It will come as no surprise to practitioners operating in the Immigration and Asylum chamber of the Tribunal that changes are afoot, but what exactly is happening, and how should we adapt?
There are two big but separate operational changes:
- Firstly, a fixed statutory timetable of 24 weeks for new Immigration and Asylum Appeals in the existing system.
- Secondly, the potential abolishment and replacement of the First-tier Tribunal with a new appeals body.
The first of these changes is imminent; the second is still working its way through Parliament, and is far more unclear.
Despite the publication of the Immigration and Asylum Bill that would create the new 'Independent Immigration Appeals Authority' (or 'IIAA'), there is still very little information about how it will operate.
Immigration Barrister Jack Dingley's initial blog will focus on the fixed statutory timetable within the existing system. A second blog follows on what we know about the new IIAA so far.
Statutory Fixed Timetable
As of Wednesday 12th August 2026, following the introduction of sections 49 and 50 of the Border, Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, there will now be fixed timescales for the operation of certain appeals.
At present, when an appeal is lodged, directions are issued in stages. Firstly, for the Home Office documents; then, once that is received, for the appellant's documents; then, once that is received, for the Home Office to review those documents. It is only once everything is ready that a date is given for the appeal itself.
The new system flips that on its head. An appeal date is given immediately upon lodging the appeal, and parties will be expected to work to that date. Appeals are expected to be concluded within a maximum of 24 weeks, unless it is not reasonably practicable to do so.
What Appeals are in Scope?
Not every appeal will be subject to this timescale, although in practice we are likely to see similar enforcement of timescales for out-of-scope appeals to keep the business of the Tribunal flowing.
The appeals that will be in scope are:
- Section 49 - Appellants receiving Home Office accommodation support
- Section 50 - Non-detained appeals liable to deportation
This is likely to cover most asylum appeals, and most deportation matters.
What Happens to Everything Else?
There is still a huge backlog of appeals in the system that will not be subject to this timetable. There will also be new appeals that are not in scope, which will cover a handful of asylum appeals, the vast majority of immigration appeals, and detained deports.
The Tribunal has recently started increasing its use of "float" lists, soon to be rebranded as the "standby" list. This is when cases are not assigned to a court, but the appellant and their representatives are asked to show up on the day in the hope that there might be space to hear their case.
It is expected that the in-scope appeals will be prioritised for listing, and that the legacy claims and out-of-scope appeals will have some space reserved in the listings, with the rest placed on the float list.
It is difficult to see how this will not create significant and expensive delays for appellants, particularly when the out-of-scope appeals strongly overlap with those that are likely to be ineligible for legal aid funding.
The exception to this priority queue is likely to be detained deports, which it would be safe to assume will be prioritised for listing.
For those appeals that are out of scope or caught in this backlog, there are a few things practitioners should keep in mind:
- The online platform has a function to request the expediting of appeals, and this should be used where it seems like an appeal has been kicked into the long grass. Expedition applications should be accompanied by evidence setting out why an appeal needs prioritising, for example, medical evidence laying out the adverse effects that the delay has on an appellant.
- When appeals on the float list are adjourned for a lack of capacity, this creates significant delays, and delays may lead to changes in circumstances or new evidence. If new evidence is submitted shortly before a relisted hearing, it risks the evidence not being admitted, or an adjournment which would delay the appeal even further. It is advisable to regularly check in with appellants waiting for their appeal hearings to ensure any changes in circumstances can be brought to the Tribunal's attention as soon as possible.
How to Best Adapt
For many of the appeals that are in scope, the fixed timetable is similar to the existing timescales for the production of evidence, and it may be that appellants see some benefit from having their appeals move faster.
However, the fixed timetable will not be appropriate for all appellants. There continues to be a crisis in the legal aid sector which may lead to an increase in unrepresented appellants. There are also significant backlogs in the availability of both country and medical experts whose reports are often essential to the proper preparation of these appeals.
Several steps can be taken to help navigate these barriers:
1. The Tribunal will be asking for reference numbers to recognise in-scope appeals in order to triage whether or not an appeal is required to follow the fixed timetable. This information should be submitted when lodging the appeal; otherwise, the appeal may be rejected as invalid.
2. It is vital to flag up at the earliest stage when it looks likely that the fixed timetable cannot be met. Preparation on the appeal bundle should begin straight away, with an early case plan drafted to highlight the necessary timescales. This is essential, so that the relevant applications for extensions that may be needed for gathering evidence can be made as soon as possible.
3. When requesting additional time, these applications should be accompanied by clear evidence of why the time is required, for example, correspondence with an expert setting out an exact timetable for the production of their report. The Tribunal will not readily grant extensions without supporting evidence.
It is important to remember that this is a statutory duty, and the Tribunal will not be sympathetic when it comes to non-compliance. In a series of letters to practitioners in the run-up to this new system, it has been made clear that parties are expected to make timely applications if they cannot comply with the timescales, and that the Tribunal is being encouraged to use its wasted costs powers to enforce compliance.
Conclusions
This is a significant change to the way appeals are handled by the First-Tier Tribunal. It remains to be seen as to whether it assists or exacerbates the issues from the backlog. Certainly, for those who are already in the system, it will lead to delays.
Proactive case management and early communication with the Tribunal will be vital to ensuring there is sufficient time to gather all the necessary evidence.