UNHCR publishes its observations and recommendations on proposals to replace First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

UNHCR
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS AND CORE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS TO BE CONSIDERED IN DESIGN OF THE NEW APPEALS BODY

MAY 2026

INTRODUCTION

1. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) provides these observations following the Home Secretary's announcement that the Government will establish a new body to hear asylum appeals in the UK. As set out in the Restoring Order and Control policy statement of November 2025, [1] this reform seeks to expand appeals capacity through the creation of a dedicated appeals body. This document sets out the international standards and core due process requirements to help inform the design and operation of that body in order to uphold the rule of law and maintain the fairness, efficiency and integrity of the asylum system. While not exhaustive, the observations below are intended to assist and frame ongoing discussions.

2. The right of an asylum applicant to appeal a negative decision, including a negative admissibility decision, before an authority, court or tribunal that is separate from and independent of the authority that made the original decision, is a core due process standard in promoting the fairness and integrity of the asylum system and is critical in ensuring that the principle of non-refoulement is upheld. [2]

3. From the outset, UNHCR wishes to acknowledge the work of the First-tier Tribunal - Immigration and Asylum Chamber (FTT-IAC) in providing high quality reviews of asylum decisions. The importance of the FTT-IAC in preventing refoulement is evidenced by 2025 data, which shows that between 36% and 43% of initial refusals of protection were overturned on appeal each quarter. [3]

4. UNHCR shares the Government's concern about the growing appeals backlog and recognises the recent measures introduced by the Government to address the backlog of pending cases, including statutory timelines for appeals and increasing sitting days. Delays in determining appeals not only places the lives of individuals affected by incorrect decisions on hold, but also risks eroding public confidence in the asylum system, increasing pressure on public resources, and making it more difficult to return those found not to be in need of international protection.

5. As outlined in the Restoring Order and Control policy statement, the Government considers that more substantial reform is needed and that the establishment of the Independent Appeals Body will allow for resources to be more easily surged to manage demand. Further detail will be needed to assess whether the proposed reforms are likely to achieve their stated aim of reducing the appeals backlog. The way the new body is designed and resourced will be critical to its effectiveness. In this regard, UNHCR cautions against reforms that restrict procedural rights, as experience in other jurisdictions has shown that such measures often generate inefficiencies and exacerbate, rather than resolve backlogs. Further, moves to replace the current FTT-IAC adjudicators, who are experienced and legally trained, with decision-makers who are not required to have any legal experience, risks undermining the quality of decisions.

6. Critically, reform of the appeals process alone is unlikely to achieve its stated objectives unless it is accompanied by sustained improvements in the quality of first-instance decision-making. While UNHCR acknowledges the steps already taken by the Home Office to strengthen decision-making at the initial stage, further progress is both necessary and achievable. Ensuring that decisions are accurate and well-reasoned at first instance is the most effective means of reducing unnecessary appeals and, in turn, minimising pressure on the appellate bodies.

7. UNHCR stands ready to assist the Government's continued efforts to strengthen the asylum system, ensuring that it is able to make accurate, sustainable and timely decisions.

UNHCR'S AUTHORITY

8. UNHCR provides these observations as the agency entrusted by the United Nations General Assembly with the responsibility for providing international protection to refugees and other persons within its mandate, and for assisting governments in seeking permanent solutions to the problem of refugees, [4] pursuant to its duty to supervise the application of the 1951 Convention relating the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (together, "the Refugee Convention"). [5] The UN General Assembly has also entrusted UNHCR with a global mandate to provide protection to stateless persons worldwide and for preventing and reducing statelessness [6] and to supervise the implementation of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons ("1954 Convention") and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness ("1961 Convention"). [7] UNHCR thus has a direct interest in national proceedings affecting refugees and stateless persons.

