• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Humanitarian aid professionals to fill jobs

JHA - Humanitarian aid professionals to fill jobs

  • Job applications
  • Job application form
    • Employee application form
Home / Journal of Humanitarian Aid / New issues in refugee research

New issues in refugee research

Working Paper No. 37

Statistically correct asylum data: prospects and limitations

Head of Unit Registration and Statistics Programme Coordination Section UNHCR
CP 2500, CH-1211 Geneva 2 Switzerland

E-mail: hovy@unhcr.ch

April 2001

These working papers provide a means for UNHCR staff, consultants, interns and associates to publish the preliminary results of their research on refugee- related issues. The papers do not represent the official views of UNHCR. They are also available online at http://www.unhcr.ch/refworld/pubs/pubon.htm

ISSN 1020-7473

Bela Hovy

Introduction

The subject of asylum seekers, traditionally of interest only to national and international refugee agencies, a handful of human rights lawyers and refugee advocates, has recently caught the attention of population statisticians and migration scholars. Significantly, the Revised UN Recommendations on International Migration Statistics2 devote, for the first time, explicit attention to refugees and asylum seekers.

This paper considers the issue of asylum statistics in Europe. The first part summarizes UNHCR’s role in the collection of asylum statistics, highlighting the organization’s experience in implementing the UN recommendations. The second part uses period-based asylum statistics to illustrate recent trends in asylum migration in Europe. In part three of the paper, the availability and usefulness of period-based statistics are considered by examining the various measures and indicators available to study the asylum process. A comparison is made between a period- and cohort-based analysis, using data from the United Kingdom. The paper concludes that while cohort-based data may provide some valuable insights in the asylum procedure, period-based information remains essential to monitor current international trends.

The international framework

Since its creation in 1950, UNHCR has collected, used and reported statistics on asylum seekers, refugees and other people of concern to the organization. Indeed, UNHCR’s Statute recognizes the key role of statistics: “The High Commissioner shall provide for the protection of refugees falling under the competence of his Office by… obtaining from Governments information concerning the number and conditions of refugees in their territories…”3

Coming under increased pressure to provide accurate and timely refugee figures, in the early 1990s UNHCR established a unit with specific responsibility for the collection, compilation, reporting and analysis of statistics.4 Since that time, the statistical function within UNHCR has been progressively professionalized by means of improved guidelines and training. The number of statistical publications produced by UNHCR has also risen sharply in recent years.5

UNHCR offices are located in more than 120 countries around the world and employ some 5,000 staff. Through its day-to-day contacts with official bodies as well as with the refugees themselves, UNHCR is in a unique position to collect and verify asylum and refugee statistics. In many developing countries, UNHCR is involved in refugee registration at the request of Governments. The UNHCR statistics are based on Government records for most industrialized countries, whereas UNHCR field offices

_______________________________________
1 This paper was orginally presented at the Joint ECE-EUROSTAT work session on Migration Statistics, Geneva, 8-10 May 2000.
2 Statistics Division, United Nations, New York, 1998, Statistical Papers Series M, No. 58, Rev. 1.
3 Statute of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Chapter II, Paragraph 8, General Assembly Resolution 428(V) of 14 December 195
4 For further discussion of UNHCR statistics, see: Jeff Crisp, “Who has counted the refugees? UNHCR and the politics of numbers”, New Issues in Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 12, June 1999.
5 Most statistical publications are available on http://www.unhcr.ch/statist/main.htm

are the source of much of the data from developing countries. Since 1950, UNHCR has compiled global refugee statistics. Since 1994, the Office has issued an annual statistical report.

The revised UN recommendations on international migration statistics

In 1998, the Statistics Division of the United Secretariat published the revised UN recommendations on international migration statistics. Recognizing the numerical importance of asylum flows during the 1990s, the 1998 Recommendations, unlike its predecessor, cover asylum and refugee statistics. UNHCR has been an important contributor to the chapter on asylum statistics.

UNHCR’s most recent Statistical Overview6 mirrors much of what is proposed in the UN Recommendations (see for instance page 78 of the Recommendations). The 1998 Overview provides detailed information on the number of applications, the type of decision (positive, negative, otherwise closed), pending cases and recognition rates by detailed origin for more than 130 asylum countries. Furthermore, it contains longitudinal (10-year) information on asylum for most industrialized countries. Whereas data on asylum applications, type of decision and recognition rates are available for virtually all asylum countries, the coverage of pending cases is less.

The UN recommendations also suggest distinguishing between first instance and appeal procedures. This distinction was systematically introduced during the 1999 round of UNHCR’s global data collection. The 1999 draft tables have a column stating “Type” which indicates (a) the actor responsible for the status determination process (Government or UNHCR) and (b) the administrative level of the procedure. It is expected that the coverage of this latter information will improve in following years.

UNHCR’s 1999 draft tables contain four columns of recognition rates. Whereas the 1998 Statistical Overview used only one denominator (the total number of asylum decisions), the 1999 draft tables uses two (total number of asylum decisions and total number of substantive decisions). The last two columns of the 1999 standard tabulation (“Excl. o/w cl.”) show the Convention and total recognition rates based on the UN Recommendation, that is, a period indicator based on the number of substantive decisions.

