General
The legal provisions that regulate the asylum procedure are set out in primary legislation and the Immigration Rules (set out in full in the Overview of the legal framework), with guidance explaining how these should be implemented.
As mentioned in above (see Number of staff and nature of the determining authority), the Home Office has responsibility for all aspects of immigration, and is directly responsible for policy development. The department dealing with the processing of asylum claims is the UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI). Within the UKVI the directorate dealing with asylum claims is known as the Immigration and Protection Directorate; Asylum Intake and Casework is within that directorate. Responsibility for border control lies with the UK Border Force, an executive agency of the Home Office which combines immigration, policing and customs functions. Subjects covered by the publicly available guidance for case workers include making an asylum decision.[1]
A 2019 report entitled ‘Lessons not Learned: the failures of asylum decision-making in the UK’ documents flawed credibility assessments and finds that the current system places an unrealistic and unlawful evidential burden on asylum applicants. It compiles findings from over 50 publications issued over the last fifteen years on the quality of decision-making processes in the UK Home Office. Built on an analysis of over 1,800 asylum cases and 140 interviews, the report charts the consistent failure of the Home Office to implement recommendations to improve procedures.[2]
The quality of asylum decisions remained an issue in 2024 as Home Office internal quality checks showed that only 52% of decisions were meeting the Home Office’s own standards.[3]
There is no enforceable time limit for deciding asylum applications, but the immigration rules say that the decision must be taken ‘as soon as possible’.[4]
If a decision is not taken within six months, a caseworker should inform the applicant of the delay. This is common in cases designated as ‘non-straightforward’. Most legal challenges relating to delays, even of unaccompanied minors,[5] do not succeed.[6]
An inspection by the ICIBI identified and detailed challenges to the UKVI casework progression and looked at the length of time taken to make a decision, on average for each quarter between January 2017 and May 2021. The first quarter of 2021 was found to be the longest, at an average of 473 days.[7] Statistics have been regularly published as to the performance of the UKVI against the six-month target and how many cases were pending after being in the system for more than six months.
Updated statistics were released for 2024 showing the backlog for initial decisions was 124,802 and 73,866 of those had been waiting for over six months.[8]
Of the 113,050 decisions made in 2024, 17,810 of these were withdrawn claims and 11,191 described as “administrative outcome”. The large majority of withdrawn claims were “implicit” withdrawals (14,108) which is when the Home Office has withdrawn the claim and not the applicant. A large majority of “administrative outcome” cases have been recorded as either “suspended” (4,836) or “void” (6,168), with no further explanation provided by the Home Office.[9] Concerns about claims being wrongfully withdrawn in order to meet the target for clearing the backlog have been raised by the Public Accounts Committee[10] and the Home Affairs Select Committee.[11] Data on the reasons for the claim being withdrawn is not disclosed by the Home Office.[12]
Prioritised examination and fast-track processing
There is no established system in the UK for prioritising the cases of people who are particularly vulnerable or whose case appears at first sight well-founded, although since the abandonment of the six-month target the Home Office claims that vulnerable clients (undefined publicly) are prioritised.[13] The only system for expediting decisions was the Detained Fast Track, which has been suspended since 2015.
Personal interview
Applicants are entitled to a personal interview,[14] and this is standard practice. There is an initial screening interview before the substantive interview.
Interviews may be dispensed with in defined circumstances including where:
- a positive decision can be taken on the basis of the evidence available;
- the facts given in the application only raise issues of minimal relevance or which are clearly improbable or insufficient or designed to frustrate removal;
- or the applicant is unfit or unable to be interviewed owing to enduring circumstances beyond his control.
