Open call for evidence

The new Independent Appeals Body: Call for evidence

Published 25 March 2026

Introduction

Migration is part of Britain’s national story and an essential element of a strong economy. For decades, the United Kingdom has upheld a proud tradition of offering sanctuary to those fleeing conflict and persecution and making those who wish to visit, study, work and live here in compliance with our Immigration Rules welcome.

Not all cases in the system are successful, and in some cases, a refusal gives rise to a right of appeal. In recent years, the number of appeals has grown significantly, leading to lengthy waiting times and creating strain across the system. At the end of December 2025, the First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber (FTT-IAC) was managing an open caseload of 139,000. Between October and December 2025, the mean time taken to clear appeals across all categories was at 58 weeks in the last quarter, 9 weeks longer compared to the same period a year ago. Asylum/Protection, Human Rights and EEA Free Movement had mean times taken of 63, 64, and 41 weeks respectively. Despite the dedication and efforts of those working within the current model, it is evident that further incremental steps (such as additional sitting days and recruitment of immigration judges) cannot deliver the scale of change and capacity required to meet demand.

Without reform, delays and these pressures are expected to continue to grow worse, undermining confidence in the immigration and asylum system as a whole. In response, the Home Secretary has set out plans to establish a new Independent Appeals Body, as part of a wider programme of reform to restore order and control to the system and ensure decisions are made swiftly, fairly and consistently.

The government’s policy statement (Restoring Order and Control, published on 17 November 2025) makes clear its intention to move away from a system that allows individuals to bring multiple appeals, towards a model based on a single appeal route, providing clarity and finality whilst maintaining appropriate legal safeguards.

We recognise the importance of getting these reforms right. Appeals often involve complex questions of fact and law, and it is essential that individuals have access to justice and an effective remedy to challenge a refusal where their protection needs or human rights are at stake. The new Independent Appeals Body must therefore be equipped to deliver rigorous, timely and high-quality decisions, and be fully integrated within the wider immigration and asylum system.

This call for evidence forms a crucial part of that process. We are seeking insights, expertise and practical experience from practitioners, experts, representative organisations and all those who engage with the appeals system. Your evidence will help shape the development of the new Independent Appeals Body and will help ensure it is designed to meet the needs of those who will rely on it.

The new Independent Appeals Body

The new Independent Appeals Body must be designed to operate effectively within the end-to-end immigration and asylum system, supporting timely and fair decision-making while upholding individuals’ rights and maintaining the integrity of the system. It will need to provide sufficient capacity to manage demand, with the flexibility to adjust resources as the mix and volume of cases change.

A central requirement is that individuals have access to a fair and effective remedy to challenge the refusal of an immigration and asylum case. In practice, this means ensuring the new Independent Appeals Body:

• has capacity to dispose of an appeal within a reasonable timeframe;
• is suitably staffed by professionally trained adjudicators, with safeguards to ensure high standards (decisions on appeals will remain fully independent);
• enables access to translators and legal advice or representation;
• can prioritise cases as required by the wider public interest; and
• can issue final decisions (although the right to apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on points of law will be preserved).

From its inception, the new Independent Appeals Body must comply with the principles of the rule of law, procedural fairness and impartiality. This includes ensuring:

• all parties are subject to fair, accessible and consistent processes, and are answerable to the same set of processes and laws;
• parties have equal and effective access to the body, and can effectively navigate the appeals process and resolve disputes; and
• decision-makers approach each case with an open mind, assess evidence objectively and apply the law without fear or favour.

These principles must be embedded in every element of the new Immigration Appeals Body’s design and operation, its legislation, governance, workforce, processes and systems. Ensuring procedural fairness and maintaining access to justice are not stand-alone policy issues, they must shape the development and delivery of the body as a whole.

Appeals frequently involve questions of fact and law, including issues arising under the Refugee Convention, humanitarian protection provisions and Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The new Independent Appeals Body must therefore be capable of rigorous, impartial fact-finding and of applying the law to those findings in a principled and consistent way.

Key features of the new Independent Appeals Body

The new Independent Appeals Body will appoint and train its own cohort of independent adjudicators, with qualification and experience requirements designed to ensure fairness, competence and credibility. While some adjudicators may bring legal expertise, the majority will not need to meet the level of legal training or judicial experience currently expected of the FTT-IAC immigration judges.