9. These observations focus on the matters of greatest relevance to UNHCR's mandate, and do not seek to address every consideration relating to the establishment of a new appeals body. The observations focus on appeals which arise from a refusal of protection status. Those who apply for leave as stateless persons and are refused have the right only to an administrative review. Therefore, the Independent Appeals Body would not hear appeals resulting from such applications. Nevertheless, some people in the UK with claims relating to statelessness also have a claim relating to persecution in their country of former habitual residence. Such people are directed to claim asylum [8] and may therefore have the right of appeal in relation to a refusal of protection status. For ease, these observations will refer simply to asylum-seekers as encompassing all those who have made a claim for asylum. These observations focus on those who have been through the asylum system, but some of the principles may apply equally to those bringing other immigration-related human rights appeals.

THE NEED FOR APPEALS REFORM TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE QUALITY OF ASYLUM INTERVIEWS AND DECISION-MAKING

10. UNHCR agrees that there is a need to increase the capacity of the immigration and asylum appeals system. However, expanding appeals capacity alone is unlikely to deliver significant systemic benefit without sustained investment in the quality of first-instance asylum interviews and decision-making.

11. In 2024 and 2025, UNHCR conducted an audit of Home Office asylum interviewing, publishing its findings and recommendations in March 2026. The audit revealed a significant gap between the good-practice interviewing techniques set out in guidance and those applied in practice. Inadequate interviewing was found to translate directly into poor-quality decision-making, undermining the integrity and efficiency of the asylum system as a whole.

12. Of the 60 randomly selected asylum interviews which formed part of the audit, in 27 cases, including applications which were refused, the interview ended without issues relating to the credibility of the applicant's account having been adequately explored or addressed. Furthermore, of the 30 cases where UNHCR additionally reviewed the asylum decision, in 11 out of the 16 cases refused, the applicant had not been given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the credibility points that were used to justify the refusal. [9] This is likely to have resulted in both incorrect refusals and refusals which were correct but which were weakened by procedural shortcomings, such that a successful appeal may be possible.

13. These findings complement published statistics on the proportion of successful asylum appeals cited earlier in this submission and help to explain why, during the first three quarters of 2025, between 29 per cent and 42 per cent of protection appeals were withdrawn. [10] While detailed data on the reasons for withdrawal are not available, anecdotal evidence suggests that appellants rarely withdraw appeals voluntarily. Rather, a significant proportion of withdrawals appear to result from the Home Office withdrawing its refusal decision, often replacing it with a grant of protection. This pattern points strongly to avoidable errors at first instance stage and the consequent generation of unnecessary appeals. While appeals being withdrawn can contribute to reducing the backlog, those appeals will still have generated work for the appeals body prior to withdrawal.

14. UNHCR made ten recommendations to improve the quality of asylum interviewing, seven of which were accepted by the Home Office in full and the remaining three in part. UNHCR has proposed working with the Home Office on implementation, and the Home Office has initiated a parallel Quality Improvement Plan, informed in part by UNHCR's early findings. While these developments are welcome and may already be having a positive effect, further improvements are likely to be required.

15. For these reasons, UNHCR considers that measures to increase appeals capacity, while important, will be most effective if pursued alongside sustained investment in the quality of first-instance asylum interviewing and decision-making. Strengthening initial decision-making is likely to reduce unnecessary appeals, contribute to fairer and timelier outcomes, and enhance the overall effectiveness and credibility of the asylum system.

CORE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS NECESSARY FOR FAIR HEARING OF APPEALS AND RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS

16. Access to Legal Representation, Early Legal Advice, and Professional Interpretation Services

17. High quality, government-funded legal advice and legal representation are fundamental to a fair, effective, and efficient asylum system, both at first instance and on appeal. Accessible and reliable legal representation improves the quality of decision-making, strengthens applicants' understanding of the asylum process, and contributes to more efficient refugee status determination by reducing unnecessary appeals, subsequent applications, and delays. [11] Early access to quality legal advice can also discourage the submission of false or misconceived claims by dispelling misguided or exploitative information. UNHCR therefore considers that enabling broader access to early legal advice, supported by a commensurate increase in the availability of high-quality legal representation, is instrumental in ensuring fair, transparent, and robust asylum procedures.

