UK: Government introduces more asylum reforms ― ‘One in, one out’ scheme faces new obstacles ― Legal experts question use of AI in asylum assessments ― Asylum appeals backlog almost doubles in 12 months ― Poll shows UK ‘leads world’ in concern about mi…

• The government has introduced more reforms to the UK asylum system.
• The current UK-France migration agreement has faced a number of setbacks in recent weeks.
• Legal experts have warned that the Home Office’s use of AI in assessing asylum applications may be unlawful.
• New government statistics have revealed that more than 80,000 people were awaiting asylum appeals at the end of 2025.
• A recent poll has revealed that British people lead the world in terms of their concerns about migration.

The government has introduced more reforms to the UK asylum system. In the first week of March, Home Secretary (Minister of the Interior) Shabana Mahmood announced a series of measures, including temporarily halting new study visas for students from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan; offering families of unsuccessful asylum applicants payments of up to £40,000 to return voluntarily to their home countries, and removing the UK’s legal duty to provide support and accommodation to asylum applicants and ending payments to people who break the law, work illegally or who have independent financial means. She also signed into law a new rule under which people who are granted asylum will have their refugee status reviewed every 30 months.

The new measures, which were announced in the week after the Labour party lost a by-election in a constituency in which it had previously enjoyed a significant majority, have been criticised by both politicians and NGOs. On 5 March, approximately 100 Labour MPs wrote a private letter to Mahmood to express their concerns over the proposed changes. The coordinator of the letter, Tony Vaughan MP (Folkestone and Hythe), said: “We can change our immigration system for the better without forgetting who we are as a Labour Party. You don’t win back public confidence in the asylum system by threatening to forcibly remove refugees who have lived here lawfully for 15 or 20 years. That just breeds insecurity and fractured communities”. Meanwhile, a group of NGOs, including ECRE member organisations the Scottish Refugee Council and the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, also wrote a joint letter to Mahmood in which they urged her to withdraw the policy introducing the 30-month reviews. “We also ask you to engage fully with parliamentarians, devolved administrations and the third sector to design an asylum system that is fair, efficient and compassionate. One that supports communities and aligns policy with practical outcomes,” they wrote, adding: “We believe that a fairer asylum system is possible, but that it will require political courage and the rejection of the performative cruelty that has characterised debate in the UK in recent years. We urge you to show that courage and demonstrate commitment to our communities and the dignity of those who come to the UK seeking safety”.

The current UK-France migration agreement has faced a number of setbacks in recent weeks. On 12 March, a high court judge halted the removal of an Eritrean national under the ‘One in, one out’ scheme that was adopted in July 2025 on the grounds that he would “not be recognised by the French authorities as a victim of trafficking” and there was a “real doubt” that he would be able to access timely mental health support in France. More recently, the Guardian newspaper has reported that at least four people who had been returned to France under the scheme had travelled back to the UK in lorries. Meanwhile, NGOs have continued to express their opposition to the scheme. In February, 28 British and French NGOs wrote to four airlines that they believed to be operating deportation flights in order to urge them end what the NGOs called their “shameful involvement” in the scheme while 21 NGOs issued a joint statement in which they called for a complete end to the agreement. Commenting on the scheme, Steve Valdez-Symonds from Amnesty International UK said: “The agreement should be abandoned and discussion opened with the French and other governments about establishing safe routes to enable refugees, especially those with family and other connection here, to reach this country with as little dependence on smugglers as can be made possible”.

Legal experts have warned that the Home Office’s use of AI in assessing asylum applications may be unlawful. According to the digital rights NGO Open Rights Group, which commissioned and published a legal opinion on the issue, the Home Office’s (Ministry of the Interior) use of generative AI tools in the asylum process “does not meet a number of legal obligations nor the standards set out in the AI Playbook for the UK Government” while the opinion “opens the way to legal challenges by asylum applicants who believe that AI has been used in their assessments (…)”. The opinion notes that “The output of the APC and APS [the two generative AI tools used in the asylum process] is not shared with the asylum-seeker. In fact, we understand that they are not even informed that AI is going to be used for their application”. Commenting on the opinion, two of its authors, Robina Allen KC and Dee Masters, said: “If AI tools are influencing asylum decisions, there must be full transparency about how those systems operate and how their outputs are used. Without that transparency, it becomes extremely difficult to ensure that decisions affecting fundamental rights are lawful and fair”. Meanwhile, Sara Alsherif from Open Rights Group called for an end to their use. “We need an immediate ban on the use of these tools. There are many ways to clear the Home Office’s backlog of asylum cases and raise the standard of their decisions – these tools are not the answer”.

New government statistics have revealed that more than 80,000 people were awaiting asylum appeals at the end of 2025. According to data published by the Home Office on 12 March, this backlog represents a 91% increase on the previous year and is significantly higher than the number of people who were waiting for an initial decision (64,000). The average time for an asylum claim to pass through the system has also increased to 63 weeks. Commenting on the data, Imran Hussain from the Refugee Council said: “These figures demonstrate what has been obvious for a long time – poor-quality decision-making by the Home Office is forcing people into an appeals process, meaning that it can take years to reach the correct decision”. “In our frontline work, we see so many men, women and children whose hopes for safety rest on their asylum applications, but they are often met with flawed decisions that don’t address the facts of their situation. While they wait for an appeal, many are stuck in asylum accommodation, unable to work or rebuild their lives, at huge cost to the public purse,” he added.

A recent poll has revealed that British people lead the world in terms of their concerns about migration. According to a recent report by the analytics and advisory firm Gallup, 21% of British people named migration as their top concern compared to 13% in Cyprus and the Netherlands, 12% in Malta and Portugal and 11% in the Dominican Republic and Ireland. The pollsters also found that in countries in which at least 5% cited immigration as the main issue of concern, there was “no clear relationship with the proportion of foreign-born residents”. They noted that the UK has a similar percentage of its population born overseas (17%) to Norway (18%), the Netherlands (16%) and the USA (15%) but that “adults in those countries are less likely to name immigration as the most important issue”. Separately, in December 2025 the University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory published a report in which it noted that gaps in official statistics were hampering public debate and policy decisions on the issue of migration. Commenting on this gap, the head of the refugee support NGO Care4Calais, Steve Smith, said: “The public debate on migration is full of politically motivated rhetoric, and almost entirely devoid of facts. It’s a dangerous situation that is undoubtedly inflaming hate and bolstering far-right actors”.

Related articles