Although decision-making will be independent, the new Independent Appeals Body must operate in a way that is fully integrated with the end-to-end immigration and asylum system. This includes maintaining the ability to adjust to peaks and troughs in case intake, supporting a more resilient system overall, and ensuring the appeals process is faster but remains sufficiently robust.

The new Independent Appeals Body will also need to interact efficiently with other parts of the system, including the Home Office decision-making structures and the Upper Tribunal, ensuring a clear route for onward appeal on points of law and supporting streamlined progression of cases across the system.

Purpose and scope of this call for evidence

This Call for Evidence is seeking views, evidence and practical insights on how the new Independent Appeals Body is designed to operate effectively, efficiently and in a way that ensures fair access to justice for all users. Responses will help inform the legislation establishing the new body and support decisions on its governance, processes and operational framework.

This Call for Evidence is structured around seven themes where further evidence would be particularly valuable:

1. Access to Justice, Fairness and Procedural Safeguards.
2. Expert Evidence and Country Information.
3. Adjudicator Recruitment, Eligibility, Impartiality and Training.
4. Case Management Models.
5. Hearing Methods, Digital Processes and Efficiency.
6. Compliance, Engagement, Timeframes and Prioritisation.
7. Accountability, Transparency and Oversight.

How to respond

This call for evidence is aimed at individuals and organisations with expertise or experience of the UK immigration and asylum appeals system, including regulators, legal professionals, representative organisations, charities and NGOs, public services, academics and other stakeholders with relevant insight.

This call for evidence is open from 00:01am on 25 March 2026 and will close at 11:59pm on 22 April 2026.

The easiest way to respond to this call for evidence is to the use the online form.

Respondents who wish to provide supplementary evidence, research or data are invited to submit this via email: IABcallforevidence@homeoffice.gov.uk.

Please clearly state the question(s) that you are providing supplementary evidence for.

Request another format

If you need an alternative format for accessibility reasons and are unable to use the online system, for example because you use specialist accessibility software that is not compatible with the system, you may request the form in an alternative format at email IABcallforevidence@homeoffice.gov.uk using the subject line ‘Call for evidence: New IAB – Request another format’. 

You may submit your response in an alternative format (for example, as a PDF). Please send your response by 22 April 2026 to email: IABcallforevidence@homeoffice.gov.uk.

Please ensure that your response reaches us before the closing date.

Who should respond

We are inviting responses from individuals and organisations with evidence or insights relating to the immigration and asylum appeals process in the UK, including but not limited to:

• legal professionals and representatives providing asylum and immigration advice and / or representation
• regulatory bodies (those regulating legal professionals and representatives providing asylum and immigration advice and / or representation)
• legal aid providers, professional bodies and representative organisations
• charities or non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
• local authorities, health services, and social care providers
• academics and researchers
• think tanks or research organisations

The above list of intended respondents is not exhaustive, and we also welcome submissions from any other individuals or organisations with relevant interest or expertise in the matters addressed in this call for evidence.

Respondents can provide evidence on all or specific questions in this call for evidence.

For the purposes of this call for evidence, the types of evidence you should submit include:

• ideas that are personal or on behalf of an organisation about the immigration and asylum appeals system
• published or unpublished research or data analysis
• examples of good practice in the immigration and asylum appeals system; and
• examples of where the immigration appeals system could be improved

Where respondents have further evidence, research or data beyond the word-limited response, they may provide this separately via email: IABcallforevidence@homeoffice.gov.uk.  

Representative groups

Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they represent when they respond.

Handling of responses

Publication of responses

We will publish a summary of responses on the homepage for this call for evidence. This summary will be based on responses to the questions set out in this call for evidence.

AI may be used to support the preliminary analysis tasks, including assisting with the identification and redaction of any personally identifiable information (PII). All PII-flagged redactions will be reviewed and confirmed by a human researcher. AI tools are used within secure organisational systems.

AI may also assist with the early stages of thematic analysis to support efficiency and consistency at scale; it will not make substantive judgements or produce research conclusions. Human researchers will oversee the analysis of all responses and remain responsible for all interpretive decisions.