18. UNHCR therefore welcomes the Government's commitment to ensuring that applicants appealing to the Independent Appeals Body will have access to timely legal advice and representation. [12] This is particularly important in light of the proposal that adjudicators will not be required to have a legal background. In circumstances where neither the applicant is legally represented nor the adjudicator possesses legal expertise, appellants would be significantly disadvantaged in identifying and articulating relevant legal issues, presenting evidence effectively, and ensuring that applicable legal standards are correctly understood and applied. Such circumstances would also be likely to lead to less focused hearings, an increased need for clarification or adjournments, and ultimately longer appeal proceedings, undermining the efficiency of the process.

19. However, simply allowing for the provision of legal aid advice and representation will not guarantee that such services will be available. A 2025 report by Dr Jo Wilding of the University of Sussex found that at least 57% of main applicants (excluding dependants) claiming asylum or appealing a refusal in the First-tier Tribunal were unable to access a legal aid representative. [13]

20. The quality of legal advice and representation also remains an area of concern. A 2016 report commissioned by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and Legal Ombudsman found that solicitors undertaking appeals can sometimes lack competence and that solicitors sometimes lack the skills to obtain and record sufficient, relevant information from asylum-seekers. [14] More recent evidence indicates that these concerns persist and may be worsening. Research conducted by Migrants Organise and partner organisations, based on interviews with 46 individuals across 20 organisations, including legal aid providers, immigration advisers and people who had used legal aid services, found that the availability of good-quality advice has declined in recent years. This is reflected in peer review data, with one panelist noting that the immigration category has the highest proportion of the lowest quality ratings across the legally aided civil sector, increasing by 8% in 2024/2025. [15]

21. To address the shortage of legal aid provision, significant investment is required to increase capacity. Additional strengthened oversight mechanisms are required to address quality issues. UNHCR encourages the Home Office to treat this as an essential component of the reform, necessary to ensure that its objectives of quality, fairness and efficiency can be achieved.

22. Early access to legal aid advice and representation is also crucial prior to the first instance decision. A lack of legal representation may result in inadequate examination and assessment of all the relevant facts and evidence at the first instance decision, thus increasing the likelihood of an incorrect decision, and result in the need for further submissions or an appeal of the decision.

23. In UNHCR's review of 60 asylum interviews from 2024 and 2025, 32 applicants had legal representatives registered as acting on the Home Office's database, though not all of those representatives held a Law Society quality mark for Immigration and Asylum or an Immigration Advice Authority accreditation of the necessary level to provide full representation at application stage. Of the 32 asylum applicants who had legal representatives, a significant number appeared to have received minimal assistance from their representatives. For example, very few representatives submitted written statements from their clients. Most representatives made no corrections to the screening interview record, including in instances where their clients mentioned errors themselves during the substantive interview. Additionally, very few representatives made corrections to the substantive interview record, even where UNHCR noted potentially material errors in the transcript. These are all aspects of representing individuals which appear in the Independent Legal Practitioners' Association best practice guide, Making an Asylum Application. [16]

24. In addition to the need for legal advice, which asylum-seekers are often unable to access, there is a need to ensure that they receive clear information about the asylum process in a language they understand. Effective access to information, including the reasons for a negative decision and guidance on how to lodge an appeal, enables applicants to make informed decisions about next steps and to understand the potential consequences of those decisions. This may also reduce the submission of unfounded or repeat applications, thereby improving the overall efficiency of the system.

25. UNHCR notes that the current practice in the UK is to provide decisions letters in English only. If the Home Office is unable to provide translated decisions, effort should be made to ensure that applicants receive an oral translation of the decision letter, particularly when they do not have a legal representative to assist them with this. Further, information about the appeals process and how to access legal advice should be available in a range of languages so that applicants are able to access it independently of a legal representative.

26. Adjudicator recruitment and training

27. The Government has indicated that adjudicators appointed to the Independent Appeals Body will not be required to have a legal background or legal qualifications. As set out in the call for evidence, the Government considers that the current requirement of a minimum of five years' post-qualification legal experience limits recruitment to a relatively small pool, thereby contributing to capacity constraints and backlogs within the appeals system.

