Submissions invited from individuals and organisations with experience immigration and asylum appeals
The Home Office has today launched a call for evidence on its plan to create a new independent appeals body staffed adjudicators as part of its reforms to the asylum system. Submissions are open until 11.59pm on 22 April 2026.
Image credit: UK GovernmentYou can access the call for evidence here on GOV.UK.
The plan to replace the replace First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) with a new appeals body was first announced last year. Last week, the Lady Chief Justice remarked, however, that the judiciary was still waiting to be told "what the plan is, what the timeline is, and what the proposals are."
Responses to today's call for evidence are invited from individuals and organisations with experience or expertise in the immigration and asylum appeals system, including legal professionals, regulators, charities, public services and researchers. The Government says submissions will be used to shape the detailed design of the new appeals body and its role within the reformed asylum system.
The consultation is structured around seven themes, including access to justice and procedural safeguards, the use of expert evidence, adjudicator recruitment and training, case management, hearing methods and digital processes, compliance and timeframes, and arrangements for accountability and oversight.
Within these areas, the Government is seeking detailed input on how to ensure fair access to legal advice, representation and practical support such as interpreters, and how to accommodate vulnerabilities through procedural adjustments. It also asks how expert evidence, including medical and country information, should be commissioned, quality-assured and used, including whether a shared body of expert material could improve consistency. On resourcing, views are invited on recruitment criteria, safeguards and training for adjudicators drawn from a wider range of professional backgrounds, as well as how they should access legal expertise.
Further questions cover whether different case types require specialist processes or hearing models, and the balance between paper-based, remote and in-person hearings, including the technology and infrastructure needed to support them. The consultation also seeks views on compliance with timeframes, measures to improve engagement and reduce delays, and how cases should be prioritised, including expedited appeals in certain circumstances. Finally, it asks what mechanisms should be put in place to ensure accountability, transparency and effective oversight of the new body, including whether external regulation or an ombudsman model would be appropriate.