To develop the thematic framework, researchers will carry out a manual review of a substantial and diverse subset of responses to ensure it reflects the full range of issues raised. AI may then be used to assign predefined themes to the de-identified text.

AI outputs may occasionally contain errors or misclassifications. These will be addressed through human review, quality checks, and the ability for analysts to override AI suggestions at any time. All final synthesis, interpretation and reporting will be undertaken by human researchers.

If you have any concerns about how your response has been reflected in the analysis, please email: IABcallforevidence@homeoffice.gov.uk.

Confidentiality

Please avoid including any identifying information within the main text of your response. This includes details that directly identify individuals (such as names or addresses) or information that could lead to indirect identification. Any identifying information included in your response will be removed before it is analysed.

If you are willing to be contacted about your submission, please provide your contact information by emailing us at the address above. Any personal information you provide will be handled in strict accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR.

Information provided in response to this call for evidence will be published in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, the Data Protection Act 2018, and the UK GDPR).

If you would like the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please explain why you consider the information to be confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure, we will take your explanation fully into account. However, we must comply with the relevant access to information regimes, and therefore we cannot guarantee that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not be regarded by us as a confidentiality request.

Your data, including any personal data, may be shared with a third-party provider or other government department or organisation for the purposes of analysing and summarising responses.

You can read the full privacy notice on GOV.UK.

Process enquiries and complaints

If you have any enquiries or complaints about the process, please email the Home Office at IABcallforevidence@homeoffice.gov.uk.

Questionnaire

Initial questions

Q1. Mandatory: Are you responding as an individual or on behalf of an organisation?

a) As an individual

b) On behalf of an organisation

Q2. Mandatory: Which of the following best describes your position or organisation?

a) Regulatory body

b) Legal aid provider / legal aid representative

c) Professional body and representative organisation

d) Legal professional/representative regulated to provide asylum and immigration advice

e) Charity or non-governmental organisation (NGO)

f) Local authority, health service, or social care provider

g) Academic or researcher

h)Think tank or research organisation

i) Other

Q3. Mandatory: Please provide the name of the organisation you work for. If this is not applicable, please enter ‘N/A’.

Q4. Mandatory: What is your geographical location?

If you are responding on behalf of an organisation, please use the location of its headquarters. Please do not provide a full address.

England

Northern Ireland

Scotland

Wales

Overseas (Please state which country):

Access to justice, fairness and procedural safeguards

Ensuring fairness and upholding the rule of law will be fundamental to the design and operation of the new Independent Appeals Body. Access to justice, including the ability to obtain access to timely legal advice, representation, and the support needed to participate effectively (for example, access to a translator), is central to this. We are therefore seeking evidence on the measures, processes, standards and safeguards that will help ensure that the new Independent Appeals Body provides a fair, accessible and just process for all users.

Q5. How can the new Independent Appeals Body ensure parties to the appeal have fair access to legal or immigration advice, representation and the practical support required to participate effectively in the process? [Maximum 1000 words]

Q6. Can you tell us of your experience of immigration and legal advice, including whether you have concerns around access, availability or capacity. [Maximum 1000 words]

Q7. Do you consider changes are required to ensure early legal advice is a core part of the system to avoid delays and late claims, and to lead to better decisions? Please include any suggestions on how legal advice or representation could be improved. [Maximum 1000 words]

Q8. Drawing on the existing practices, procedural rules or approaches of the FTT-IAC, which do you consider could usefully be included, adapted or avoided in the design and operation of the new Independent Appeals Body? Please include any views on the current approach to publishing determinations. [Maximum 1000 words]

Q9. How should the new Independent Appeals Body accommodate specific needs or vulnerabilities, including by providing reasonable adjustments or tailored procedural support, to ensure fairness and accessibility? [Maximum 500 words]

Expert evidence and country information

Expert evidence, including medical reports, country information and other specialist assessment, is important in many appeals but can also cause delays, particularly where hearings need to be adjourned while appellants obtain external reports. We are exploring ways to reduce these delays, including how expert evidence might be commissioned earlier, how quality standards can be assured, and whether a shared set of expert materials (by which we mean an agreed or authoritative body of expert information that all parties can rely on), could support consistency and reduce the adversarial nature of appeals.  We are seeking views on how the new appeals body can ensure expert evidence is used effectively while supporting timely case progression.