28. While UNHCR acknowledges the significant pressures to increase capacity, requirements relating to adjudicators' skills and expertise should not be lowered solely in response to those pressures. Recruitment decisions should instead be guided primarily by the professional competencies necessary to discharge the role effectively, including appropriate legal expertise.

29. Asylum appeals commonly involve complex legal and evidential issues, including the interpretation and application of international refugee law, the assessment of credibility, and the evaluation of country-of-origin information. Adjudicators with relevant legal expertise are better equipped to identify the issues in a case, apply the correct legal standards, and ensure that procedural safeguards are respected. This expertise supports consistent and well-reasoned decisions, reduces the risk of legal error, and limits the likelihood of unnecessary further appeals. In addition, experienced adjudicators are better placed to manage hearings effectively, engage appropriately with vulnerable appellants, and ensure that proceedings remain focused, thereby promoting both fairness and efficiency in the asylum system.

30. The need for highly skilled and professional adjudicators is particularly important given ongoing concerns regarding the quality of first-instance decision-making in the UK, and the vital role currently played by the FFT-IAC in identifying and correcting errors. UNHCR's audit of asylum interviewing found that the interview process frequently resulted in a situation where it was unclear, based on the evidence obtained, whether the applicant was entitled to international protection. Refusals of asylum claims based on insufficient information will result in the Independent Appeals Body having to establish for itself the factual basis on which it will arrive at its decision. Additionally, in cases where appellants are unrepresented at the appeal hearing, as is often the case, adjudicators may be required to assume an essentially investigative role, replicating aspects of the Home Office fact-finding function. In this instance an adjudicator would need specialist expertise and experience to enable them to be alert to any shortcomings with the Home Office interview which may have introduced elements of unfairness.

31. Given the complexity of refugee and migration law, UNHCR considers that, at a minimum, adjudicators should possess strong legal knowledge and the ability to apply legal principles in practice. Lowering requirements relating to skills and expertise risks producing the opposite effect to that intended, as inadequately prepared adjudicators may struggle with complex asylum law and procedure. This, in turn, may lead to flawed decisions requiring further review or appeal, increased delays, and additional workload, thereby exacerbating, rather than alleviating, system inefficiencies and backlogs.

32. In considering the appropriate level of experience required, UNHCR encourages the UK to draw on the experiences of other states that have replaced judicial courts with non-judicial bodies for the determination of asylum appeals. In Denmark, an asylum system frequently cited as a model for the UK, the Refugee Appeals Board operates as a quasi-judicial body composed of three members: a Chair, who is an appointed judge; one member appointed by the Minister for Refugees, Immigration and Integration Affairs; and one member appointed following nomination by the Council of the Danish Bar and Law Society. [17]

33. Likewise, in Canada, where the appellate body (as with the first-instance body) is a non-judicial body independent of government, legal experience is a requirement of the role. [18] Under its Quality Assurance Framework for Decision-Making, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) has developed staffing strategies and tools to enable merit-based recruitment. During the hiring process, applicants must successfully complete a written exam and an interview that are tailored to measure decision-making ability, alongside other necessary qualities, such as judgment and reasoning, information-seeking and self-control. [19]

34. In Norway, as in Denmark, the Immigration Appeals Board is composed of a mix of qualified judges and others with direct relevant experience. Though more junior staff are not always legally qualified, they are appointed due to their specific experience, as recognised by relevant bodies:

Our board leaders have law degrees and are qualified to serve as judges in a court of law. Some of them also have court experience. Most of our case officers have a law degree, but we also employ many case officers with higher education in other fields, such as political science, anthropology, history and religious studies. Many of them have specialised in human rights and international law.