Data elements suggested in the UN Recommendations but which prove more difficult to obtain are:

• A systematic breakdown between the number of cases and persons by type of decision (UN Recommendations, table 10 through 13);

• A systematic breakdown between “newly arrived” and “from within country” by type of decision (UN Recommendations, table 12);

_______________________________________
6 Refugees and Others of Concern to UNHCR, 1998 Statistical Overview, Geneva, July 1999 (http:///www.unhcr.ch/statist/main.htm>).

• Information on “stay of deportation”. Information on rejected cases, which are granted stay of deportation, is obviously highly relevant. After all, asylum-seekers whose formal claim for refugee status have been denied may still not be able to return to their own country for refugee-like reasons. From the perspective of UNHCR, what matters it is not so much the granting of official refugee status, but whether any person in need of protection is not sent back against his or her own will. The most fundamental principle in international refugee protection is not the granting of asylum (there is no such right), but protection against “non- refoulement”. Although the data on rejected cases that are not deported are thus highly relevant, few countries produce such reports. And if they do, the extremely short-term nature of process (a removal may be postponed for 1 or 3 months for instance), makes any international comparison less feasible.

As more detail is being collected on asylum procedures, the differences between national procedures become more apparent. One of such differences is the way in which asylum claims are dealt with which have no chance in the actual determination process (“manifestly unfounded claims”). Whereas some countries reject such cases during a pre-screening process (Belgium and Canada for instance), other countries (e.g. United Kingdom) distinguish refusals in those after a full hearing and those on the basis of formal grounds. Clearly, these different asylum processes have a significant effect on some indicators. In the case of Belgium and Canada, does the number of applications concern those submitted to the eligibility procedure or only those which were given a full hearing? Nevertheless, calculating recognition rates on the basis of the number of substantive decisions only, as recommended by the UN, has the advantage that the rates are not “polluted” by formal rejections made either during the pre-screening or at the level of the actual determination process.

Information on the gender and age of asylum-seekers and refugees, as proposed by the UN Recommendations, has become increasingly available in UNHCR statistical publications.7 Whereas prior to 1999, the gender and age was only collected on refugees directly assisted by UNHCR, since 1999 the coverage has been extended to asylum-seekers, refugees and all other groups of concern to UNHCR. Consequently, the coverage of gender and age on asylum-seekers and refugees in Europe has significantly improved in 1999. As noted elsewhere, however, one of the main constraints in providing a genuinely comprehensive coverage of gender and age remains the inability of many industrialized countries to provide this information from their registration systems.

_____________________________________

7 See for instance, Statistics and Registration: A Progress Report, Standing Committee of the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s Programme, dated 7 February 2000 (EC/50/SC/CRP.10), (<http://www.unhcr.ch/refworld/unhcr/prexcom/standcom/2000/50crp10e.html>).

Using asylum statistics during emergencies: the Kosovo crisis

The 1999 Kosovo refugee crisis provides an excellent framework to consider the relevance and use of asylum statistics. In which indicators were policy makers most interested in and what was feasible to provide? Not surprisingly, the indicator drawing most attention was the number of new applications submitted. In addition to reporting on prima facie refugee arrivals in countries in the region, UNHCR started a monthly reporting system on Kosovar asylum applications covering some 24 European countries, a system that was subsequently expanded to cover all nationalities on a monthly basis.8 Weekly asylum applications, however, appeared not feasible.

On several occasions, tables were prepared showing not only applications, but also decisions and pending cases concerning Kosovar asylum-seekers. The number of pending cases appeared an extremely useful indicator as it showed that most Governments, overwhelmed by the number of Kosovar asylum applications, were not able to determine most claims in a speedy fashion. The asylum-seeker stock estimate of pending cases has at least two more advantages. First, it provides a directly comparable indicator to the prima facie refugee stock in the countries neighbouring Kosovo. Second, the information is much more easily understood by the general public as it provides an answer to the question “How many Kosovar asylum-seekers are there?” Unfortunately, only a few countries were able to report regularly on the number of FRY applications pending in the procedure.

One of the main data limitations during the Kosovo crisis was origin. As most asylum countries record only the nationality (country of citizenship) of the applicant, few countries were able to distinguish Kosovar asylum-seekers from other citizens of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). Although UNHCR was able to estimate the number of Kosovar applications among the total number of FRY asylum-seekers submitted during the Kosovo crisis (almost 90%), information on the province of previous residence (Kosovo) as well on the “ethnic origin” (Kosovar) would have in fact been required. Whereas citizenship is generally a sufficient proxy for origin, the Kosovo crisis showed the need for more detail. (The same applies for other groups such as Kurds and gypsies). In view of the increased emphasis European states put on “internal flight alternative”, i.e. the possibility to find refuge within the country of origin in areas considered “safe”, the importance of sub-national information on origin is likely to increase.

A second problem was related to the actual asylum decision process. Most Kosovars whose claims were adjudicated were provided short-term residence status on the basis of humanitarian grounds. The short-term nature of some of these decisions lead to the situation that some cases, which had received a positive decision earlier during the year, were subsequently rejected.

____________________________
8 See for instance Asylum Applications in Europe, 1999. Trends in Monthly, Quarterly and Annual Applications by Country of Asylum and Origin, UNHCR, Geneva, 28 February 2000 (<http://www.unhcr.ch/statist/0002euro/text.htm>).

