Major new 92-page report identifies several issues affecting the quality of asylum interviews
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has today published a major new report examining the quality and effectiveness of asylum interviews conducted by the Home Office.
The 92-page report, Asylum Interviews in the UK: Audit Findings and Recommendations, can be downloaded here. It reviews current practices, identifies areas for improvement, and makes ten key recommendations aimed at strengthening the asylum decision-making process.
UNHCR's audit identified a number of issues affecting the quality of interviews. Observers found that interview techniques varied widely, with many decision-makers lacking the skills to gather detailed and relevant information. In a sample of 60 interviews reviewed, the full basis of the applicant's claim was unclear in 19 cases. The report also found that credibility issues were often unresolved during the interview, and that interpreting standards sometimes limited the accuracy of information provided by applicants.
UNHCR stated: "This research indicates that there is a real risk that applicants are being refused despite being in need of international protection; and that applicants are being granted asylum even though they are not entitled to it."
The report calls for a structured and consistent interview model to be used across all asylum cases, with particular emphasis on effective questioning, active listening, and properly addressing credibility concerns. It also recommends updating training and interview support tools and strengthening quality assurance mechanisms to ensure that decisions are sustainable, accurate, and fair.
The Home Office formally responded to each of the UNHCR's recommendation (see page 66). Of the ten recommendations, seven were accepted in full and three were partially accepted. Accepted measures include reinforcing the use of the Dialogical Communication Method (DCM) in all interviews, enhancing training on questioning and credibility assessment, revising marking standards, and updating interview support tools. Partially accepted recommendations relate to interpreter training, performance measurement, and increasing the proportion of cases subject to second-pair-of-eyes quality assurance reviews.
The UNHCR's summary of its key recommendations on strengthening the quality of asylum interviews is excerpted and reproduced below:
UNHCR
The UN Refugee Agency
ASYLUM INTERVIEWS IN THE UK
Audit Findings and Recommendations
MARCH 2026
[…]
■ The Home Office should ensure that a best practice model of interviewing is adopted and is used in all asylum interviews.
Underpinning the areas for improvement listed below is an overarching recommendation for the Home Office to ensure that a uniform, structured methodology is used for conducting all asylum interviews. As outlined in the introduction, most effective interview models follow a common structure: preparation; rapport-building; free narrative; exploration of material elements; and closure.
Our review of asylum interviews found no consistent interview approach being applied by Decision-Makers in practice. Although the Dialogical Communication Method (DCM) model is cited in Home Office training as good practice for vulnerable cases, it was rarely applied, and most staff were unfamiliar with it.
There is a clear opportunity for the Home Office to improve interview quality by embedding a structured, best-practice interview model such as the DCM across all asylum processes, including training, tools, and quality assurance.
■ Interview techniques can be strengthened to ensure that decision-makers are able to gather reliable, relevant and detailed information in order to establish the key facts of the asylum claim.
We found that many Decision-Makers lacked the necessary skills to effectively formulate questions and elicit detailed, relevant information during asylum interviews. In 19 of the 60 interviews we observed or reviewed, the full basis of the applicant's claim remained unclear following the substantive interview. As a result, the material elements of claims – the aspects of an applicant's identity, activities and experiences which are relevant to their eligibility for refugee status – were often not properly explored or understood.
Improving the way material elements are explored, including moving away from quiz-like questions, would enable Decision-Makers to gather more reliable and detailed information. A more structured approach to interviewing which includes facilitating a free account and using open questions, probing and closed questions appropriately would help ensure that the material elements of the claim are identified and explored. Additionally, an improved focus on the importance of active listening and analysing the account would enable interviewers to fully understand and explore the material elements of each claim.
Enhancing these practices would likely lead to a reduction in supplementary interviews and contribute to higher-quality decisions.
■ The way in which credibility issues are identified and addressed during the interview can be further improved to ensure the quality and sustainability of asylum decisions.
We found that 27 of 60 interviews ended with credibility issues left unresolved. In 17 of these cases a decision was taken on the case without a further interview. We also identified cases where asylum was refused on the basis of a lack of credibility, despite the fact that the credibility concerns had not been put to the applicant.
Placing greater emphasis on identifying and addressing credibility concerns during the interview itself would lead to more robust and sustainable decisions. Achieving this requires a focus on skills development, enabling Decision-Makers to confidently identify and explore inconsistences and gaps in the applicant's account in a strategic manner, including knowing how to clarify information, when and how to challenge the account and the importance of endeavouring to resolve any credibility issues prior to making a decision on a claim.
