Skip to main content

Immigration: Appeals

Volume 689: debated on Tuesday 20 February 2007

asked Her Majesty's Government:

How many appeals to the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, resulted from appeals against decisions of immigration judges (formerly chairmen or vice-presidents) of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal for each year from 2002 to 2006. [HL1924]

The latest information taken from the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal and Court of Appeal's electronic databases states that the number of appeals received by the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, as a result of appeals against decisions made by immigration adjudicators/immigration judges in each calendar year during the period 2002-06 were:

Calendar Year

Number of appeals decided by Immigration Adjudicators/Immigration Judges

Number of appeals from IAT/AIT granted permission to proceed to the Court of Appeal.

2002

84,259

82

2003

108,348

108

2004

109,220

154

2005

100,825

254

2006

167,219

342

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What proportion of the work of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, consisted of appeals from the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal for each year from 2002 to 2006. [HL1925]

The latest information taken from the Court of Appeal's (CoA) electronic database states that the proportion of Court of Appeal work concerning decisions on immigration and asylum cases in each calendar year during the period 2002-06 was:

Calendar Year

Applications for permission to appeal for Immigration and Asylum cases as a proportion of CoA permission applications for all case types

Appeals from Immigration and Asylum cases granted permission to proceed, as a proportion of all appeals granted permission to proceed to the CoA

2002

7.6 per cent

6.5 per cent

2003

9.9 per cent

8.5 per cent

2004

13.6 per cent

14.1 per cent

2005

19.8 per cent

20.5 per cent

2006

21.3 per cent

28.8 per cent

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What proportion of appeals to the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, concerning decisions of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal involve challenges to determinations of a single immigration judge on reconsideration of appeal for each year from 2002 to 2006. [HL1926]

The information required is not available from databases of either the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal or the Court of Appeal. To obtain the information entails manually checking individual files, which would incur disproportionate cost.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What proportion of Asylum and Immigration cases listed for hearing by the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, were conceded by the Home Office before the hearing took place (a) in time for another case to be listed, and (b) too late for another case to be listed, for each year from 2002 to 2006. [HL1927]

The information required is not available from databases of either the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal or the Court of Appeal. To obtain the information entails manually checking individual files, which would incur disproportionate cost.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What has been the average cost to the taxpayer of (a) effective, and (b) abortive appeals to the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, relating to appeals against the determination of an immigration judge. [HL1928]

A precise average cost to the taxpayer for Court of Appeal work relating to asylum and immigration could be provided only at a disproportionate cost by scrutinising individual case files. Similarly, an assessment of the variance in cost between effective and abortive cases is unavailable.

Estimates from the Court of Appeal indicate an average cost per case of £6,000. Taking representation into account, and on the basis of estimates from the Legal Services Commission and Treasury Solicitors, this could rise to approximately £12,000.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether, in light of the reported increase in the burden of work in the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ascribed to appeals from the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, they have any plans to review the current work of the Tribunal. [HL1929]

The work of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) was reviewed internally and a report publishing findings was completed in April 2006. The review concluded that it was as yet too soon to determine the effect of policy changes on the workload of the Court of Appeal. The AIT recognises the need to assess continually the efficiency, effectiveness and quality of its work and this will continue as part of wider reform of tribunals and administrative justice.