Explaining geographic disparities in asylum appeal success rates at different hearing centres around the UK

Asylum seekers who appeal against initially negative decisions are more than twice as likely to be successful if their case is heard in North London than if their case is heard in Newport or Manchester. This is true for all asylum seekers in the UK, but also applies to specific nationalities. Iranians, for example, enjoy a 34% success rate at one hearing centre and only an 18% success rate at another, Afghans' success rates vary from 31% to 17% depending upon the court, and Zimbabweans' from 54% to 22%. These geographic disparities have not been investigated in the UK because the data on appeal success rates is not publicly available. This proposal draws upon two successful freedom of information requests (FIRs) however, in order to piece together the geography of asylum appeal success rates (see Figure One, case for support).

An examination of these disparities is important for various reasons. First, asylum seekers who appeal may be facing a lottery in terms of the court that hears their case, which is arbitrary and unjust. Second, immigration law firms and their clients (such as the Legal Services Commission) may be facing an uneven landscape in terms of the degree of success they can expect in different parts of the country. Understanding this 'lawscape' will empower them with the knowledge to direct their resources more effectively. Third, official bodies with responsibility for asylum appeals, such as the Ministry of Justice and UKBA, need information and analysis in order to make a judgement about whether steps should be taken in order to improve the geographic consistency of the asylum appeal system. Fourth, the wider legal community, beyond immigration law, should be alerted to the existence and impact of geographic disparities in legal processes.

The obvious research question arising from these disparities concerns why they exist. Accepting that the discrepancies are unlikely to have occurred by chance (less than 0.01% likelihood according to statistical analysis of the FIRs), four explanations present themselves. First, there may be administrative processes that direct strong cases towards certain courts, although preliminary enquiries put to officials from UKBA, immigration judges and practising immigration lawyers do not support this explanation. Second, some asylum seekers have legal representation and others do not, and this geography of legal aid may be driving the discrepancies. In light of the 10% contraction in legal aid funding in the UK as part of recent austerity measures, this explanation seems particularly important to address. Third, different judges may be predisposed towards particular decisions. This was the finding of quantitative US-based research that demonstrated that the gender and age of immigration judges has significant impact over their decisions, underscoring the importance of investigating this set of factors in the UK case (Ramji-Nogales et al, 2009). And fourth, there may be differences in the daily practices of courts - their rhythms, cultures and routines. This set of factors, centring upon courts as distinct and non-homogenous places, remains understudied in legal geography as well as legal studies more broadly.

This research will examine the relative salience of these four groups of variables in explaining disparities in asylum appeal success rates. In so doing, the research will bring together qualitative and quantitative forms of analysis in order to generate a rich and innovative set of explanations for the disparities; constitute the first statistically informed UK-based analysis of national disparities in asylum appeals; impact upon the way policy makers, politicians and lawyers in the field of immigration law, as well as appellants, approach their activities; and have wide implications for the theoretical and empirical study of the relation between geography and law in the future.

Who benefits?

Five groups will benefit from the research. First, the Ministry of Justice oversees the process of asylum appeal claims and this research will provide an insight into the variability of the process which in turn will highlight ways in which it can be made more consistent across courts and cases. Since fairness, equal opportunities, justice and the independence of judges are all central principles of the Ministry of Justice, they stand to benefit from this research in so far as it will allow them to pursue these principles further. Second, immigration law firms will benefit. The immigration law practitioners' association lists around 200 members operating in England, Wales and Scotland. Third, asylum support groups, charities and MPs/Lords with concerns for asylum seekers will benefit from the proposed research. 22 MSPs and 3 MPs have expressed their desire to see the research completed and to hear the findings of the project. This group includes representatives of two cross party asylum support groups in the Scottish Parliament and at Westminster (the Welsh Assembly was also contacted and a reponse has been promised). Baroness Bakewell, who has asked questions in the House of Lords on issues relating to immigration appeals, has also expressed her interest in the project (for all letters of support, including the Scottish Parliamentary motion in support of the project, see attachments). This group also includes the project partners on the steering committee for the project who have each pledges resources (Red Cross, Bail for Immigration Detainees and the Refugee Council), as well as the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (Brennan, consultant, is SW head) and a range of charities and lobby groups (e.g. Refugee Action). Fourth, the research will benefit asylum seekers themselves. Fifth, a wider group of lawyers and professional legal bodies, outside immigration law, will benefit.

How will they benefit?

The Ministry of Justice will benefit because the findings will allow them to put in place policies that will ensure a fairer and more just treatment of asylum appeals, thereby fulfilling their mandate. For example, the research may cause the Ministry to review the methods used to promote consistency and share best practice across courts or regional asylum teams (who make initial decisions on asylum claims). It may also cause the Ministry to examine the information and training that is available to specific groups of judges and/or Home Office presenting officers.

Immigration law firms will become empowered with knowledge about the conditions under which asylum appeals are likely to be successful. This will allow them to shift resources into productive channels and be informed about strategies that could lead to successful outcomes e.g. the research will be able to identify the optimal approach of the lawyer, location of hearing and length of representation, all of which the firms have partial control over.

Asylum support groups and charities, cross-party parliamentary groups concerned with asylum seekers and ministers with a concern for asylum will benefit by being able to use well-informed, statistically accurate research to support their interactions with a range of professional and statutory bodies, including the Minister for Immigration, the United Kingdom Border Agency (UKBA), the Legal Services Commission (LSC) and other members of Parliament, in order to promote actions that lead to a more consistent asylum appeal system.

Asylum seekers may benefit if their appeal cases can be constructed in the light of richer knowledge of the asylum appeal system. They will also be treated in a fairer and more consistent manner as a result of the execution of this research.

A wider group of non-immigration law firms and professional legal bodies will benefit from the research if factors are identified that are i) related to the outcome of court processes but ii) are not specific to immigration.