■ The accuracy and reliability of information gathered during asylum interviews can be enhanced by providing targeted training to Decision-Makers on working effectively with interpreters, alongside refresher training for interpreters on the Interpreters' Code of Conduct.
Effective communication is essential to the integrity of the asylum interview, and interpreters play a critical role in facilitating this.
We identified issues with interpreting in half of the interviews we observed, including summarising rather than fully translating applicants' responses, and engaging in unsolicited exchanges with applicants. This suggested a lack of clarity on the part of some interpreters regarding their role, but also a limited understanding among interviewers of how to effectively manage and collaborate with interpreters during the interview process.
Improving how interpretation is managed during interviews would enhance the accuracy and completeness of applicant responses. Clearer guidance for both interpreters and Decision-Makers on roles and expectations would help ensure that communication is effective and that interviews remain focused and fair.
■ Training materials should be updated to clearly articulate the Home Office interview model and place a greater emphasis on skills development.
While we observed several examples of good practice within Home Office's Interview Course that is delivered as part of the Foundation Training Programme, our findings indicate that Decision-Makers did not consistently demonstrate a clear understanding of, or the ability to apply, the skills required to conduct high-quality interviews.
There is an opportunity to strengthen the interview training by clearly articulating the Home Office's preferred approach to interviewing and dedicating more time in the training to skills development. Technical Specialists and Senior Caseworkers should also have training on the best practice approach to interviewing so they can support Decision-Makers.
■ Revising Interview Support Tools could lead to higher quality interviews.
The Home Office's expansion of Interview Support Tools represents a positive step toward improving how Decision-Makers prepare for and conduct asylum interviews. These tools have the potential to significantly enhance interview quality by supporting structured preparation and effective questioning. However, our findings suggest that they are not yet consistently delivering their intended outcomes. In some cases, their use may inadvertently limit the disclosure of relevant information, rather than facilitate it.
There is a clear opportunity to revise and refine these tools to ensure they are aligned with a best practice interview model and are designed to elicit reliable, relevant and detailed information. This includes ensuring that semi-structured interview guides reflect the 'reliability hierarchy' of questions, promoting the use of open questions before moving to more focused probing and clarifying questions, and highlighting the importance of active listening and analysing the account. Additionally, clearer guidance should be provided on how and when to use these tools to ensure they are applied consistently and effectively in practice.
■ Aligning operational expectations with staff capacity and capability can help ensure the delivery of high-quality outcomes while supporting a motivated and resilient workforce.
UNHCR welcomes the UK Government's commitment to reducing the asylum backlog, which is essential for both applicants and public confidence. By the end of 2024, over 63,000 decisions had been made, contributing to a 41% reduction in the backlog since March 2023 and representing a significant achievement for the teams that delivered these results.
While UNHCR acknowledges the Home Office's stated commitment to quality decision-making and notes that Senior Leaders have consistently emphasised that quality must be the priority, there were perceptions from Decision-Makers, Technical Specialists and Senior Caseworkers that the need for timely decisions was being prioritised over the need for quality. There was also concern that pressure to meet targets was leading to cases being decided before all necessary information had been gathered from the applicant and properly tested.
The Home Office would benefit from conducting a review of the way it measures outputs, going beyond assessing the number of 'events' required and critically evaluating the overall approach to measuring outputs. The objective should be to ensure that the overall approach to performance targets drives both quality outcomes and efficiencies but also reflects the complexity and demands of the role. This can help maintain staff morale and promote more robust, fair, and consistent decisions. In addition, greater flexibility in how interviews are scheduled and managed, particularly in relation to follow-up interviews, and in enabling the Interview-Decide model to be followed in more cases can better support quality decision-making.
■ Enhancing quality assurance in the immediate term will help maintain high standards in decision-making while systemic improvements to interview procedures are being implemented.
This research indicates that there is a real risk that applicants are being refused despite being in need of international protection; and that applicants are being granted asylum even though they are not entitled to it. This report contains multiple recommendations to address the quality of decision-making, focused on enhancing existing training, improving support tools and further developing the skills of Decision-Makers. This work will take time and it is essential that in the interim, quality assurance mechanisms are enhanced to ensure that decisions are properly reviewed before being served.