As part of the asylum backlog clearance process announced in December 2022 a ‘streamlined asylum process’ was introduced in February 2023. Specific nationalities were targeted for fast decisions, potentially without the need for a substantive interview. This is applied to nationals of high grant countries, namely Afghanistan, Eritrea, Libya, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.[15] A streamlined process for children was also introduced in March 2023, originally for children who are nationals of Afghanistan, Eritrea, Sudan, South Sudan and Vietnam, although Vietnam has since been removed.[16] A questionnaire process was introduced for Iranians and Iraqis although as this group has a lower grant rate it is not expected that as many decisions would be taken without an interview as the first cohort.[17]
It was previously very rare for an asylum applicant over 12 years of age on their first application in the regular procedure not to have an interview. However, following the introduction of the streamlined process there appears to have been a large increase in positive decisions being taken without a substantive interview.[18]
Personal interviews are usually conducted by the authority responsible for taking the decisions, i.e. by the Home Office caseworkers, although it will not always be the same individual. Asylum applicants are entitled to have a legal representative with them at the personal interview, but there is no public funding for this for adult claimants, save in the case of lack of mental capacity,[19] and so few are able to do so in practice as they are unlikely to be able to pay for their legal representative’s attendance themselves. Where there is a legal representative present, their role is not to put the asylum applicant’s case, but to ensure that their client is able to participate fully and properly in the interview. New guidance on interviewing applicants was published in 2021;[20] changes include up to date information on childcare, specific guidance on interviewing unaccompanied children now over 18, videoconferencing, advice on inadmissibility and the recording of interviews.
Where a refused asylum applicant returns to the UK and wishes to claim asylum again, guidance to Home Office officers is that this should be treated as a further submission (a ‘fresh’ or ‘subsequent’ claim for asylum).[21] In this case they may be refused an interview. Applicants under 12 years old are not normally interviewed, though they can be if they are willing, and it is deemed appropriate.[22]
Decision makers are told that they must refer to the guidance on victims of trafficking (which sets out indicators of trafficking) as well as the country information on the role, status and treatment of women before conducting an asylum interview. Applicants should be asked if they have a preferred gender of their interviewer, and this request should be accommodated. Applicants are generally interviewed alone.
Parents are not expected to give an account of their persecution in front of their child, and interviews should be rescheduled as necessary so that childcare can be arranged, including at Home Office premises where available.[23] The guidelines on asylum interviews require provision of childcare so that parents do not have to have their children present while being interviewed.[24] This is now formally in place in every location (other than offices with no interview facility) although different arrangements are in place at each venue. [25]
If a child has the same protection needs as their applicant parent then the Home Office will assess the claim based on the parent’s interview.[26] If the child’s protection needs are different then the child will have their own asylum claim and a decision on whether or not they will be interviewed, with a responsible adult, will be taken in line with the guidance.[27]
All staff who deal with asylum claims from children must have completed training on keeping children safe and interviewers must have received training in interviewing children. The guidance to decision makers covers trafficking and the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child in addition to the Refugee Convention and the ECHR, as well as child specific provisions in domestic legislation.[28] Regarding unaccompanied minors, see Legal representation of unaccompanied minors.
Videoconferencing
Increasingly, substantive interviews may take place through video conferencing facilities, to accommodate an interviewing officer or interpreter being located in a different area from the applicant. The guidance has been revised to reflect this in 2022.[29] Substantive interviews can take place via video link; the asylum applicant is invited to the usual Home Office premises but the interviewing officer may be working from home or in a different office. The interpreter may also join by video, although the guidance also provides for them to join by audio only. Casework specialisms meaning it is increasingly likely that the interviewing officer and decision maker will be located in a different region from the applicant. Concerns have been raised about the use of video conferencing interviews, these include IT issues, inconsistent information about how the remote interviews work, issues with safeguarding procedures and a lack of transparency.[30]
Interpretation
Interpreters are required by the Immigration Rules and are provided by the Home Office. Cultural mediators are not provided in interviews. There is a code of conduct for these interpreters, which was revised in 2024, [31] but in practice asylum applicants are unaware of it and of what to expect from their interpreter unless they have a legal adviser who has informed them about this beforehand. Since inconsistencies on matters of detail in the asylum interview are a common reason for refusing asylum, problems with interpreting can have a significant impact.