Our board members are recommended by the Norwegian Association of Lawyers, the Norwegian Association of Social Scientists, the County Governors and voluntary organisations. The board members are not required to have any particular background or qualifications, but many have been recommended on the basis of interests, engagement and knowledge. [20]

35. In Australia, it was widely acknowledged that the recruitment of adjudicators who lacked sufficient legal qualifications or relevant experience contributed to significant delays in the determination of appeals and to the growth of the appeals backlog. These concerns were among the factors that ultimately led the Australian Government to abolish both the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). Recent legislation has since established a new federal administrative review tribunal, accompanied by a renewed emphasis on institutional integrity, decision-making quality, and higher recruitment standards for tribunal members. [21] Under the new framework, a person may not be appointed as an adjudicator unless they are enrolled as a legal practitioner with at least five years' standing, or the Minister is satisfied that they have at least five years of specialised training or experience in a subject matter relevant to the Tribunal's jurisdiction. [22]

36. The Home Office has indicated that adjudicators, including those without a legal background or prior experience in refugee status determination, will be supported to develop skills required for the role through training. While effective training will be an essential component of the new body's design, the inherent complexity of asylum and refugee law means that training must complement, rather than replace, prior relevant legal knowledge and experience. UNHCR therefore cautions against an approach that places undue reliance on training as a substitute for established expertise.

37. To support high-quality and legally sound decision-making, adjudicators should receive comprehensive and ongoing training, complementing their prior skills and experience. Those designing training for the new Independent Appeals Body would do well to incorporate elements of the training provided to Home Office asylum decision-makers, both in decision-making and in interviewing, the latter training modules which UNHCR has reviewed recently and considers as representing excellent practice.

38. Additionally, UNHCR would advise those designing training for adjudicators to heed the findings and recommendations of its report Asylum Interviews in the UK. [23] Without well thought-out training, adjudicators may end up replicating many of the shortcomings displayed by some Home Office interviewers. In particular, adjudicators will need to be skilled in working with interpreters and will need to be familiar with the scientific theory of memory when placing weight on appellants' answers.

39. The Home Office should also consider examples from other jurisdictions, such as Canada where, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) has established a 'New Member Training' project, which runs an approximately seven-week training to ensure all new members have a standardised approach to conducting hearings and rendering decisions. [24]

40. Specialised training will also be needed to enhance adjudicators' awareness of and sensitivity towards asylum-seekers' vulnerabilities and specific needs and their awareness of legal and procedural issues that apply. This can help ensure the specific needs of particularly vulnerable appellants are taken into account and enable the sensitive and flexible handling of their appeals. Training and expertise are also needed to ensure adjudicators are aware of and responsive to cultural or religious sensitivities or personal factors such as age, gender, socio-economic status and level of education. Specialised training on the particular aspects of asylum claims based on diverse sexual orientation and/or gender identity is likewise crucial. [25]

41. Support for appellants with specific needs or vulnerabilities

42. UNHCR welcomes the Home Office's consideration of how the new Independent Appeals Body can accommodate specific needs or vulnerabilities through the provision of reasonable adjustments and tailored procedural support. Such measures are essential to ensuring fairness and accessibility in appeal proceedings. The Independent Appeals Body should therefore be designed to actively identify vulnerability and to respond with appropriate procedural safeguards, including flexible procedures, necessary accommodations, and trauma-informed practices, so that all appellants are able to participate meaningfully and on an equitable basis, in line with international human rights and refugee law standards.

43. Asylum-seekers have been recognised by international courts as a particularly vulnerable population group in need of special protection. Within this group, some appellants face heightened or compounding vulnerabilities arising from age, gender, disability, identity, or traumatic experiences in their country of origin or during flight. The Independent Appeals Body must therefore play an active role in protecting the safety, dignity, and interests of applicants who have experienced, or are at risk of, trauma or abuse.

44. Individuals with specific needs or vulnerabilities, whether represented or unrepresented, may require additional support to ensure they are able to participate fully and on an equitable basis. UNHCR considers that vulnerable applicants may include, but are not limited to, unaccompanied and separated children and adolescents, older persons, pregnant women or girls, single parents with minor children, victims or potential victims of trafficking, persons with diverse sexual orientation and/or gender identity, persons with physical or mental disabilities, stateless persons, members of ethnic or religious minorities, indigenous peoples, and victims or survivors of torture, rape, or other serious forms of psychological, physical, or sexual abuse. [26] Traumatized persons may experience intersecting or compounding vulnerabilities and may therefore require tailored safeguards throughout the appeals process.