Q10. How should expert evidence (including medical, country and technical expertise) be commissioned, quality-assured and used within the appeals process? [Maximum 1000 words]

Q11. What are your views on requiring parties to rely on a shared set of expert materials? [Maximum 500 words]

Adjudicator recruitment, eligibility, impartiality and training

Demands on the appeals system continue to increase, but there is limited judicial capacity to meet those demands. Eligibility criteria for immigration judges currently requires a minimum of 5 years post-qualification legal experience, resulting in recruitment from a relatively small professional pool. At the same time, the FTT-IAC backlog has reached record levels, underscoring the need for alternative models of resourcing.

To address these challenges without drawing capacity away from the wider judiciary, the government is considering new recruitment approaches that expand the range of suitable candidates while maintaining fairness, independence and compliance with international obligations.

Neither the Refugee Convention nor the European Convention on Human Rights require that appeals against asylum or human rights decisions be determined by a legally qualified judge. There was no specific requirement for immigration judges to be legally trained, with adjudicators from a range of professional backgrounds making decisions on appeals in the Immigration Appellate Authority until 1999. In the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, it was then possible for the Lord Chancellor to appoint non legally qualified members of the Tribunal with suitable experience until it was abolished in 2010.

The adjudicator role

The new body will be staffed by professionally trained adjudicators, with safeguards to ensure high standards. Adjudicators will be responsible for determining appeals and will exercise decision-making powers equivalent to those currently exercised by judges in the FTT-IAC. They will be expected to reach impartial decisions on both the facts and the points of law.

Given the need to expand capacity, we would not seek to replicate the recruitment requirements of the judiciary. We anticipate those with experience making consequential decisions will also have the potential to fulfil the requirements of this role. This includes a potentially wide-ranging pool of candidates, including for example, former police officers, social workers, civil servants, planning inspectors, or councillors.

Legal expertise

Adjudicators will be making judicial decisions and therefore will require specialist training before they can begin making determinations. This training package will be comprehensive and independently designed to ensure robust decision-making.

We are currently considering how adjudicators could access legal advice when making determinations. We are also considering mentoring and support from those with experience making legal decisions as well as oversight mechanisms from senior management within the new body to quality assure legal decision making.

Q12. What recruitment criteria would best ensure adjudicator independence, impartiality and credibility in the new appeals body? [Maximum 500 words]

Q13. What recruitment qualifications would best ensure adjudicator independence, impartiality and credibility in the new appeals body? [Maximum 500 words]

Q14. What recruitment safeguards would best ensure adjudicator independence, impartiality and credibility in the new appeals body? [Maximum 500 words]

Q15. Which professional backgrounds or types of experience should be considered particularly valuable for adjudicators within the new appeals body? Why?  [Maximum 500 words]

Q16. Which professional backgrounds or types of experience should be considered particularly unsuitable for adjudicators within the new appeals body? Why?  [Maximum 500 words]

Q17. For adjudicators to be professionally trained, what should a training package include to support robust, professional, fair and high-quality decision-making in the new appeals body? [Maximum 500 words]

Case management models

We are considering whether certain case types will require specialist hearing models. For example, a board-style structure could be used to safeguard procedural rigour in cases that involve the assessment of specialist matters or bail hearings. These could be determined by adjudicators with specialist expertise and, where appropriate, by more than one decision-maker. This approach mirrors models used in other jurisdictions, such as Norway, where multiple cases can be discussed within a structured meeting format. We are therefore seeking views on when such alternative models may be appropriate and what safeguards should apply.

Q18. Are there any circumstances in which certain case types should have specialist processes? If so, what specialist processes or hearing models would be appropriate for these case types? Please explain. [Maximum 500 words]

Q19. What additional decision-making safeguards should the new Independent Appeals Body adopt to ensure consistency, quality and fairness? [Maximum 500 words]

Hearing methods, digital processes and efficiency

The FTT-IAC has the capability to conduct hearings on the papers alone, remotely by video or telephone, or in-person.