If the asylum applicant has a representative present, in the case of interpreting problems best practice and guidance issued to Home Office caseworkers suggests that the representative is permitted to interrupt the interview to raise the problem.[32] Home Office caseworkers are not always familiar with this, and it can be difficult for problems of interpretation to be raised and rectified at the time they occur. Asylum applicants are allowed to take an interpreter of their own choosing to the interview, but there is no public funding for this in most adult cases, so taking one’s own interpreter is unusual.
The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration published its report into the use of language services, including interpreters, in 2020.[33] It recommended that the Home Office should:
- Appoint a Borders, Immigration and Citizenship System (BICS) ‘owner’ for language services, with accountability across BICS for the formulation and implementation of policies and processes, collection of data and performance monitoring, planning and delivery of the required resources and capabilities, risk management, internal and external communications, monitoring and management of contracted out services, and stakeholder engagement.
- Create, publish and resource a comprehensive programme of improvements to the provision and use of language services, with clear timelines and deliverables. This should include the identification of urgent tasks and ‘easy wins’ as well as longer-term projects.
- Ensure that the risks and issues in relation to language services are fully and accurately reflected in the Risk Registers, and that mitigations and actions are regularly reviewed.[34]
All three of the recommendations were accepted by the Home Office but has given no update on implementation of them or any other progress or changes made since 2020.[35]
Normal good practice is that asylum applicants are asked at the screening interview whether they wish to be interviewed by a man or a woman, and the policy and practice is to respect this preference, subject to availability of staff.[36] This policy also applies to interpreters although no monitoring is conducted relating to adherence to this policy.
Recording and transcript
Audio-recording of interviews is permitted and should be arranged as a matter of routine where the equipment is available unless a request has been made in advance by the asylum applicant for the interview not to be recorded. The recording must be provided to the applicant after the interview. This will be done via the use of an online portal called MOVEit where the person has a legal representative with access to the portal. Otherwise, it will be sent by email or post.
In 2020 the NGO Freedom From Torture published research based on interview transcripts and testimonies from survivors of torture and their experiences of being interviewed in relation to their asylum claim. The criticisms and recommendations have wider applicability than the subject of the research.[37] These include the use of poor questioning techniques, failure to identify experiences of torture and people being prevented from giving a full account of their experiences.
The ICIBI inspection of asylum casework details inconsistencies in caseworker’s preparation for interview, the level to which they probe material issues, the use of video conference for interviews and quality assurance measures.[38] The government’s response was to accept the recommendations, although one relating to quality assurance was accepted only in part. However, it remains to be seen what improvements are made in practice, given the government’s whole-scale reform of the system.
Appeal
Appeal to the First Tier Tribunal
There is a right to appeal against an initial asylum decision under the regular procedure. Appeals are made to the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First Tier Tribunal (FTT (IAC)) on both facts and law. This is a judicial body, composed of immigration judges and sometimes non-legal members. The Tribunal can assess and make findings of fact on the basis of the evidence presented including evidence, which was not before the Home Office decision-maker. The time limit for appealing is 14 days from the date of the Home Office decision.[40] Lodging an appeal suspends removal from the UK, unless the case is certified as ‘clearly unfounded’. Cases certified as ‘clearly unfounded’ on or after 28 June do not have a right of appeal at all, due to the implementation of the NABA.
Given the limited availability of publicly funded representation in practice (see Legal assistance), these time limits are short and asylum applicants may resort to sending in the appeal forms without legal representation. Administrative mistakes made by an unrepresented asylum applicant in lodging an appeal can result in the appeal not being accepted by the Tribunal office.
A fee of £140 (€ 168) is required for an oral hearing of an asylum appeal in the regular procedure. Applicants do not need to pay if they are receiving asylum support (see Reception Conditions) or if they have public funding to be represented.[41] It is also possible to apply to have the fee waived, and destitute asylum applicants without asylum support would qualify for this, but may not have the advice or information to make the application. In practice most asylum applicants are not liable to pay the fee because most are receiving asylum support and/or public funding for their legal representation at this stage of the process.