45. The FFT-IAC already has in place guidance to ensure full and equitable participation of vulnerable groups in the appeals process. Comparable guidance should be developed for the Independent Appeals Body, setting out clear principles and minimum standards for identifying vulnerability and accommodating appellants' specific needs. Such guidance should provide for sensitive, flexible handling of appeals, including where multiple hearings or modified procedures are required. In particular, the guidance should address the following considerations:

46. Children. States are obliged under Article 22 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) to take appropriate measures to ensure that a child, whether accompanied, unaccompanied, or separated, who is seeking refugee status receives appropriate protection. This includes by establishing an appeals system that is able to take account of the particular situation of child asylum-seekers both procedurally and substantively. The best interests of the child must be treated as a primary consideration at all stages of the appeal. A suitably qualified legal representative should be appointed and a responsible adult should be identified from the outset of the asylum claim and remain in place throughout the appeal. Children's appeals should, as a general rule, be examined on a priority basis.

47. Women. Where an adjudicator conducts factfinding, particularly in the absence of a legal representative, gender and culturally sensitive investigative skills are key to enabling disclosure, identifying persecution, and ensuring an accurate assessment of the claim. In order to ensure that male and female appellants have equal access to the appeals process, the Independent Appeals Body needs to ensure that appeal hearing procedures are gender sensitive. As well as ensuring that gender-related forms of persecution are recognised by adjudicators, hearings must be conducted in a gender-sensitive manner so that female asylum-seekers can present their claim effectively. The Independent Appeals Body should be mindful that some female appellants may require a female-only hearing and that it may be appropriate to hold some hearings in camera.

48. Survivors of violence and torture and traumatised persons. Particular care should be taken to ensure that survivors of torture, sexual or gender-based violence, and other serious forms of trauma are able to participate fully and effectively in appeal proceedings. Several hearings may be required to establish trust and obtain complete evidence. Incomplete or late disclosure should not automatically be treated as adverse to credibility, as it may reflect trauma-related impacts on memory, recall, or disclosure. The Independent Appeals Body should give due weight to the views of professionals providing medical, psychological, psychosocial, or other specialised support when determining what procedural adjustments are required.

49. Persons with diverse sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Adjudicators must maintain an objective approach so that they do not reach conclusions based on stereotypical, inaccurate or inappropriate perceptions of individuals with diverse sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Adjudicators must avoid expressing, whether verbally or through body language, any judgement about the asylum-seeker's sexual orientation, gender identity, sexual behaviour or relationship pattern. They should use vocabulary that is non-offensive and shows a positive disposition towards diversity of sexual orientation and gender identity. Using inappropriate terminology can hinder appellants from presenting the actual nature of their fear.

50. Persons with disabilities. Respect for the dignity and individual autonomy of persons with disabilities and the principles of non-discrimination and participation set out in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities should guide the Independent Appeal Body's handling of appeals of persons with disabilities. The Independent Appeal Body must ensure that persons with physical disabilities are able to physically access premises for participation in their appeal. Persons with mental disabilities or suffering from mental health problems may need to be accompanied by an appointed guardian or representative (in addition to a legal representative) and may require medical or psychosocial support. As with child asylum-seekers, their appeals should, as a general rule, be examined on a priority basis. [27]

51. Hearing methods

52. The Home Office has indicated that it is considering whether the Independent Appeals Body should operate on the assumption that most cases will be determined on the papers. While there may be opportunities associated with such an approach for some caseloads, UNHCR cautions against such an approach for protection and human rights claims.

53. UNHCR notes that, as a general rule, appellants should be given the opportunity to present their appeal in person. [28] This is particularly important where the negative decision was based on credibility findings that were not adequately addressed during the interview. [29] An appeal hearing provides an appellant not only with an opportunity to present and be questioned about any new evidence, or evidence of a change in circumstances, presented at the appeal stage, [30] but also to remedy any procedural issues arising from the Home Office's asylum interview. Issues which commonly arise can include: relevant information presented by the applicant not being adequately considered in the interview and subsequent decision; inadequate interpretation at the interview; the conduct of the interview providing the applicant with a limited opportunity for the applicant to present relevant information; and the applicant being given no, or limited, opportunity to respond to credibility concerns. [31]