In line with the government’s wider ambition to take a modern digital approach and to ensure fair and efficient use of public funds, we are seeking views on whether the new Independent Appeals Body should operate on an assumption that most cases will be determined on papers or remotely (through virtual hearings or evidence sessions), with in-person hearings reserved for circumstances where they are necessary to ensure fairness.

Q20. What are the challenges and opportunities for paper-based hearings? [Maximum 500 words]

Q21. What are the challenges and opportunities for virtual hearings? [Maximum 500 words]

Q22. What are the challenges and opportunities for in-person hearings? [Maximum 500 words]

Q23. What technology, infrastructure or operational measures are required to ensure that remote or hybrid (a mix of remote and in-person) hearings are fair, accessible and secure? [Maximum 1000 words]

Q24. What considerations should inform decisions regarding how and where appeals are heard in the new Independent Appeals Body, including alternatives to the existing appeals estate (buildings and locations) and other spaces? [Maximum 500 words]

Compliance, engagement, timeframes and prioritisation

Statutory timelines, expedited appeals for certain cases, and a single appeal route will reduce delays and support increased removals. Where a person loses their appeal and there are no points of law on which permission to onwards appeal is granted, they will be expected to leave the country. Clear and consistent engagement from all parties is essential for an efficient appeals process. The FTT-IAC operates within established Tribunal Rules, Presidential Guidance and Practice Directions; there are currently no firm mechanisms for compliance with specified timeframes for provision of evidence or participation and late evidence or late claims can cause significant delays. The establishment of the new Independent Appeals Body provides an opportunity to set clear compliance expectations from the outset and to consider statutory timeframes. We therefore welcome views on how participation and compliance with reasonable timeframes, including the timely handling and submission of evidence and attendance, could be supported and articulated.   

Currently, appeals can loop round the system multiple times, if they are not dealt within under a single appeal route. Timely case progression also depends on well-defined timeframes. Adequate opportunities for evidence-gathering, along with consistent adherence to deadlines, can reduce unnecessary adjournments and support fair and efficient hearings. The new Independent Appeals Body may be required to determine cases within set or statutory timeframes, while retaining flexibility to vary these where appropriate.

We will legislate to accelerate appeals for removable high-harm cases, foreign national offenders, and others who are detained and readily removable, and prioritise those appeals in the public interest. Effective prioritisation will remain central to maintaining the integrity of the system. This includes supporting timely removal, deportation or voluntary departure once appeal rights are exhausted, and ensuring that allowed appeals are implemented swiftly and consistently. A more structured and transparent approach to case management may help promote fairness, consistency and predictability across the system.

Q25. What measures could improve compliance with directions and timeframes, and support effective engagement and attendance from appellants, representatives and the Home Office throughout the appeals process? [Maximum 500 words]

Q26. What should constitute a reasonable timeframe for deciding cases? [Maximum 500 words]

Q27. In what circumstances should exceptions be permitted? [Maximum 500 words]

Q28. What changes to the current system will ensure appeals are decided within a single appeal route? [Maximum 500 words]

Q29. How should the new Independent Appeals Body prioritise or accelerate cases, and should it adopt a more codified approach to case management than exists in the current FTT-IAC? You may wish to comment on whether certain categories of cases might be appropriately prioritised or accelerated, and what safeguards, fairness considerations, or operational factors should be taken into account, and on reasonable timeframes for doing so. [Maximum 1000 words]

Accountability, transparency and oversight

Public confidence in the new appeals body will depend on clear decision-making processes, effective oversight, and a transparent framework that supports trust in outcomes. As a new appeals body exercising independent adjudicative functions, it will be important to consider what governance, scrutiny and complaints mechanisms are appropriate, whether through internal processes, external regulation or an ombudsman model.

Q30. What mechanisms should be in place to ensure accountability the new appeals body?  [Maximum 500 words]

Q31. What mechanisms should be in place to ensure transparency of the new appeals body? [Maximum 500 words]

Q32. What mechanisms should be in place for effective oversight of the new appeals body? Please include in your response whether you consider it should be subject to a regulator or an ombudsman. [Maximum 750 words]

Thank you for participating in this call for evidence.

Please note that while all responses will be carefully reviewed and considered, we will not be able to provide individual responses.

We will not be able to process information about individual cases if it is provided through this call for evidence.