The complexity of the law and procedure and the barrier of language make it extremely difficult for asylum applicants to represent themselves. Several research reports refer to the variance in quality and availability of legal advice and this area.[42] Tribunal rules require all evidence to be translated into English where relevant and sent to all parties in advance of the hearing.[43] It is difficult for an unrepresented asylum applicant to know what is required, or to get access to resources and advice to prepare papers for a hearing.
In 2020 a report was published following a research project involving observations and interviews with appellants, representatives and staff. It concluded that asylum applicants at their appeal hearings are hampered by six factors; confusion, anxiety, mistrust, disrespect, communication difficulties and distraction and 34 recommendations are made.[44]
Asylum applicants give evidence in person at the appeal hearing, and the Tribunal provides interpreters on request. Hearings are public. Decisions are in theory public documents, but decisions of the FTT (IAC) are not usually published.
The number of appeals has increased substantially in 2024 as a result of the backlog clearance exercise that took place in 2023. The increase in the number of asylum decision was a contributing factor to the increase but concerns have been raised that poor quality decisions have also been a factor in the increased number of appeals.[45]
Onward appeal to the Upper Tribunal
There is an onward appeal to the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal (UT) (IAC) on a point of law. This is with permission of the FTT (IAC). Application must be made within 14 days of receiving the refusal.[46] If the FTT (IAC) refuses permission, an application for permission may be made to the UT (IAC) within 14 days of the notice of the FTT (IAC)’s decision being sent to the applicant.[47] If this is refused, there is no appeal, but application may be made to the High Court, or in Scotland the Court of Session, for permission to apply for judicial review within a specially shortened time limit of 16 calendar days (as compared with three months for a usual judicial review application). The ability to use this process has since been heavily restricted through the introduction of the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022.[48] A legal challenge to this restriction was unsuccessful.[49]
An application for judicial review of a refusal by the UT (IAC) to grant permission to appeal can now only be made except whether the question is:
- whether the application for permission to appeal was validly made to the Upper Tribunal;
- whether the Upper Tribunal when refusing permission to appeal was properly constituted; or
- whether the Upper Tribunal is acting or has acted in bad faith or in such a procedurally defective way as amounts to a fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice.
Lodging an appeal or an application for permission to appeal against an asylum refusal suspends removal from the UK, unless the case has been certified under Section 94 NIAA as clearly unfounded.[50]
If permission is granted to appeal to the UT (IAC), the UT (IAC)’s decision may be appealed again with permission on the same limited grounds on a point of law only to the Court of Appeal. In rare cases permission may be given for a final appeal to the Supreme Court where the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court certifies that the case concerns a question of law, which is of public importance.
Although the asylum decision is appealable in the regular procedure, there are many decisions affecting asylum applicants against which there is no right of appeal: e.g. a decision to detain, or giving directions for removal, or the refusal to treat further submissions as a fresh claim (subsequent asylum application), or a decision to remove to a safe third country. Where there is no right to appeal the only recourse is to judicial review. This is a procedure which does not examine the merits of the complaint, but only whether the decision maker has acted correctly, for instance by taking into account relevant considerations and not being influenced by irrelevant considerations.
Where the only remedy is judicial review, this is only available with the permission of the reviewing court. judicial review is now in the Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Legal assistance
Regulation and accreditation
The provision of legal assistance on asylum is regulated and it is a criminal offence for a person who is not appropriately regulated to give advice.[51] Lawyers who provide assistance under legal aid must be accredited under the Law Society’s Immigration and Asylum Accreditation Scheme.[52] NGOs who wish to give legal advice register with the Immigration Advice Authority (formerly known as OISC).[53]
First instance
Free legal assistance is available to asylum applicants as part of the state funded scheme of free legal aid in certain, restricted areas of legal practice for people who do not have sufficient resources. Although the Immigration Rules provide that asylum applicants shall be allowed ‘an effective opportunity’ to obtain legal advice,[54] access to this is not guaranteed.