Recent asylum trends in asylum in Europe

Using period data, this section provides an overview of main asylum trends in Europe. During the period 1995-1999, the 25 European countries listed in table 1 received some 1.6 million asylum-seekers, 85 per cent of which were lodged in the European Union. During 1999, some 450,000 applications were lodged in Europe, 25 per cent more than in 1998. During the past five years, the largest relative increase was recorded in Eastern Europe as its share increased from 1.3 per cent in 1995 to 6 per cent in 1999.

In 1999, 28 per cent of all asylum applications originated from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In Western Europe, Kosovars constituted 33 per cent all asylum- seekers, in Eastern Europe 25 per cent, in Northern Europe 17 per cent and in Southern Europe (excluding Italy) 6 per cent (see Box 1).

Box 1. Asylum applications submitted in Europe, 1995-1999 (%)

Country of asylum

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Total

Eastern Europe

1.3

2.9

3.3

4.8

6.0

4.0

Northern Europe

21.3

17.7

19.5

21.7

24.3

21.4

Southern Europe

3.2

2.9

4.1

5.9

9.8

5.8

Western Europe

74.2

76.4

73.0

67.6

59.8

68.9

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

– of which: EU-15

92.2

89.3

87.2

81.3

81.2

85.4

Source: Table 1

Some 200,000 asylum-seekers were granted Convention refugee status over the past five years in Europe. Although the 1999 decisions are not yet available for Austria and France, it appears that Convention recognition during 1999 in Europe will be considerably lower than during 1998. Table 2 indicates that, since 1995, the annual number of persons recognized under the 1951 UN Convention has fallen each year. This overall decline trend is mostly due to the sharp fall in recognition in Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands. Conversely, Eastern Europe, Northern Europe and Southern Europe all show an increase in persons granted Convention status. The United Kingdom registered the strongest increase in recognition under the Convention.

The number of asylum-seekers who were allowed to remain for humanitarian reasons in Europe during 1999 increased by some 50 per cent compared 1998 (Table 3). Among the main asylum countries, the largest increase was recorded in the United Kingdom (+240%) and Switzerland (+225%), whereas a sharp decrease was registered in Sweden (-55%) and the Netherlands (-35%).

Cohort-based asylum statistics

In the above analysis, the recognition rates were obtained by dividing the number of positive decisions made during year X by the total number of positive and negative decisions made during the same year. In this way, an indicator was obtained concerning the percentage positive decisions taken during a given period. Alternatively, a cohort-based approach looks at a given cohort of asylum-seekers and calculates the recognition rate for this entire cohort. “If all cases submitted over the course of a year are followed through to their completion, the (…) measure can be obtained on a cohort basis” (UN Recommendations, page 81). The interest in this approach is prompted by the significant “carry-over” of asylum decisions from one year to the other. If all applications would be decided during the year the application was made (i.e. no pending cases), one could simply divide the number of positive decisions by the number of applications to obtain the recognition rate during a given year.

While it may be useful to know how many of the asylum-seekers who applied during year X were eventually recognized (or rejected), the policy relevance of this indicator seems limited as the calculation can only be made once all applications from a given year have been decided. As illustrated below, it may take many years before an entire cohort of asylum applications receives a decision.

The length of the asylum procedure

While the interest of “cohort-based” recognition rates may thus be more of an academic nature, cohort-based information becomes absolute key in determining the length of asylum procedure – a critical indicator for the efficiency of the refugee status determination process. Speedy procedures are in the interest of both governments and of genuine refugees. As such, the recent increase in the number of pending cases in a number of countries is a worrying trend and of direct concern to all involved. The example below demonstrates that, whereas the number of cases pending in the procedure is an important indicator, one can only determine the actual length of the procedure by linking the case to the year the application was made.

Comparing period and cohort information: the case of the United Kingdom

The UK has been chosen as it is one of the very few countries which have published the data required for a period and cohort-based analysis. As indicated in Table 7, the UK developed a backlog of some 40,000 decisions in the early 1990s. Despite the fact that in subsequent years the number of decisions sometimes surpassed the number of applications, the situation has, up to this day, not yet been normalized. In fact, due to a sharp increase in applications during 1999, the number of pending increased to some 103,000 by the end of 1999.

Table 8 shows the distribution of asylum decision by the year the application was made. One-quarter or less of all applications lodged in any given year during 1990- 1997 received a decision during the same year (see also Table 9). The three columns of the right hand side of the table, calculated by the author, show the proportion of applications decided by the end of 1998 by year the application was made. For instance, some 20,300 applications lodged in 1990 had been decided by the end of 1998, some 77 per cent of the total number of applications lodged during 1990 (26,200).

Based on the crude assumption that both applications and decisions were distributed evenly throughout each year (no statistics are available by month), Table 10 shows that the average processing time for asylum applications in the UK in first instance was around 2 years for much of the 1990s. Although the situation somewhat improved in 1998 (1.9 compared to 2.4 years in 1997), the situation during 1999 will have undoubtedly worsened. The figures have not yet been published, however.

The granting of refugee status generally take the longest, whereas refusals (including rejections on formal grounds) need the least time in the United Kingdom (see Box 2). At the end of 1998, the average processing time for refugee status and exceptional leave to remain was some 3 years, whereas this was 1.5 years for refusals.

