BURMA/REFUGEES (r)

[moe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Dear Netters,
                       The following story from the UK paper "The Guardian"
explains how the Burmese refugees are being taken advantage of by
professionals.The story is quite an eye-opening piece of information.At
least you will know what you have never known before.

Regards,

Julien Moe

Law: Give me shelter Incompetent and corrupt advisers are letting
refugees down - and new legislation could make matters worse. Danny
Lee reports 
The Guardian; Manchester; Mar 9, 1999; DANNY LEE; 

Start Page: 
          T017

Abstract:
When Ne Wong arrived in Britain after escaping from political persecution in
Burma, he immediately sought advice on how to apply for asylum. Undaunted by
Wong's weak grasp of English, a solicitor conducted a full interview with
him -
without an interpreter - and failed to note down even the most basic facts
that
would have proved his client's claim. If another advice agency hadn't
intervened,
Wong's case would have been refused, leaving him to be deported into the hands
of his persecutors.

`A minority get good advice,' says Alasdair Mackenzie of Asylum Aid. `The rest
get bad or indifferent advice. There aren't enough good advisers and
neither the
OSS {Office for the Supervision of Solicitors} nor the Government is doing
enough to help.' As well as poor advice, many asylum seekers find
themselves on
the wrong end of legal aid scams. Mackenzie explains: `Unscrupulous solicitors
frequently ring up refugee detention centres, get a person's name, phone the
Home Office to say they are representing the detainee and then claim legal
aid.
They then do no work but still claim payment.' Last month, two London law
firms
were closed down as a result of information the Legal Aid Board gave the OSS,
which has been widely criticised in the past for not being tough enough on
wayward solicitors. Another 40 firms are under investigation.

Full Text:

When Ne Wong arrived in Britain after escaping from political persecution in
Burma, he
immediately sought advice on how to apply for asylum. Undaunted by Wong's
weak grasp
of English, a solicitor conducted a full interview with him - without an
interpreter - and
failed to note down even the most basic facts that would have proved his
client's claim. If
another advice agency hadn't intervened, Wong's case would have been
refused, leaving
him to be deported into the hands of his persecutors.


Wong's case would still be shocking if it was a rare example of refugees
receiving poor
advice, but shoddy and even fraudulent assistance is often all that
vulnerable newcomers
get to help them through the labyrinthine immigration laws. Immigration
minister Mike
O'Brien - a lawyer himself - angered the Law Society last week with a
blistering attack on
the profession for failing to root out `seamy', `incompetent' and `corrupt'
immigration
lawyers.

`A minority get good advice,' says Alasdair Mackenzie of Asylum Aid. `The
rest get bad or
indifferent advice. There aren't enough good advisers and neither the OSS
{Office for the
Supervision of Solicitors} nor the Government is doing enough to help.' As
well as poor
advice, many asylum seekers find themselves on the wrong end of legal aid
scams.
Mackenzie explains: `Unscrupulous solicitors frequently ring up refugee
detention centres,
get a person's name, phone the Home Office to say they are representing the
detainee and
then claim legal aid. They then do no work but still claim payment.' Last
month, two
London law firms were closed down as a result of information the Legal Aid
Board gave
the OSS, which has been widely criticised in the past for not being tough
enough on
wayward solicitors. Another 40 firms are under investigation.

Immigration solicitor Jane Coker sees the trail of havoc wreaked by shoddy
advisers: `If a
client comes to us from one of a number of firms, we will automatically take
the case on.
There are others where we know the advice is good, so we would not take the
client on.
There is no point in changing solicitor for no good reason.' Coker also
points to a wider
crisis: `There aren't enough people who give advice on this type of law, and
those who do
are very overworked.' She is talking at her office at a not untypical
7.30pm, with a mound
of work still demanding her attention.

Practitioners are warning that the situation could get worse when the new
Asylum and
Immigration Act comes into effect, and immigration centres are scattered
throughout the
country to areas which may have no or few advisers.

Dealing with an immigration case is no simple task. Laws and appeal
processes are
notoriously complex and, says Coker, `these are often life-and-death
decisions'. European
human rights laws, children, international treaties and distressed,
non-English-speaking
clients are just a few of the issues that need to be addressed.

These complexities are being taken into account, argues the Law Society, in
its launch of a
new panel of specialist immigration solicitors next June. And the Legal Aid
Board (soon to
become the Legal Services Commission) aims in future to award exclusive
block contracts
for such work only to firms who meet quality standards.

The OSS defends itself against accusations of inaction by pointing out that
it has no power
to investigate firms making fraudulent legal aid applications. `We would
like powers similar
to the Legal Aid Board's, to enable us to demand files from suspect
solicitors,' said a
spokesman.

OSS director Peter Ross criticises the Home Office for failing to help it
crack down. His

office claims the Home Office has given it a list of about 40 practitioners
and firms with no
details of their suspected offences.

Much of the bad advice comes from immigration advisers who are not
solicitors, says
Jawaid Luqmani of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. `There is a
lot of poor
advice from people outside the control of solicitors' organisations. It
would be a good idea
to have compulsory regulation by an outside body where people are giving
advice for
reward.' In a speech last year, former Law Society immigration law
sub-committee
secretary Richard Dunstan claimed: `The majority of lawyers and non-lawyers
in the asylum
field are either insufficiently competent, dishonest or both.' Future
improvements will be
little comfort for asylum seekers like Wong. Without the intervention of a
reputable advice
agency, he might have lost any chance of remaining in this country. Others
may not be so
lucky, finding themselves unjustly turned away from the country that has
prided itself on
offering a safe haven from persecution.

Ne Wong is a pseudonym