Statistics on applications for legal aid at first instance were not made available by the Home Office in response to parliamentary questions.[55] A noted academic who has reported on this issue for several years revealed statistics obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, that showed in the year ending March 2024 at least 57% of main applicants (over 54,000 people) claiming asylum or appealing a refusal in the First-tier Tribunal were unable to access a legal aid representative in England and Wales, did not have a legal aid representative.[56]
Few asylum applicants obtain advice before their screening interview.
Legal aid is available for appeals, subject to a means test and in England and Wales a merits test, and availability of a representative. This means some appellants appear unrepresented.[57]
In England and Wales, legal aid for legal advice and representation for the initial stage of an asylum case is called “Legal Help”. The work from claim, through interview up to decision, is paid as a fixed fee of £413 (€ 496).[58] Exceptions include unaccompanied child applicants, and where the representative can evidence that they have undertaken work that equates to over 2 times the value of the fixed fee. An hourly rate can then be paid if the Legal Aid Agency, which assesses the claim for costs, accepts that 2 times the level of work was done and warranted.[59] Note that before April 2023 work at 3 times the value of the fixed fee was required in order to be paid at hourly rates.
The low fixed fee and the significant jump to achieve an hourly rate both put pressure on conscientious representatives. The low fixed fee at these pre-appeal stages also makes it difficult to conduct a thorough examination of a complex case. The grant of legal aid for appeal depends on this assessment by the lawyer, and the award of legal aid contracts by the Legal Aid Agency depends on performance indicators including success at appeals. The system makes it difficult for representatives to stay in business.[60]
Delays in Home Office decision making have also made claiming fees more difficult, despite guidance being issued in 2022 aimed at easing this pressure.[61] Some practitioners report that they do not use the interim claim process because of the difficulties in using the Legal Aid Agency’s billing process, whereby claims are often rejected. The agency has been described as having a “culture of refusal”.[62]
Following a legal challenge to the ongoing failure to increase legal aid rates, the Lord Chancellor agreed to make a decision on whether or not to increase the fees.[63] On 24 January 2025 a consultation was opened asking for feedback on proposals to increase immigration fees by around 30% for both first instance and appeal work.[64]
Legal assistance is not provided at the AIU or at the port of entry. Free legal assistance (funded as described above) is limited to advising the asylum applicant before and immediately after their asylum interview. This may include making additional written representations to the Home Office, which as a matter of usual policy are only allowed within five days after the interview. With some exceptions (including unaccompanied children and people who lack capacity), there is no public funding for a legal representative to attend the asylum interview.[65]
Appeal
The legal aid fixed fee for appeals was changed in 2020 following the rolling out of a new online appeals process.[66] The new process required lawyers to conduct more work and the new fee structure meant that in fact lawyers would be worse off.[67] Following a successful challenge,[68] the new regulations were revoked and the rates were amended pending further consultation.[69] New rates were proposed by the government in 2025 and are currently under consultation.[70]
New legal procedures arising from the Nationality and Borders Act prompted another consultation on renumeration for legal advice and representation under the Act; these include Priority Removal Notices (a truncated system of appealing removal) and appeals against decisions made by the National Age Assessment Board. Neither of these processes are in force yet.
Following these consultations, new increased fixed fees were introduced for online appeals lodged after 1 April 2023.[71] Also in April 2023 a change was made meaning that once the value of the work on a case reached twice the value of the fixed fee, the work would all be paid at hourly rates.[72]
The pressures described above do not apply in Scotland, where fees are not fixed, and there is no merits test for representing at a first appeal. For an appeal to the UT (IAC) where the FTT (IAC) has not given permission to appeal, a lawyer in Scotland must assess the merits of the case, and payment may be disallowed if the Scottish Legal Aid Board takes a different view.