Box 2. Estimated average processing time, United Kingdom

Year of initial decision

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Decisions

1.55

1.70

2.09

2.31

1.85

1.96

1.88

2.35

1.92

Refugee status

1.33

1.90

2.52

2.54

2.38

2.64

3.11

3.43

2.90

Exceptional leave

1.71

2.26

2.42

2.42

1.88

1.79

1.76

2.74

3.03

Refused (total)

1.36

1.31

1.79

2.12

1.82

1.96

1.84

2.16

1.49

Data source: UK Government, calculations by author.

In Box 3, the cohort and period-based recognition rates for the UK have been summarized (see also Table 11 and 12). A number of observations can be made. First, recognition rates in the late 1980s were considerably higher than during the 1990s, a conclusion that can be drawn from the period and the cohort-based rates. Second, a positive relationship exists between recognition rates and the average processing time: the longer the processing time, the higher the rate. This observation cannot be derived from period-based calculations.

Box 3. Cohort and period-based Convention and Exceptional Leave To Remain recognition

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

CON (PB)

23.2

31.8

22.9

8.3

3.2

6.8

3.9

4.8

5.7

11.1

16.9

ELTR (PB)

81.6

87.2

82.5

44.4

47.1

54.3

21.4

21.1

18.7

19.7

29.3

CON (CB)

13.4

14.5

6.0

4.9

17.4

8.9

6.7

5.7

6.3

9.5

8.8

ELTR (CB)

57.6

50.0

60.7

54.6

28.1

38.3

14.7

11.1

14.6

12.7

8.2

Evidence from Canada and Switzerland

Due to a lack of comparable data, it is difficult to ascertain whether the situation in other countries differs from the United Kingdom. However, data on total decisions by year of application from Canada and Switzerland indicate that the asylum processing in the UK is markedly slower than in the other two countries. In Switzerland, more than 60 per cent of the applications lodged in 1998 was decided during 1998, compared to 36 per cent in the UK and to only 23 per cent in Canada. (Note that the Canadian data refer only to the substantive procedure of the Immigration and Refugee Board. Furthermore, the data for the early nineties are difficult to compare with the later data due to a change in the procedure.) At the end of 1998, the estimated average processing time for asylum applications in Switzerland was one year, almost half the UK estimate, where the Canada it was estimated at 1.6 years. It should be stressed, however, that these are rough estimates. More precise information on the duration of the procedure can only established on the basis of monthly data, which were not available to the author. A second major problem for cohort analysis is the absence of data by nationality.

Discussion

The above analysis has shown some of the advantages and disadvantages associated with period- and cohort-based asylum data. First, in the calculation of recognition rates, a cohort approach does not seem to be particularly useful as these rates can only be calculated once all decisions have been taken on applications lodged during a given year. Cohort-based recognition rates for the more recent years are subject to significant change in the near future due to the high level of pending cases in Europe.

Cohort-based data is essential to determine the efficiency of asylum procedures. Unfortunately, very few countries are able to provide the information on the type of decision by month or year of application and by nationality.

The above analysis has shown that period-based recognition rates allow for an instant comparison between years and countries as soon as the year is over. [In this context, it should be recalled that period-based recognition rates measure something else than cohort-based rates.] Furthermore, their much wider availability guarantees a much wider coverage, an important consideration when compiling internationally comparable data. The period-based pending cases at the end of the period have proven a strong indicator of (in -)efficiencies in the asylum procedure.

Table 1. Asylum applications submitted in Europe, 1995-1999

Country of asylum

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Total

Bulgaria

520

300

430

830

1,330

3,410

Czech Rep.

1,410

2,160

2,100

4,080

8,550

18,300

Hungary

590

670

1,110

7,370

11,500

21,240

Poland

840

3,210

3,530

3,370

2,960

13,910

Romania

–

590

1,430

1,240

1,670

4,930

Slovakia

360

420

650

510

1,320

3,260

Eastern Europe

3,720

7,350

9,250

17,400

27,330

65,050

Denmark

5,100

5,890

5,100

5,700

6,470

28,260

Finland

850

710

970

1,270

3,110

6,910

Ireland

420

1,180

3,880

4,630

7,720

17,830

Norway

1,460

1,780

2,270

8,370

10,160

24,040

Sweden

9,050

5,750

9,660

12,840

11,230

48,530

United Kingdom (1)

43,970

29,640

32,500

46,020

71,150

223,280

Northern Europe

60,850

44,950

54,380

78,830

109,840

348,850

Greece

1,310

1,640

4,380

2,950

1,530

11,810

Italy

1,730

680

1,860

11,120

33,360

48,750

Portugal

450

270

250

340

270

1,580

Slovenia

–

40

70

500

870

1,480

Spain

5,680

4,730

4,980

6,650

8,410

30,450

Southern Europe

9,170

7,360

11,540

21,560

44,440

94,070

Austria

5,920

6,990

6,720

13,810

20,130

53,570

Belgium

11,420

12,430

11,790

21,960

35,780

93,380

France

20,170

17,410

21,400

22,370

30,830

112,180

Germany (2)

127,940

116,370

104,350

98,640

95,110

542,410

Liechtenstein

–

–

–

230

520

750

Luxembourg

390

260

430

1,710

2,910

5,700

Netherlands

29,260

22,170

34,440

45,220

39,300

170,390

Switzerland

17,020

18,000

23,980

41,300

46,070

146,370

Western Europe

212,120

193,630

203,110

245,240

270,650

1,124,750

Total

285,860

253,290

278,280

363,030

452,260

1,632,720

– European Union

263,660

226,120

242,710

295,230

367,310

1,395,030

Notes

A dash (“-“) indicates that value is zero, rounded to zero, not available or not applicable.
Data refer to number of persons.
The regions used in this and following tables are from the UN Secretariat, Population Division.

