As part of the vast  changes to the immigration and asylum systems, the Government has been focusing on the huge number of cases waiting to be heard by the First-tier Tribunal.

According to the most recent statistics from the Tribunal, there are now 139,000 open cases in the First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber. More than 80,000 of these are asylum and protection appeals, involving roughly 105,000 people (the rest of the appeals are human rights or EEA/free movement cases). These appeals are now taking 63 weeks on average to be cleared, which is more than a year. This means the asylum/protection appeal backlog has almost doubled since the end of 2024, when it was around 42,000 cases. We also know from our communities that many people are having to go through this process without a lawyer.

As part of attempts to speed up the number of cases waiting for an appeal hearing, the government is introducing changes to how appeals are processed, including introducing a 24-week statutory timescale (which we explain in our blog here) and a new Independent Appeals Body with yet another consultation process. The Independent Appeals Body would replace the current system for asylum appeals with the aim for cases to be heard more quickly. 

How is the Independent Appeals Body different from the current appeals process?

Right now, if the Home Office refuses an asylum or immigration case, that decision can be challenged in a tribunal. The tribunal is part of the judiciary, the independent court system that is separate from the government.

An independent Immigration Judge then looks at the Home Office decision and the evidence in the case. You, or your representative, can explain where  you think the Home Office is  wrong and send evidence to support your case. The Home Office can also provide its reasons and evidence. An appeal is not just a paperwork exercise. It is a chance to challenge the refusal and ask an independent judge to decide the case fairly based on the evidence.

The Independent Appeals Body would instead choose and train its own independent adjudicators. An adjudicator is the person who decides the appeal. Some adjudicators may have a legal background, but most will not need the same legal training or judge-level experience that immigration judges in the current tribunal usually have.  For example, the government says adjudicators could include people like former police officers, social workers, civil servants, planning inspectors or councillors.  Currently, Immigration Judges are recruited through the judicial appointments system from a legally qualified pool. The government says immigration judges must currently have at least 5 years’ post-qualification legal experience and receive ongoing training through the Judiciary. The new Independent Appeals Body would not use the same recruitment requirements. Instead, adjudicators would be trained for the role, but the government has not yet published full details of the qualifications required or how long their training would last. 

The government says decisions will still be “independent”. But it also says the new body must be “fully integrated within the wider immigration and asylum system” in order to make decisions faster, which raises questions about whether the process will really be independent and whether Home Office decisions will be checked properly. 

Taken together, these proposals risk weakening independence and fairness in the appeals system by moving appeals closer to the same wider system that made the original refusal, without addressing the underlying problems of poor Home Office decision-making (the National Audit Office, reported in December 2025 that 42% of asylum decisions contained significant errors), lack of legal aid, and chronic under-resourcing.

We will be holding a Radical Solidarity Hub meeting  Wednesday 29 April, 11am – 12.30pm, on Zoom, where we will focus on asylum appeals. This session will provide a space to think about what the new 24-week timetable for certain asylum appeals could mean in practice, alongside the Home Office’s call for evidence on a new Independent Appeals Body. We also want to use the time to listen to our communities about where unrepresented appellants are struggling most, and see how we can find solutions together.