New report examines how linguistic and cultural errors undermine justice in immigration tribunals

A new report by the Public Law Project (PLP) details how cultural, linguistic and procedural barriers continue to undermine access to justice in the UK's immigration and asylum tribunals.

You can download the 33-page report here.

PLP explained: "[The] report examines how the accessibility and accuracy of interpretation and translation, the quality of evidence on country context and the ability to understand it, and procedural constraints affect access to justice in immigration and asylum tribunals. The report's central argument is that cultural and linguistic understanding lies at the heart of asylum and immigration tribunals, thereby making cultural competence a procedural fairness matter."

It draws on an analysis of 271 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) decisions issued between December 2023 and December 2025, together with tribunal hearing observations and interviews with legal representatives, interpreters and an intermediary.

PLP says "access to justice depends on more than having a right to a hearing" and people must also be able "to understand proceedings, communicate their experiences, present evidence, and participate effectively in decisions that may profoundly affect their lives." The report argues that when "language barriers, cultural misunderstandings, or procedural obstacles" prevent this, "the fairness and accuracy of legal decision-making can be undermined."

The report identifies procedural and structural issues affecting "the quality, consistency, and fairness of decision-making in asylum appeals," including errors in interpretation that "materially alter the outcome of the case," inconsistent engagement with country and cultural evidence, and disadvantages experienced by applicants without quality legal representation.

Drawing on Upper Tribunal decisions, the report provides a number of examples that demonstrate how misunderstandings and errors can negatively affect credibility assessments.

An example cited in the report explains: "In one of the grounds of appeal to the [Upper Tribunal (UT)] was that the [First-tier Tribunal (FtT)] judge had drawn an adverse inference from the applicant's witness statement, in which the applicant stated that the mother of a young woman with whom he had a relationship had 'beaten' her. The word 'beat' can have more than one meaning, not necessarily a serious assault, and the UT judge found that this lost nuance in interpretation should not be held against the applicant's credibility (UI-2025-000846)."

PLP argues that interpretation and translation are often treated as administrative services rather than essential elements of fair proceedings. "Although interpretation is a critical function and a highly demanding profession, both emotionally and cognitively, it is not recognised either in the pay or treatment interpreters receive," it notes.

It further notes: "The interviewed interpreters noted that FtT judges often ask interpreters to summarise or 'tell the gist' of what was said to the applicant, a step that falls outside the scope of their role and responsibilities. Requests to summarise, as an interviewed interpreter noted, 'can compromise accuracy and introduce unintended bias.' It forces interpreters to exercise their subjective judgement, and as the interviewed interpreter argued, it can have 'serious implications for fairness and due process'."

The report also outlines how cultural misunderstandings can contribute to procedural errors. It cites examples of Upper Tribunal decisions that it says show First-tier Tribunal decisions often involve avoidable issues, such as inconsistent application, selective engagement and reasoning when assessing evidence rooted in unfamiliar cultural, political, and administrative contexts.

The report states: "[M]ultiple decisions highlighted problems arising from inadequate engagement with country and expert evidence, unrealistic evidential expectations, incomplete reasoning in decisions, and assumptions rooted in Western-centric understandings of behaviour, documentation, and social norms."

PLP further outlines how applicants who are unrepresented or receive inadequate legal support face significant disadvantages in navigating the tribunal system, particularly where language and cultural barriers are also present.

To help address the concerns identified, PLP recommends strengthening existing safeguards rather than introducing new rules, and calls for "a mindset shift" recognising the importance of interpretation, contextual and expert evidence, and meaningful participation.

The report's recommendations include improving interpreter support and monitoring, strengthening guidance on country and expert evidence, increasing procedural support for unrepresented applicants, reinforcing minimum standards for legal representation and improving access to legal aid.

It states: "Building on existing good practice and the achievements of the modern tribunal system, which aims to centre the needs of users, the way forward is to consistently embed culturally and linguistically sensitive practices across decision-making and procedural support in tribunals. Measures such as training, operational guidance, and improved quality of evidence can support judges, applicants, and all those involved. This will increase the likelihood of consistent decision-making and contribute to making the process more efficient and, in the longer term, contribute to reducing the number of appeals and strengthening procedural justice and access to justice for applicants."