ILPA warns new Independent Immigration Appeals Authority could undermine judicial independence and the rule of law

In a statement released last week, the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA) has opposed proposals in the Immigration and Asylum Bill to replace the First-tier Tribunal with a new Independent Immigration Appeals Authority (IIAA).

ILPA said the existing tribunal system has developed established procedural rules and judicial oversight over many years, and warned that replacing it with a body it describes as being under executive control could undermine the rule of law and weaken public confidence in the immigration appeals process.

The organisation raised concerns about provisions in the Bill requiring the IIAA to have regard to the public interest as part of the immigration and asylum system, arguing that this, together with the Government's stated objective of integrating appeals into a faster removal process, is incompatible with judicial independence.

ILPA explained: "The Restoring Order and Control paper published in November 2025 sets out two explicit objectives: reducing arrivals and increasing removals. ILPA notes with grave concern that a body designed to be integrated into a system with those stated objectives and structured to accelerate the flow of cases toward removal, raises serious questions about the institutional independence of its decision-making."

The Immigration and Asylum Bill further confirms that the Home Office will be responsible for overseeing recruitment for the new IIAA. The Home Secretary will appoint the authority's Chair and first Chief Executive, with the Chief Executive then responsible for appointing adjudicators. ILPA says this creates a serious risk of perceived or actual bias, and called for the Ministry of Justice and the Judicial Appointments Commission to instead oversee appointments.

On the Government's plans to recruit adjudicators without legal experience, ILPA warned: "Appointing adjudicators without adequate legal expertise, and without the independent appointment and accountability structures of the existing judiciary, risks unlawful decisions and is likely to increase onward appeals to the Upper Tribunal, judicial reviews, and further legal challenges. This will not achieve the policy objective of reducing delays."

The organisation stressed that the consequences of errors in asylum and human rights claims can be grave and irreversible.

ILPA also raised concerns about several procedural provisions in the Bill. It criticised a clause excluding judicial review of case management decisions, as well as provisions allowing some matters to be dealt with without a hearing and, in certain circumstances, permitting proceedings to take place at the request of one party without notice to the other. It said that, given the potentially serious consequences of incorrect immigration decisions, these safeguards are important to ensuring a fair appeals process.

More broadly, ILPA disputed the Government's assertion that delays and backlogs in the existing tribunal system are primarily caused by unmeritorious appeals. Instead, ILPA said evidence points to poor initial Home Office decision-making and shortages in immigration and asylum legal aid as the main causes of backlogs. ILPA called for increased and sustainable legal aid funding, stating that recent fee increases do not address long-term funding shortfalls.

"As the Home Affairs Committee noted as far back as 2003, the real flaws in the system appear to be at the stage of initial decision-making, not that of appeal. More than twenty years on, that conclusion remains as pertinent as ever. Replacing the tribunal will not fix those problems. Addressing the quality of Home Office decisions and increasing access to legal aid will," ILPA stated.