British authorities promise to create a fairer migration system, but its parameters are not yet known
As BBC notes, the algorithm in question is called Streaming Tool. It is used by UK immigration authorities to sort applications for entry visas, residence permits, or citizenship.
Streaming Tool divides applicants' applications into three categories, assigning each a color code – red, yellow, or green. One of the key factors in deciding which code to assign to a case, and then which officer to send it to, was the applicant's nationality.
It was precisely the role of the "nationality" field in the decision-making process that outraged human rights activists. The lawsuit against the UK Home Office was filed by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and the non-profit organization Foxglove, which engages in human rights advocacy in the digital sphere.
Their lawsuit, filed in early June, describes the details of how the Streaming Tool system works. It mentions a list of high-risk countries (Equality Act Nationality Risk Assessment or EARNA). If an applicant was a citizen of one of the countries on the list, their chances of obtaining a visa, citizenship, or residence permit in the UK automatically decreased.
The list of countries that the ministry considered "posing a risk" to the UK has been used since 2015, the human rights activists claim. The latest version of the EARNA list was compiled in October 2019. Applications from holders of "suspicious" citizenship, all else being equal, had less chance of approval than those from holders of citizenship of other countries. "Officials had to explain to their superiors why they decided to approve an application assigned a red code. They were not required to explain a refusal," the lawsuit materials state.
Furthermore, according to the Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the use of the algorithm created a vicious circle: an increase in the number of visa refusals for holders of "suspicious" citizenship became grounds for including the country in new versions of the list of suspicious countries. All this contradicts the UK's Equality Act 2010, which prohibits discrimination, the NGO believes.
The list itself is not publicly available. The ministry agreed to share its latest version with the court and the NGOs that filed the lawsuit as part of the proceedings. The response on an electronic form from the UK Home Office is published on the website of the NGOs that filed the lawsuit.
Defense representatives refused to discuss the principles of compiling the list, according to the case materials. The government's response also does not openly acknowledge the validity of the NGOs' claims. The ministry says it decided to suspend its use "to make amendments to the process."
"Under these circumstances, it becomes clear that the essence of your claims is academic. The changes you seek are no longer necessary, and any statement you make on this topic will concern a system that is no longer in use," the UK Home Office's response states. The head of the department, Priti Patel, ordered the suspension of the tool from August 7, the ministry assured.
Legal Director of the Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, Chai Patel, welcomed the ministry's decision but emphasized that the UK political system still does not show sufficient sensitivity to racism. "Streaming Tool is decades of institutional racist practices: singling out individual nationalities, immigration raids – turned into a software product," he stressed.
Foxglove founder Cori Crider, in turn, called Streaming Tool "a ticket to the front of the line for white people." "We are very pleased that the Home Office has taken a reasonable stance and stopped using Streaming Tool," she added.
While the algorithm is not in use, nationality will not be a factor in assessing a visa application. However, Foxglove warns that the UK government plans to use new automated algorithms in its work and their use is unlikely to be transparent.