(1) Number of cases. The average number of persons per case is some 1.3.

(2) “New” applications only, that is, excluding applications which are “re-opened”. Source: Governments.

Table 2. Recognition of asylum applicants under the 1951 UN Convention in Europe, 1995-1999

Country of asylum

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Total

Bulgaria

50

150

130

90

180

600

Czech Rep.

60

160

100

80

80

480

Hungary

180

170

160

440

310

1,260

Poland

110

130

150

60

50

500

Romania

–

90

80

180

250

600

Slovakia

70

130

70

50

30

350

Eastern Europe

470

830

690

900

900

3,790

Denmark

4,970

1,440

980

1,090

1,140

9,620

Finland

10

10

10

10

30

70

Ireland

20

40

210

170

510

950

Norway

30

10

90

110

180

420

Sweden

150

130

1,310

1,100

330

3,020

United Kingdom

1,300

2,240

3,990

5,350

7,080

19,960

Northern Europe

6,480

3,870

6,590

7,830

9,270

34,040

Greece

200

230

220

440

150

1,240

Italy

290

170

350

1,030

810

2,650

Portugal

50

10

–

–

20

80

Slovenia

–

–

–

–

–

–

Spain

460

240

160

240

290

1,390

Southern Europe

1,000

650

730

1,710

1,270

5,360

Austria

990

720

640

500

–

2,850

Belgium

1,410

1,680

1,870

1,700

1,480

8,140

France

4,530

4,340

4,110

3,980

–

16,960

Germany

23,470

24,100

18,220

11,320

10,260

87,370

Liechtenstein

–

–

–

–

–

–

Luxembourg

–

10

–

40

–

50

Netherlands

7,980

8,810

6,630

2,360

1,510

27,290

Switzerland

2,650

2,270

2,640

2,030

2,050

11,640

Western Europe

41,030

41,930

34,110

21,930

15,300

154,300

Total

48,980

47,280

42,120

32,370

26,740

197,490

– European Union

45,830

44,170

38,700

29,330

23,610

181,640

Table 3. Humanitarian status granted to asylum applicants in Europe, 1995-19991

Country of asylum

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Total

Bulgaria

20

10

–

10

380

420

Czech Republic

–

–

–

–

–

–

Hungary

–

–

–

230

1,780

2,010

Poland

–

–

–

–

–

–

Romania

–

–

–

100

370

470

Slovakia

–

–

–

–

–

–

Eastern Europe

20

10

–

340

2,530

2,900

Denmark

14,850

6,770

4,470

3,230

2,620

31,940

Finland

230

340

290

380

470

1,710

Ireland

10

10

120

30

40

210

Norway

2,620

1,450

1,090

2,080

3,030

10,270

Sweden

3,540

3,080

7,110

5,970

2,610

22,310

United Kingdom

4,410

5,060

3,120

3,910

13,340

29,840

Northern Europe

25,660

16,710

16,200

15,600

22,110

96,280

Greece

–

70

90

290

410

860

Italy

–

–

–

–

860

860

Portugal

–

60

10

30

50

150

Slovenia

–

–

–

30

10

40

Spain

230

190

200

730

470

1,820

Southern Europe

230

320

300

1,080

1,800

3,730

Austria

–

–

–

–

–

–

Belgium

–

–

–

–

–

–

France

–

–

–

–

–

–

Germany

3,630

2,080

2,770

2,540

2,100

13,120

Liechtenstein

–

–

–

190

–

190

Luxembourg

–

–

–

–

–

–

Netherlands

10,520

14,780

10,360

12,740

7,990

56,390

Switzerland

11,940

8,170

5,980

7,000

22,840

55,930

Western Europe

26,090

25,030

19,110

22,470

32,930

125,630

Total

52,000

42,070

35,610

39,490

59,370

228,540

– European Union

37,420

32,440

28,540

29,850

30,960

159,210

Notes

A dash (“-“) indicates that value is zero, rounded to zero, not available or not applicable.
1 Includes all grants of non-Convention status (“humanitarian”, “de facto”, “B”, etc.), but excludes stay of deportation.

Table 4. Rejected asylum applications in Europe, 1995-19991

Country of asylum

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Total

Bulgaria

10

30

60

110

180

390

Czech Rep.