54. Given the risk of refoulement if the Independent Appeals Body does not reach the correct decision, UNHCR urges the government to maintain the right to be heard in the appeals process by affording asylum-seekers the right to a hearing. In light of the shortcomings identified in UNHCR's recent audit of asylum interviewing practices, it cannot be assumed that all relevant aspects of an applicant's claim will have been fully elicited, understood, or accurately recorded at the application stage. Issues with interpreting were common and, frequently, issues which were said to affect an applicant's credibility were not raised with the applicant during the interview. [32] An appeal hearing is therefore likely to be necessary not only to test any new evidence, but also to enable appellants to properly present, clarify, and be questioned on the substance of their claim, including matters that may not be reflected on the existing file. This is critical to ensuring a fair, complete, and accurate assessment of international protection needs.

55. Recent experience in Australia illustrates the risks of relying on paper-based determination of asylum appeals as a default means of improving efficiency. The Australian Government has moved away from this approach and reverted to oral hearings after measures allowing some appeals to be determined on the papers were found not to deliver the anticipated efficiencies. Under the former model, applicants were not interviewed and were generally denied the opportunity to present new information, save in "exceptional circumstances". While this approach may initially have reduced the average time taken by the Immigration Assessment Authority to finalise decisions, it resulted in very high rates of successful judicial review in the federal courts. These outcomes, in turn, led to significant delays and inefficiencies in the system overall, undermining both fairness and finality and demonstrating that paper-based appeals may fail to achieve their intended efficiency gains. [33]

56. The need for oral hearings is particularly acute for unrepresented appellants, who are unlikely to be able to exercise an effective right to redress through paper-based processes alone. For such appellants, an appeal hearing may be the only meaningful opportunity to clarify their evidence, and respond to adverse findings, especially in circumstances where access to legal assistance is limited or unavailable.

57. Moreover, providing appellants with the opportunity to participate in an oral hearing may contribute to greater acceptance of appeal outcomes, including unfavourable decisions. Meaningful participation can enhance perceptions of procedural fairness and legitimacy, supporting confidence in the appeals system and reducing the likelihood of further challenge.

58. Case acceleration and prioritisation

59. The Home Office has indicated that it will legislate to prioritise and accelerate appeals in certain categories of cases, including foreign national offenders, and detained individuals who are readily removable, where this is considered to be in the public interest. UNHCR shares the objective of determining asylum claims as promptly as possible, in a manner consistent with international standards, and of returning those who are found not to be in need of international protection and who have no other lawful basis to remain in the UK. However, any such measures must be accompanied by robust due process standards and procedural safeguards, given the serious risk of refoulement arising from an incorrect decision.

60. In considering how the new Independent Appeals Body might prioritise or accelerate cases, UNHCR emphasises that efficiency objectives must be balanced against the need for fairness, accuracy, and effective access to justice. Any approach should retain sufficient flexibility to respond to the individual circumstances of appellants and avoid overly compressed timeframes that risk undermining the quality and robustness of decision-making, particularly given the serious consequences at stake in asylum appeals.

61. In this regard, UNHCR recalls that, according to its Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, one of the basic requirements of an appeal procedure is that the asylum-seeker be afforded a "reasonable time to appeal." [34] Asylum-seekers are often in situations of heightened vulnerability and may face significant obstacles in understanding legal determinations, gathering evidence, and preparing effective submissions. Additional challenges may arise in building trust with legal representatives and developing the confidence necessary to fully articulate their claim, particularly for those who have experienced trauma.

62. Accelerated procedures may be appropriate in limited circumstances, such as in relation to manifestly unfounded or repeat claims, provided that such procedures remain sufficiently flexible and include adequate procedural safeguards. However, appeals should not be accelerated for reasons unrelated to their merits, as this risks diverting complex or fact-sensitive cases into processes ill-suited to fair determination. This stands in contrast to manifestly unfounded claims or repeat claims that do not raise materially different protection needs, which under existing UK arrangements are already excluded from the right of appeal through the "certification" and "fresh claim" frameworks respectively.

