Proposals to reform UK immigration & asylum appeals system
The proposal is to abolish the current First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) as the primary forum for asylum and immigration appeals and to replace it with a new appeals body. The new body would hear asylum appeals and, according to the Home Secretary’s January 2026 letter to the Justice Committee, immigration appeals as well.
The stated impetus for change is operating capacity. The Home Office points to a sharp increase in asylum appeals, from around 7,000 in early 2023 to more than 50,000 by March 2025, and argues that the existing tribunal structure cannot scale to meet this demand. The reform is therefore presented as a structural solution to backlog and delay.
A phased transition is envisaged. Existing appeals would continue to be heard by the current tribunal while new case types are gradually moved across to the new body. There is no suggestion that existing appeals will be transferred mid-process.
Who would decide appeals under the new system?
One of the clearest themes in the Home Secretary’s correspondence is recruitment. The government has indicated that the principal purpose of the reform is to widen the pool of people eligible to decide appeals.
At present, immigration judges are legally qualified and appointed through established judicial appointment processes. Under the new model, decision-makers would be “professional independent adjudicators”, with eligibility criteria broader than those currently applied to immigration judges. The Home Secretary has confirmed that this will involve reducing minimum qualification thresholds, although no detail has yet been published on what the new minimum standard will be.
The government argues that this approach is necessary to increase throughput. Critics point out that widening eligibility to include individuals who are not legally qualified is likely to increase error-of-law challenges, rather than reduce them.
Independence & institutional oversight
The Home Office has stated that the new appeals body will be independent of the executive, and that safeguards will be built into its design. However, responsibility for the policy appears to sit squarely with the Home Office rather than the Ministry of Justice.
In evidence to the Justice Committee, the Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services described the Ministry of Justice’s role as supporting the Home Office and managing transition, rather than leading the reform. There has been no confirmation that the new body will sit within the Ministry of Justice at all, raising questions about how independence from the decision-making department will be secured in practice.
This has prompted concern that the reform could mark a return, in functional terms, to a system in which immigration decision-makers are closer to the Home Office than to the independent judiciary.
Appeal rights & onward challenge
The Home Secretary has confirmed that there will remain a right of appeal to the Upper Tribunal on an error of law. This is a significant point, as it indicates that the new body is not intended to be the final arbiter.
However, if first-instance appeals are determined by a more lightly qualified decision-maker cohort, the volume of onward appeals may increase rather than decrease. That risks shifting delay and cost up the system rather than resolving it.
The government has also indicated an intention to move towards a single appeal process, with relevant issues raised and decided together. No procedural detail has yet been published on how additional grounds or late evidence would be handled under this model.
Fast-track cases & prioritisation
The proposal includes accelerated processes for certain categories of case. Claims from so-called safe countries would be fast-tracked. Late claims made shortly before removal are also identified as a priority category, with decisions to be taken on public interest grounds.
While the government has stated that safeguards for vulnerable individuals will be preserved and that complex protection claims will receive appropriate scrutiny, there is no published detail on how vulnerability will be assessed or how fast-track processes will operate in practice. Detention has not been expressly confirmed as part of the fast-track, but it has not been ruled out.
Legal advice & representation
The Home Secretary’s letter refers to early access to legal advice before a claim is heard by the new body. This is framed as part of improving decision-making and reducing delay.
What has not been set out is how representation at the appeal itself will be funded or delivered. There is no published commitment to extending legal aid for representation before the new body, and no detail on whether claimants will be expected to proceed unrepresented at first instance.
This omission is notable, given the stated ambition to concentrate issues into a single appeal.
Legislation & timing
Primary legislation will be required to implement the reform, including changes to the existing appeals framework. The government has confirmed that legislative and policy work is underway, but no draft Bill, timetable or consultation document has been published.
There is also no clarity on how long the transition will take, or how long the existing tribunal system will continue to operate in parallel. In the meantime, the current appeals backlog will continue to be processed under existing structures.
DMS Perspective
At present, the reform exists as a policy direction rather than an operational system. The government has articulated objectives around speed, capacity and recruitment, but has not yet explained how independence, fairness and legal quality will be preserved while those objectives are pursued.
For applicants, advisers and organisations engaging with the system, the immediate position is unchanged. Appeals continue under the existing tribunal framework. The longer-term position is one of uncertainty, with significant institutional change proposed but few concrete details on how it will function day to day, or whether it will deliver the reductions in delay that are being promised.
