Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.
uk
www.gov.uk/home-office
DR
AFT
Jack Montgomery
Email:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Reference: 65818
draft
Dat e: 21 October 2021
Dear Jack Montgomery
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST
Thank you for your e-mail of 27 August, in which you ask for information on fraudulent
documents detected for Afghan refugees. Your request has been handled as a request
for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). I wrote to you on 22
September to advise you that further time was being taken to consider your request. I am
sorry for the delay in replying.
If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review
of our handling of your request by submitting a complaint within two months to
xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx, quoting reference 65818. If you ask for an internal
review, it would be helpful if you could say why you are dissatisfied with the response.
As part of any internal review the Department's handling of your information request would
be reassessed by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. If you
were to remain dissatisfied after an internal review, you would have a right of complaint to
the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the FOIA.
Yours sincerely
H Reid
Border Force – Information Rights Team
Border Force is an operational command of the Home Office
ANNEX
Freedom of Information request from Jack Montgomery (reference 65818 )
1. The number of evacuees from Afghanistan found to have forged documents
and/or documents that do not belong to them.
Border Force does not hold the information requested. We are aware that during the
evacuation staff on the ground in Afghanistan identified asylum seekers who were in the
possession of forged documents, or documents that did not belong to them. However,
Border Force does not have access to the information.
2a. The number of evacuees from Afghanistan found to have previously been on
'no-fly' or 'no-entry' lists.
2b. The number of evacuees from Afghanistan found to have previously been
deported from the United Kingdom.
I can confirm that the Home Office holds the information that you have requested.
However, after careful consideration we have decided that the information is exempt from
disclosure under section 31(1) (a) and (e) of the Freedom of Information Act. This provides
that information can be withheld in accordance with law enforcement as the disclosure
would or would be likely to prejudice the operation of immigration controls and the public
interest falls in favour of maintaining the exemption.
Public interest test in relation to section 31(1) – Law enforcement
(a) the prevention and detection of crime
(e) - the operation of the immigration controls.
Some of the exemptions in the FOI Act, referred to as ‘qualified exemptions’, are subject to
a public interest test (PIT). This test is used to balance the public interest in disclosure
against the public interest in maintaining the exemption. We must carry out a PIT where
we are considering using any of the qualified exemptions in response to a request for
information.
The ‘public interest’ is not the same as what interests the public. In carrying out a PIT we
consider the greater good or benefit to the community as a whole if the information is
released or not. Transparency and the ‘right to know’ must be balanced against the need
to enable effective government and to serve the best interests of the public.
The FOIA is ‘applicant blind’. This means that we cannot, and do not, ask about the
motives of anyone who asks for information. In providing a response to one person, we are
expressing a willingness to provide the same response to anyone, including those who
might represent a threat to the UK.
The FOI Act is ‘applicant blind’. This means that we cannot, and do not, ask about the
motives of anyone who asks for information.
In providing a response to one person, we are expressing a willingness to provide the
same response to anyone, including those who might represent a threat to the UK.
Considerations in favour of disclosing the information
The Home Office recognises that there is a general public interest in openness and
transparency in all aspects of government. Border Force has a responsibility to conduct its
business in an open manner, in line with the Government’s transparency agenda. The
disclosure of the information would assure the public that Border Force is committed to
safeguarding the UK against potential threats and also enforce the immigration laws. This
would ultimately increase public confidence in the work of Border Force.
Considerations in favour of maintaining the exemption
We consider that if this information were to be released into the public domain, it would
provide insight into the operational capabilities of Border Force intelligence-based
operations and systems.
Revealing this information, along with other pieces of information obtained under FOIA,
would potentially allow a picture of the intelligence resources available to Border Force
and could lead to the identification of the individuals concerned.
There is clearly a strong public interest in doing everything we can to detect and prevent
crime and ensure that the immigration rules are enforced. Disclosing the requested
information would not be in the public interest as it could impact on the abilities of Border
Force to ensure the lawful implementation of the immigration rules.
We conclude that the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption and
withholding the information. The public interest is in ensuring the integrity of the border
processes and the application of the immigration rules and it would not be in the public
interest to compromise it.
