Citizen judges in immigration appeals may be overrun by migration activists, commentator warns
Migration activists will aggressively pursue jobs, potentially worsening the current situation, a critic has warned, as the UK government pushes ahead with plans to replace immigration judges with publicly appointed adjudicators. The reforms, designed to tackle a record backlog of asylum appeals, would allow individuals from a broader range of backgrounds – including campaigners – to decide cases, raising fears that the system could become skewed in favour of admitting more people. The warning came as the Home Office confirmed the new body will still be bound by the Human Rights Act framework and equality law, meaning the same legal principles will apply even if the decision-makers are different.
Activist Pursuit of New Roles
According to a source familiar with the plans, the new Independent Immigration Appeals Authority (IIAA) will be staffed by “publicly appointed adjudicators” – a role modelled on magistrates – who will be “professionally trained and independently appointed” but not required to hold legal qualifications. The government intends to widen the recruitment pool by lowering minimum qualification thresholds, a move that has prompted warnings that “migration activists will aggressively pursue these jobs” and “be keen to let everyone in”. The same source predicted the outcome “will be, I think, probably even worse than we have now”. The IIAA is expected to begin hearing cases from late 2027, with the reforms included in the upcoming Immigration and Asylum Bill.
The Home Office argues that the existing First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) is overwhelmed, pointing to a surge in asylum appeals from around 7,000 in early 2023 to over 50,000 by March 2025. The proposed IIAA is presented as a structural solution to reduce backlogs and delays, creating a “single route” for appeals to prevent repeated claims or the introduction of new grounds after an initial rejection. The new body will also prioritise cases deemed to be in the public interest, including human rights claims and “high-harm” foreign offenders.
Legal Challenges and Criticisms
The same source noted that even under the new system, “there will be routes for legal challenge if these independent boards have somehow broken the law”. Judicial review is expected to remain available where statutory appeal rights are limited, but the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has voiced serious concerns about the quality of decision-making. UNHCR has cautioned against reforms that might restrict procedural rights, warning that replacing legally trained adjudicators with individuals lacking legal experience could undermine the quality of asylum and refugee law decisions. This, the UN body argues, could lead to more reviews and appeals, exacerbating backlogs rather than solving them.
UNHCR recommends that the new body ensure access to timely legal advice, representation, and interpretation; retain adjudicators with strong legal expertise; continue using oral hearings for protection claims; and provide trauma-informed support for vulnerable appellants. Critics also worry that closer administrative links with the Home Office or a central case platform could weaken the perceived independence of the appeals body. Some have called for the IIAA to be established as a Non-Departmental Public Body and placed under the remit of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. Ministers, meanwhile, argue the current system is being “gamed” by individuals lodging vexatious appeals to frustrate removal, and that the reforms will prevent migrants from appealing rejected claims while simultaneously bringing new matters.
Human Rights Act Framework Still Applies
Despite the shift to publicly appointed adjudicators, the legal framework governing immigration appeals remains unchanged. The source emphasised that the new adjudicators “will still be bound by the Human Rights Act framework, the equality law, which applies sometimes to migration cases as well. All of that is still going to apply here.” This means the fundamental decision-making principles will persist even if the decision-makers are different in background and training.
The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law, making it unlawful for public authorities – including the Home Office and, by extension, the IIAA – to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Two articles are particularly relevant in immigration cases: Article 3, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, and Article 8, which protects the right to respect for private and family life. Individuals can appeal against visa refusals or deportation orders on human rights grounds, and immigration judges currently undertake a “balancing exercise” when considering Article 8 claims, weighing the public interest in immigration control against factors such as family ties and time spent in the UK. The new adjudicators will be required to perform the same balancing exercise under the same legal obligations.
The Equality Act 2010 also continues to apply. It prohibits discrimination on grounds such as race, nationality, and ethnic origin. While immigration status is not a protected characteristic, discrimination related to nationality or ethnic origin can occur. Public authorities, including the Home Office, have a duty under the Equality Act to consider how their policies affect individuals with protected characteristics. However, there are specific exceptions within the Act for immigration functions, allowing differential treatment based on nationality or immigration status where it is necessary for the public good or related to immigration control. The source concluded: “So they’ll have to take the same decisions, and presumably there will be routes for legal challenge if these independent boards have somehow broken the law.”
