also strongly encourage applications from those with lived experience of migration.
In all the work that we do our overarching goal is to pursue a human and rights based approach to law, to support those who need our help with accessible high quality legal advice, and to further the understanding that migration is a benefit and a right for everyone.
To apply, please download and read our Job Description and Personal Specification. Please email to email@example.com the following:
1. A maximum two page CV, and
2. a cover letter expressing your interest, explaining how your experience and skills meet the person specification, and provide your availability.
The deadline is: Friday, 07 January 2022 at 11:59 PM. Interviews will be scheduled to take place from Wednesday, 12 January 2022.
If you wish to discuss this opportunity please contact Christopher Desira in confidence on 07708 941 932 or by email at firstname.lastname@example.org
In a statement to the House of Commons this week, the government confirmed that they will not lift the ban that prevents asylum seekers from working whilst they await their application outcome in the UK.
Since October 2018, over 250 charities, businesses, faith groups, think thanks and trade unions came together to campaign against the UK Government’s ban on asylum seekers being able to work whilst their application is being resolved. Their coalition, “Lift the Ban” prepared a report which they presented to the Home Office. In October 2020, they presented the Home Office with a petition that gathered over 180,000 signatures calling on the Government to lift the ban.
But what does this ban entail exactly, and what would lifting it mean?
Under international law, there is no obligation on countries to grant asylum seekers the right to work. Each country is allowed to make their own rules on the matter. Sweden is most generous in its approach, as they do not impose any restrictions on asylum seekers’ working rights. In most other countries, asylum seekers will have to wait a few months before being allowed to work. Sometimes, they will have to pass a resident market labour test to show that the position they are accepting could not be filled by a member of the domestic labour force.
As a general rule, people seeking asylum in the UK are banned from working whilst waiting for their asylum claim to be resolved. Instead, they receive £39.62 per week, or £5.66 per day, from the Home Office to survive, an amount that is laughable in the face of actual cost of living in the UK. This puts many at risk of exploitation and/or destitution.
There are exceptions to this general rule; in some circumstances, asylum seekers may apply for permission to work. For example, if an applicant’s asylum claim is outstanding for 12 months or more, and where the delay is not the applicant’s fault, they may apply to obtain the right to work. If permission is granted, they can then apply for jobs on the Shortage Occupation list. Only applicants themselves can apply for such an exception; dependants of applicants (e.g. partners or children) cannot apply for permission to work at all.
Lift the Ban’s 2018 report argued that these rules are overly restrictive, stating that the UK is “an outlier amongst comparable countries.” Indeed, though certain European countries also require the applicant to do a resident market labour test, the waiting period is often shorter or the types of job available wider. According to Lift the Ban, this is also true for Canada and the USA. In addition, restricting the right to work leads to increased modern slavery and forced labour, as asylum seekers are forced to go underground if they wish to survive.
The report’s recommendations include shortening the timeframe for permission to work from 12 to 6 months and removing restrictions to the types of jobs asylum seekers are allowed to do. Implementing these recommendations would benefit the government financially, said Lift the Ban, estimating benefits of up to £180.8m a year. In addition, allowing asylum seekers to work would push their integration into British society, as well as allow them to live in dignity and security whilst awaiting the outcome of their application.
The government has now responded to Lift the Ban’s recommendations, stating that their evidence “indicates the assumptions underpinning the recommendations are highly optimistic.” Their main argument is that the benefits outlined in Lift the Ban’s report are overstated, because if migrants are allowed to work, they tend to work in precarious jobs, often part-time, and not very lucratively.
Tom Pursglove, MP for Corby, said: "In light of wider priorities to fix the broken asylum system, reduce pull factors to the UK, and ensure our policies do not encourage people to undercut the resident labour force, we are retaining our asylum seeker right to work policy with no further changes." The Home Office considers that resources should instead be redirected to ensure timely responses to asylum claims, so that applicants can resolve their status quickly and either leave the UK upon rejection or stay and find work upon receiving their status.
In summer 2021, the backlog of asylum cases passed 70,000, despite the number of applications being down since the pandemic hit. In addition, the number of applicants waiting an initial decision on their application for longer than six months has been rising 40% year after year since the early 2000s. To clear the backlog, the Home Office wants to create a fast-track system of applications, the framework of which is set out in the Nationality and Borders Bill.
Advocates for lifting the ban, and for a more humane asylum system in general, say that fast-track applications will lead to more mistakes and wrong decisions. As it stands, almost half the initial decisions made by the Home Office are already being overturned upon appeal. The 250-member Lift The Ban coalition certainly agrees with the Home Office that months- if not year-long delays on asylum applications are a disgrace. The solution they present, however, could not be more divergent from the Home Office’s. Though the Home Office’s statement, which ironically took three years to produce, was disappointing, they will not stop campaigning.