The Supervision of Immigration and Asylum Appeals in the UK – Taking Stock

摘要

This article examines the ways in which the decisions of immigration and asylum tribunals in the UK can be challenged. It argues that recent legislative reforms continue a trend of restriction that threatens to undermine the fair and effective procedures that are essential if the individual rights contained in instruments like the Refugee Convention are to continue to have practical effects. The sort of challenge under consideration, known as ‘onward appeal’, is brought against a determination that is itself the outcome of a tribunal set up to hear appeals against UK Border Agency decisions. According to the traditional administrative justice paradigm in the UK, such challenges are initially dealt with by a second-tier tribunal, followed by an avenue of appeal to the higher courts. Taking account of the policy reasons that underpin legislative reform in the UK, and the wider context of EU and ECHR standards of effective judicial protection, this article attempts to offer a fully contextualised analysis of law reform in this highly specialised and contentious field. Drawing on an empirical research study into the impact of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004, and in light of further reforms introduced in 2010 following the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the article examines three critical aspects of the reforms to onward appeals: time limits for submission of such appeals, the legal grounds for review, and the structure of higher court supervision.