The amount that is payable per case in England and Wales was reduced in 2012 and has not been increased since. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) 2012 took immigration advice out of scope for all except asylum and trafficking. A legal challenge in regulation to children in immigration proceedings was settled before it reached the court and the law in relation to this was changed as a consequence; the Immigration Rules were changed to this effect on 25th October 2019.[73] The difficulties and constrictions applied by the system of contracted providers by region, based on historical data, result there being insufficient supply to meet the demand. The ‘market’ approach to the provision of legally aided immigration advice has been criticised in a key academic study.[74]
Judicial review
However, the government announced further reform/ limitations on judicial review in 2021 and introduced a new Bill which became the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022.[75] The reforms include restrictions on judicial reviews for decisions made by the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal and wider options for courts regarding remedies for successful appellants. Critics point out that whilst the government’s focus is on the low success rate of some types of judicial review, the impact on the people affected should not be minimised.[76]
[1] Home Office, Asylum decision making guidance (asylum instructions), available here.
[2] FFT, Lessons not Learned; The failures of asylum decision-making in the UK, September 2019, available here.
[3] Lizzie Dearden, ‘Home Office says only half of UK asylum decisions meet its quality standards’, The Observer, 8 December 2024, available here.
[4] Para 333A Immigration Rules Part 11.
[5] Including in December 2019, see for example: England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions, [2019] EWHC 3573 (Admin), Case No: CO/3942/2018, 20 December 2019 available here.
[6] Upper Tribunal, TM v Secretary of State for Home Department [2018] UKUT 299 (IAC), 23 August 2018, available here.
[7] ICIBI, An inspection of asylum casework (August 2020 – May 2021), November 2021, available here.
[8] Refugee Council, ‘New figures reveal scale of asylum backlog crisis’, November 2022, available here.
[9] Home Office, Immigration system statistics data tables, Asylum applications, initial decisions and resettlement detailed datasets, year ending December 2024, table Asy_D02, available here.
[10] Public Accounts Committee, Asylum system: Doubts and concerns raised around Government’s approach to backlogs, 27 October 2023, available here.
[11] Home Affairs Committee, Oral evidence: Work of the Home Office, HC 356, 29 November 2023, available here.
[12] Letter from the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office to the Public Accounts Committee, 9 January 2024, available here.
[13] UK Parliament, ‘Answer to written parliamentary question’, February 2019, available here.
[14] Para 339NA Immigration Rules Part 11.
[15] Home Office, Streamlined asylum processing, updated 2 May 2024, available here.
[16] Home Office, Streamlined asylum processing for children, updated 20 December 2024, available here.
[17] Home Office, Asylum decision making prioritisation: caseworker guidance, 2 October 2023, available here.
[18] Home Office statistics, available here.
[19] The Civil Legal Aid (Immigration Interviews) (Exceptions) Regulations 2012, available here.
[20] Home Office, Asylum Interviews, June 2022, available here.
[21] Home Office, Asylum Screening and Routing version 10.0, December 2023, available here, 25.
[22] Home Office, Processing children’s asylum claims, 22 January 2025, available here.
[23] Home Office, Gender issues in asylum claims: caseworker guidance, 13 April 2018, available here.
[24] Home Office, Asylum Interviews, June 2022, available here, 17.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Home Office, Family asylum claims, 22 September 2021, available here.
[27] Home Office, Processing children’s asylum claims, 22 January 2025, available here.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Home Office, Asylum Interviews, 2022, available here.
[30] Helen Bamber Foundation, Remote Home Office Substantive Asylum Interviews, 14 April 2022, available here.
[31] Home Office, Interpreters’ code of conduct, 25 March 2024, available here.
[32] Home Office, Asylum Interviews, available here.
[33] ICIBI, An inspection of the Home Office’s use of language services in the asylum process, November 2020, available here.
[34] ICIBI, An inspection of the Home Office’s use of language services in the asylum process, November 2020, available here.
[35] Home Office, Response to the ICIBI Inspection on the use of language services in the asylum process, 2020, available here.