63. In considering accelerated processing, it is important to recognise the practical risks associated with compressed timescales, particularly in relation to access to legal advice, the gathering of supporting evidence, and effective participation. Where appellants are unable to obtain timely legal assistance or sufficient time to prepare their case, there is an increased risk that individuals in need of international protection, or with another lawful basis to remain in the UK, may be wrongly removed, or that meritorious challenges are only raised at a late stage. Accelerated procedures that impede access to justice are also likely to generate further litigation challenging the fairness of the process itself, while attempts to mitigate these risks through repeated extensions may consume significant administrative resources and ultimately undermine the efficiency gains such schemes are intended to achieve.

64. Any decision to accelerate certain cases should therefore ensure that the Independent Appeals Body recognises where additional time is required to obtain supporting evidence. The Independent Appeals Body should be receptive to reasoned requests from appellants and their representatives and grant adjournments or extensions of time where it is in the interests of justice to do so, bearing in mind the seriousness of the consequences for appellants if an appeal is wrongly dismissed. In this regard, those designing the new system should be mindful of the FFT-IAC's own assessment that, prior to recent Tribunal reform, appellants were not always afforded sufficient time to gather relevant evidence or properly prepare their appeals, placing unfair pressure on them and risking flawed outcomes. [35]

65. If any form of "fast-track" procedure is to operate, it should not involve the curtailment of procedural rights. Analysis by the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law of the former Australian Immigration Assessment Authority fast-track review process indicates that anticipated efficiency savings were not realised. While decisions were issued more quickly, limitations on procedural safeguards led to lower-quality decision-making, higher rates of appeal, and a greater proportion of decisions being overturned on review. "Fast-track" procedures are also unlikely to be appropriate for unrepresented appellants, for whom accelerated processes may effectively deny meaningful access to redress. In any event, the greatest possible flexibility should be exercised in relation to procedural deadlines where appellants lack legal representation.

66. Prioritisation of cases, which UNHCR considers to be different to acceleration, may however be warranted in some cases. For some appellants, protracted appeal proceedings may lead to a deterioration of physical or mental health. Where vulnerabilities are identified at the outset, or become apparent or develop over time, appropriate procedural accommodations should be made. This may include the expedited listing of appeals for hearing, provided such expedition does not compromise adequate preparation of the appeal. In such circumstances, appellants' preferences should be sought as to whether their appeal ought to be expedited. As noted elsewhere, children's appeals should, as a general rule, be examined on a priority basis, subject always to the proviso that sufficient time is afforded to ensure proper preparation and a determination that is in the child's best interests.

67. Accountability, Transparency and Oversight

68. UNHCR welcomes the Home Secretary's confirmation that decisions of the new Independent Appeals Body will be appealable to the Upper Tribunal (IAC) on the basis of an error of law. [36] This is the single most effective way of ensuring consistency in decision making and oversight of adjudicators. Where decisions are consistently overturned by the Upper Tribunal, this oversight can support the identification of systemic issues and inform appropriate remedial action, including the provision of further guidance, training, or procedural adjustments.

69. Given that adjudicators will not be members of the judiciary, it is not clear whether they will automatically be subject to the oversight of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO). [37] Therefore, any necessary provision should be made to extend the remit of the JCIO to cover the Independent Appeals Body, or an equivalent body should be established to investigate complaints against adjudicators' conduct. Where a complaint is upheld, the decision should be made public as is current practice with the JCIO.

70. Any practices that undermine, or could reasonably be perceived as undermining, the independence of adjudicators must be avoided. It is essential that adjudicators are able to decide cases impartially and without fear or favour, in accordance with the law and the facts of each case. Safeguarding the independence of the new body is also critical to maintaining public confidence in the appeals system, which in turn depends on transparent, merit-based recruitment and appointment processes. Ensuring that adjudicators are selected on the basis of relevant expertise, experience, and competence helps to reinforce both the quality and the perceived fairness of decision-making.

UNHCR, London, May 2026

[37] Judicial Conduct Investigations Office homepage, https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/.