20

20

1,430

580

1,870

3,920

Hungary

380

440

860

2,950

3,540

8,170

Poland

210

400

600

1,390

2,200

4,800

Romania

–

520

210

2,300

1,650

4,680

Slovakia

60

60

80

40

180

420

Eastern Europe

680

1,470

3,240

7,370

9,620

22,380

Denmark

3,500

4,230

4,920

3,970

3,500

20,120

Finland

270

250

280

240

1,330

2,370

Ireland

40

30

300

1,320

3,640

5,330

Norway

2,420

2,320

2,790

3,290

6,440

17,260

Sweden

5,570

3,100

5,150

6,500

5,590

25,910

United Kingdom

17,710

28,040

22,780

17,470

7,730

93,730

Northern Europe

29,510

37,970

36,220

32,790

28,230

164,720

Greece

1,050

1,650

2,230

3,750

1,570

10,250

Italy

1,430

520

1,310

2,390

630

6,280

Portugal

510

170

210

60

210

1,160

Slovenia

–

20

10

100

170

300

Spain

6,080

4,350

4,620

5,140

5,750

25,940

Southern Europe

9,070

6,710

8,380

11,440

8,330

43,930

Austria

6,630

8,030

7,290

3,490

–

25,440

Belgium

4,130

5,430

7,300

4,830

3,090

24,780

France

24,430

17,860

20,060

18,770

–

81,120

Germany

117,940

126,650

101,890

130,080

80,230

556,790

Liechtenstein

–

–

–

–

–

–

Luxembourg

–

30

20

70

–

120

Netherlands

9,720

34,170

13,780

11,040

51,420

120,130

Switzerland

13,460

14,230

13,430

11,660

27,140

79,920

Western Europe

176,310

206,400

163,770

179,940

161,880

888,300

Total

215,570

252,550

211,610

231,540

208,060

1,119,330

– European Union

199,010

234,510

192,140

209,120

164,690

999,470

Notes

1 Generally only those which have been rejected on the basis of a substantive decision.

Table 5. Convention recognition rates in Europe, 1995-19991

Country of asylum

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Total

Bulgaria

62.5

78.9

68.4

42.9

24.3

42.6

Czech Rep.

75.0

88.9

6.5

12.1

4.1

10.9

Hungary

32.1

27.9

15.7

12.2

5.5

11.0

Poland

34.4

24.5

20.0

4.1

2.2

9.4

Romania

..

14.8

27.6

7.0

11.0

10.4

Slovakia

53.8

68.4

46.7

55.6

14.3

45.5

Eastern Europe

40.2

35.9

17.6

10.5

6.9

13.0

Denmark

21.3

11.6

9.5

13.1

15.7

15.6

Finland

2.0

1.7

1.7

1.6

1.6

1.7

Ireland

28.6

50.0

33.3

11.2

12.2

14.6

Norway

0.6

0.3

2.3

2.0

1.9

1.5

Sweden

1.6

2.1

9.7

8.1

3.9

5.9

United Kingdom

5.6

6.3

13.3

20.0

25.2

13.9

Northern Europe

10.5

6.6

11.2

13.9

15.6

11.5

Greece

16.0

11.8

8.7

9.8

7.0

10.0

Italy

16.9

24.6

21.1

30.1

35.2

27.1

Portugal

8.9

4.2

–

–

7.1

5.8

Slovenia

..

–

–

–

–

–

Spain

6.8

5.0

3.2

3.9

4.5

4.8

Southern Europe

9.7

8.5

7.8

12.0

11.1

10.1

Austria

13.0

8.2

8.1

12.5

..

..

Belgium

25.5

23.6

20.4

26.0

32.4

24.7

France

15.6

19.5

17.0

17.5

..

..

Germany

16.2

15.8

14.8

7.9

11.1

13.3

Liechtenstein

..

..

..

–

..

–

Luxembourg

..

25.0

–

36.4

..

..

Netherlands

28.3

15.3

21.5

9.0

2.5

13.4

Switzerland

9.4

9.2

12.0

9.8

3.9

7.9

Western Europe

16.9

15.3

15.7

9.8

7.3

13.2

Total

15.5

13.8

14.6

10.7

9.1

12.8

– European Union

16.2

14.2

14.9

10.9

10.8

13.6

Notes

1 Total UN Convention (Table 2) divided by total recognized (Table 2 and 3) and total rejected (Table 4) * 100%.

Table 6. Total recognition rates in Europe, 1995-19991

Country of asylum

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Total

Bulgaria

87.5

84.2

68.4

47.6

75.7

72.3

Czech Rep.

75.0

88.9

6.5

12.1

4.1

10.9

Hungary

32.1

27.9

15.7

18.5

37.1

28.6

Poland

34.4

24.5

20.0

4.1

2.2

9.4

Romania

..

14.8

27.6

10.9

27.3

18.6

Slovakia

53.8

68.4

46.7

55.6

14.3

45.5

Eastern Europe

41.9

36.4

17.6

14.4

26.3

23.0

Denmark

85.0

66.0

52.6

52.1

51.8

67.4

Finland

47.1

58.3

51.7

61.9

27.3

42.9

Ireland

42.9

62.5

52.4

13.2

13.1

17.9

Norway

52.3

38.6

29.7

40.0

33.3

38.2

Sweden

39.8

50.9

62.0

52.1

34.5

49.4

United Kingdom (2)

24.4

20.7

23.8

34.6

72.5

34.7

Northern Europe

52.1

35.1

38.6

41.7

52.6

44.2

Greece

16.0

15.4

12.2

16.3

26.3

17.0

Italy

16.9

24.6

21.1

30.1

72.6

35.9

Portugal

8.9

29.2

4.5

33.3

25.0

16.5

Slovenia

..

–

–

23.1

5.6

11.8

Spain

10.2

9.0

7.2

15.9

11.7

11.0

Southern Europe

11.9

12.6

10.9

19.6

26.9

17.1

Austria

13.0

8.2

8.1

12.5

..

..

Belgium

25.5

23.6

20.4

26.0

32.4

24.7

France

15.6

19.5

17.0

17.5

..