[36] Home Office, Gender issues in the asylum claim, available here, para 7.1.
[37] Freedom from Torture, Beyond Belief; How the Home Office fails survivors of torture at the asylum interview, 16 June 2020, available here.
[38] Home Office, ‘The Home Office response to the ICIBI’s report: An inspection of asylum casework (August 2020 to May 2021)’, 18 November 2021, available here.
[40] The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014, rule 19.
[41] HM Courts and Tribunals Service, ‘Immigration and Appeals Tribunal Fees Guidance’, available here.
[42] Refugee Action and NACCOM, Tipping the Scales, 2018, available here; Dr Jo Wilding, Droughts and Deserts, 2019, available here.
[43] Rule 12 The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014.
[44] Experiencing Asylum Appeal Hearings: 34 ways to improve access to justice at the First Tier Tribunal, University of Exeter and Public Law Project 2020, available here.
[45] See e.g. Lizzie Dearden, ‘Home Office says only half of UK asylum decisions meet its quality standards’, The Observer, 8 December 2024 available here and Lizzie Dearden, ‘Thousands of cleared asylum claims to be returned to Home Office after errors’, The Observer, 22 June 2024, available here.
[46] Rule 33 Procedure Rules.
[47] Rule 21 The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, available here.
[48] Section 2, Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, available here.
[49] Mary Jane Baluden Oceana, R (on the application of) v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) [2023] EWHC 791 (Admin), available here.
[50] Home Office, Certification of protection and human rights claims under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (clearly unfounded claims), 12 December 2023, available here.
[51] section 91 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, available here.
[52] Law Society, Immigration and Asylum Accreditation, available here.
[53] Colin Yeo, ‘What is the Immigration Advice Authority’, Free Movement, 16 January 2025, available here.
[54] Para 333B Immigration Rules Part 11.
[55] James Cartlidge, ‘Answer to written question on Legal Aid Scheme’, 10 February 2022, available here.
[56] Dr Jo Wilding, ‘Stemming the Tide: The Case for Demarketising the Legal Aid Sector’, ILPA blog, 6 November 2024, available here.
[57] UK government, ‘Guidance Unrepresented appellants – Immigration and Asylum Tribunal’, available here.
[58] Schedule 1, Table 4(a) Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, available here.
[59] Paragraph 8.98 Immigration Specification to the 2013 Standard Civil Contract, available here.
[60] Law Society, ‘A decade of cuts: Legal aid in tatters’, 31 March 2023, available here.
[61] UK Government, ‘Civil news: early billing for asylum matters’, 1 September 2022, available here.
[62] See e.g. Justice Committee report ‘The Future of Legal Aid’, 27 July 2021, paragraph 141, available here.
[63] Sonia Lenegan, ‘Lord Chancellor settles challenge to immigration and asylum legal aid rates’, Free Movement, 27 September 2024, available here.
[64] Ministry of Justice, ‘Civil legal aid: Towards a sustainable future’, 24 January 2025, available here.
[65] Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, Schedule 1 Part 1 (30), available here.
[66] Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) regulations 2020, available here.
[67] Monidipa Fouzder, ‘Government criticised over new fixed fee’, Law Society Gazette, May 2020, available here.
[68] Statement by legal team following consent order between the parties.
[69] Government, ‘Changes to fee payments for immigration work’, 7 October 2020, available here.
[70] Ministry of Justice, ‘Civil legal aid: towards a sustainable future’, last updated 13 March 2025, available here.
[71] Civil Legal Aid (Immigration Interviews (Exceptions) and Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, available here.
[72] Paragraph 8.98 Immigration Specification to the 2013 Standard Civil Contract, available here.
[73] UK Government, ‘Separated children given better access to legal aid’, 25 October 2019, available here.
[74] Dr Jo Wilding, Droughts and deserts; a report on the immigration legal aid market, June 2019, available here.
[75] See the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 here.
[76] ILPA’s response to the government’s consultation on judicial review reform, available here.