While most of us consider the home a safe and comfortable place, for one in five people aged 16 and over, it represents a place of fear and violence if they are victim-survivors of domestic abuse. However, what is often lost among the already devastating facts and figures about domestic abuse is the reality for those victim-survivors who are also immigrants subject to the harsh realities of the UK’s strict immigration laws.
At the end of April 2021, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 came into force, representing a sea change in the law around domestic abuse in England and Wales. Before this, governance and legislation were fragmented, with domestic abuse undefined in the law. The new act, which sought to address many of these problems, would have been a legitimate cause for optimism about the future of victim-survivors’ rights, if it had not been for one significant oversight.
When the Domestic Abuse Bill was being debated by the government, the problem of migrant victim-survivors’ rights regularly surfaced as a problem demanding urgent attention. It was a key campaign focus of many migrant women’s charities, known as ‘by-and-for’ organisations, and the subject of many tabled amendments, particularly by the House of Lords.
But why exactly does being an immigrant make the situation of a victim-survivor of domestic abuse any different? It all comes down to the way the law impacts those who are both at the mercy of an abuser and of the UK’s strict immigration laws, or hostile environment policy, which has existed since 2012. For years, victim-survivors of domestic abuse who also found themselves subject to UK immigration law were in a unique position of fear – already fearful of consequences from abusers and the authorities when reporting their experiences of domestic abuse, but also afraid of deportation because of their precarious migrant status.
It was all the more problematic that, despite the perfect opportunity to address a grave gap in the law, the government chose to exclude protection for migrant victim-survivors. It also decided to opt out of certain articles of the Istanbul Convention, the main international human rights treaty tackling violence against women and girls. These would have guaranteed residency rights for immigrants who were victim-survivors of domestic abuse. It pointed to a lack of serious concern for the plight of migrant victim-survivors. This was on top of the government’s decision to deny migrants rights to welfare under the no recourse to public funds (NRPF) scheme, which restricts benefits for anyone with non-permanent residence status in the UK.
It is important to recognise that there are some existing concessions for migrant victim-survivors in the law. One allows for a three-month temporary right to remain and access benefits, known as the Migrant Victims of Domestic Abuse Concession (MVDAC); the other more substantial right is to independent permanent residency under Appendix victim of domestic abuse (VDA). Generally, victim-survivors are on dependent spousal visas and rely on their abuser for rights; this right emancipates them from their abusers. However, if we scratch beneath the surface of these concessions, we discover their limitations – a result of ignorance of the real needs and experiences of those migrant victim-survivors forgotten by mainstream legal provisions.
Three elements in particular are indicative of this. Firstly, to be eligible for settlement, you must show evidence of the breakdown of your relationship, in the form of official proof from authorities. These are the same authorities whom victim-survivors fear because of their power to deport migrants. Secondly, if you are not married to your abuser or are the partner of a student, worker or graduate, you cannot seek settlement independently. Thirdly and relatedly, if you claim the concessionary MVDAC, the law dictates that after three months, you must have found another right to remain, or otherwise be forced to leave the country. If you are the partner of a student, worker or graduate, you would not have been eligible for settlement. Therefore, if you claim rights under the MVDAC, after three months, you are left on a cliff-edge, scrambling to obtain a more permanent right to remain, but ineligible for the most secure status.
The government’s official reason for excluding migrant victim-survivors’ rights from the only piece of legislation specifically combating domestic abuse in England and Wales was its desire to gather more evidence via a specifically established Support for Migrant Victims Pilot, running since July 2020. This would allow them to determine whether there needed to be more specific support for migrants. The context is that the MVDAC was introduced in early 2024, following and in response to the publication of the pilot’s first Evaluation Report in August 2023. However, as I have explained above, the MVDAC is flawed and insufficient.
It is a harsh reality for the one in five people who are victim-survivors of domestic abuse if they are also unlucky enough to be immigrants in the UK’s hostile environment. Being at the crossroads of protection against domestic abuse and immigration law enforcement presents a dire situation: they are caught in the trap of not wanting to report their abuse, to begin with, and their situation is made worse by their fear of being deported.
We must continue to shine a spotlight on this problem, which is exacerbated by the government’s strict immigration laws. This will go some way towards eventually ending such discrimination against already vulnerable migrants.
Adrienne Yong is Reader in Law at The City Law School, City St George’s, University of London.
Between a rock and a hard place: domestic abuse and being a migrant woman in England and Wales by Adrienne Yong is available on Bristol University Press Digital.
Bristol University Press/Policy Press newsletter subscribers receive a 25% discount – sign up here.
Follow Transforming Society so we can let you know when new articles publish.
The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Bristol University Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.
Image credit: Alex Ronsdorf via Unsplash