..

Germany

18.7

17.1

17.1

9.6

13.3

15.3

Liechtenstein

..

..

..

100.0

..

100.0

Luxembourg

..

25.0

–

36.4

..

..

Netherlands

65.6

40.8

55.2

57.8

15.6

41.1

Switzerland

52.0

42.3

39.1

43.6

47.8

45.8

Western Europe

27.6

24.5

24.5

19.8

23.0

24.0

Total

31.9

26.1

26.9

23.7

29.3

27.6

– European Union

29.5

24.6

25.9

22.1

24.9

25.4

Notes

1 Total recognized (Table 2 and 3) divided by total recognized (Table 2 and 3) and total rejected (Table 4) * 100%.

Table 7. Applications and decisions, United Kingdom, 1988-1998

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

Applications received

3,998

11,640

26,205

44,840

24,605

22,370

1951 Convention status

628

2,210

920

505

1,115

1,590

Exceptional leave to remain

1,578

3,860

2,400

2,190

15,325

11,125

Rejected (full cons.)

496

890

705

2,325

2,675

4,705

Safe 3rd country grounds

270

595

745

Non compliance

785

15,195

5,240

Total refused

496

890

705

3,380

18,465

10,690

Total decisions

2,702

6,960

4,025

6,075

34,905

23,405

Withdrawn

280

350

370

745

1,540

1,925

Pending end-year

34,050

72,070

49,110

45,805

UN Conv. recognition rate

23.2

31.8

22.9

8.3

3.2

6.8

ELTR recognition rate

58.4

55.5

59.6

36.0

43.9

47.5

Total recognition rate

81.6

87.2

82.5

44.4

47.1

54.3

Refusal rate

18.4

12.8

17.5

55.6

52.9

45.7

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Total

Applications received

32,830

43,965

29,640

32,500

46,015

318,608

1951 Convention status

825

1,295

2,240

3,985

5,345

20,658

Exceptional leave to remain

3,660

4,410

5,055

3,115

3,910

56,628

Rejected (full cons.)

12,655

17,705

28,040

22,780

17,465

110,441

Safe 3rd country grounds

865

1,515

1,615

2,550

1,855

10,010

Non compliance

2,985

2,085

2,015

3,615

2,995

34,915

Total refused

16,505

21,305

31,670

28,945

22,315

155,366

Total decisions

20,990

27,010

38,965

36,045

31,570

232,652

Withdrawn

2,390

2,565

2,925

2,065

1,470

16,625

Pending end-year

55,255

69,650

57,405

51,795

64,770

UN Conv. recognition rate

3.9

4.8

5.7

11.1

16.9

8.9

ELTR recognition rate

17.4

16.3

13.0

8.6

12.4

24.3

Total recognition rate

21.4

21.1

18.7

19.7

29.3

33.2

Refusal rate

78.6

78.9

81.3

80.3

70.7

66.8

Source: Home Office Statistical Bulletin, Issue 10/99, Table 5.1 and previous issues

Table 8. Initial decisions on asylum applications by year of application

Year of application:

Year of initial decision

Total decided

Total applied

% decided

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1987 or <

480

260

435

180

70

50

40

35

20

1,570

1988

315

250

320

105

40

45

20

15

10

1,120

3,998

28.0

1989

2,000

1,480

2,345

685

235

180

130

110

60

7,225

11,640

62.1

1990

1,065

2,130

10,855

3,150

805

825

470

595

380

20,275

26,205

77.4

1991

1,600

13,300

9,690

1,535

1,535

785

860

490

29,795

44,840

66.4

1992

1,370

4,220

2,655

1,850

1,390

2,120

760

14,365

24,605

58.4

1993

2,605

6,245

3,590

2,470

1,630

625

17,165

22,370

76.7

1994

4,125

6,465

5,520

3,445

1,025

20,580

32,830

62.7

1995

6,815

12,290

6,280

2,295

27,680

43,965

63.0

1996

9,210

6,075

2,500

17,785

29,640

60.0

1997

9,585

7,940

17,525

32,500

53.9

1998

11,280

11,280

46,015

24.5

Not yet recorded

165

360

6,275

2,770

5,280

5,650

6,540

5,295

4,190

36,525

Total decisions

4,025

6,080

34,900

23,405

20,990

27,005

38,865

36,045

31,575

222,890

318,608

70.0

Source: Home Office Statistical Bulletin, Issue 10/99, Table 5.1

Table 9. Initial decisions on asylum applications by year of application (%)

Year of application:

Year of initial decision

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1987 or <

11.9

4.3

1.2

0.8

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.1

1988

7.8

4.1

0.9

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.0

0.0

1989

49.7

24.3

6.7

2.9

1.1

0.7

0.3

0.3

0.2

1990

26.5

35.0

31.1

13.5

3.8

3.1

1.2

1.7

1.2

1991

–

26.3

38.1

41.4

7.3

5.7

2.0

2.4

1.6

1992

–

–

3.9

18.0

12.6

6.9

3.6

5.9

2.4

1993

–

–

–

11.1

29.8

13.3

6.4

4.5

2.0

1994

–

–

–

–

19.7

23.9

14.2

9.6

3.2

1995

–

–

–

–

–

25.2

31.6

17.4

7.3

1996

–

–

–

–

–

–

23.7

16.9

7.9

1997

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

26.6

25.1

1998

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

35.7

Not yet recorded

4.1

5.9

18.0

11.8

25.2

20.9

16.8

14.7

13.3

Total decisions

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Source: Table 8, calculated by the author.

Table 10. Initial decisions on asylum applications by length of processing time

Average proc. time (yrs)

Year of initial decision

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

11.5

20

10.5

35

10

9.5

40

15

60

8.5

50

20

110

380

7.5

70

45

130

595

490

6.5

180

40

180

470

860

760

5.5

435

105

235

825

785

2,120

625

4.5

260

320

685

805

1,535

1,390

1,630

1,025

3.5

480

250

2,345

3,150

1,535

1,850

2,470

3,445

2,295

2.5

315

1,480

10,855

9,690

2,655

3,590

5,520

6,280

2,500

1.5

2,000

2,130

13,300

4,220

6,245

6,465

12,290

6,075

7,940

0.5

1,065

1,600

1,370

2,605

4,125

6,815

9,210

9,585

11,280

Total (*)

3,860

5,720

28,625

20,635

15,710

21,355

32,325

30,750

27,385

Average

1.55

1.70

2.09

2.31

1.85

1.96

1.88

2.35

1.92

Source: Table 8, calculated by the author. (*) Excluding “not yet recorded”

Table 11. Period based Convention recognition rates, UK

Year of application:

Year of initial decision

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1987 or <

7.3

21.2

13.8

19.4

21.4

10.0

12.5

14.3

25.0

1988

14.3

10.0

14.1

19.0

0.0

11.1

25.0

0.0

50.0

1989

28.5

8.1

8.7

14.6

10.6

2.8

3.8

9.1

16.7

1990

25.8

7.7

3.6

6.3

5.6

4.8

6.4

4.2

11.8

1991

–

8.4

2.0

7.2

4.6

3.3

8.9

9.9

19.4

1992

–

–

6.9

6.8

5.8

13.2

25.9

42.5

59.9

1993

–

–

–

5.0

3.4

4.9

12.6

22.4

54.4

1994

–

–

–

–

2.1

3.6

4.4

13.2

34.6

1995

–

–

–

–

–

1.4

2.8

8.4

25.9

1996

–

–

–

–

–

–

1.1

6.4

25.0

1997

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

5.3

14.6

1998

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

8.8

Not yet recorded

0.0

0.0

0.9

4.3

4.4

8.0

11.7

13.5

15.9

Total

23.0

8.2

3.2

6.8

4.0

4.8

5.8

11.1

16.9

Source: Home Office Statistical Bulletin, Issue 10/99, Table 5.1. Calculations by author.

Table 12. Period based total recognition rates, UK

Year of application:

Year of initial decision

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1987 or <

85.4

80.8

67.8

75.0

42.9

30.0

25.0

28.6

50.0

1988

68.3

66.0

67.2

57.1

37.5

33.3

50.0

33.3

100.0

1989

90.5

77.7

75.9

67.2

21.3

13.9

30.8

68.2

75.0

1990

68.1

31.9

71.0

74.9

19.9

10.9

14.9

33.6

80.3

1991

–

21.9

22.6

57.0

13.7

6.5

12.7

16.3

80.6

1992

–

–

38.3

78.6

43.9

41.4

41.7

50.0

76.3

1993

–

–

–

28.6

19.1

17.3

23.1

31.9

67.2

1994

–

–

–

–

20.0

19.6

9.4

17.6

42.0

1995

–

–

–

–

–

17.7

21.4

16.1

33.8

1996

–

–

–

–

–

–

11.6

18.4

47.2

1997

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

11.3

25.4

1998

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

16.9

Not yet recorded

100.0

36.1

46.3

4.3

16.2

28.5

25.9

24.0

28.5

Total

82.6

44.2

47.1

54.3

21.4

21.1

18.8

19.7

29.3

Source: Home Office Statistical Bulletin, Issue 10/99, Table 5.1. Calculations by author.

Table 13. Speed of asylum decisions taken in Canada, Switzerland and the UK

Average processing time of asylum applications

Year

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

Canada

0.89

0.96

0.95

1.01

1.26

1.35

1.50

1.67

1.61

UK

1.55

1.70

2.09

2.31

1.85

1.96

1.88

2.35

1.92

Switzerland

1.32

1.38

1.82

1.47

1.85

2.18

1.65

1.13

0.98

Percentage applications decided in one year or less

Year

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

Canada

61.0

56.5

58.0

54.7

31.0

29.1

22.7

18.7

22.8

UK

26.5

26.3

3.9

11.1

19.7

25.2

23.7

26.6

35.7

Switzerland

46.7

42.4

25.0

54.6

39.4

46.9

51.2

61.5

65.7

Percentage applications decided in two years or less

Year

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

Canada

100.0

97.7

97.7

96.3

94.4

88.2

81.0

69.7

73.3

UK

76.1

61.3

42.0

29.2

49.4

49.2

55.3

43.4

60.9

Switzerland

81.1

82.6

66.3

72.0

68.1

67.8

80.7

88.9

95.1

Source; Governments, calculations by author.

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Search

Footer

Trabajo y solidaridad
Inviare il tuo curriculum alle aziende

Contact
Privacy Policy
Cookies

Copyright © 2025 · Humanitarian aid professionals to fill jobs