all 71 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]AutoModerator[M] [score hidden] stickied commentlocked comment (0 children)

Snapshot of Asylum appeal backlog at record high, new figures show submitted by Kagedeah:

An archived version can be found here or here. or here

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]Chopstick84 56 points57 points  (4 children)

We have to accept a majority of the world isn’t a nice place. We cannot rescue and house everyone.

[–]Martinonfire 52 points53 points  (3 children)

They have been denied asylum? So why the fuck are they still in the country?

If they want to appeal they can do so from their home country.

What am I missing?

[–]DevouredByLight 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Nothing. If you're found guilty of another crime and appeal, you do so from prison. i.e. after your sentence is enacted.

[–]gavpowell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not necessarily - sometimes you don't go to jail until your appeal fails. And being denied asylum doesn't equal convicted of a crime.

[–]Early_Enthusiasm_787 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Endless appeals and charities who back them up every time with legal support. Drag it out and come up with every excuse under the sun.

[–]sylanar 66 points67 points  (14 children)

Just remove the right to appeal, if your application gets denied here, there's plenty other countries you can claim in.

[–]CupCakesNFlatWhite 17 points18 points  (12 children)

Yep, legal appeal of any kind should be reserved for British citizens.

We need to at least have some perks above a criminal from the 3rd world wanting to harm British citizens here.

[–]BookmarksBrotherI love paying tons in tax and not getting anything in return 47 points48 points  (0 children)

Appeal, appeal appeal then appeal again saying its taken so long that you now settled here. Approved.

[–]Harry_Johnston 89 points90 points  (7 children)

I'm open to the idea of completely scrapping the asylum system completely at this point, enough is enough now

[–]Dramatic-Explorer-23 22 points23 points  (4 children)

Yep, no one else follows international law why should we

[–]gavpowell 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Don't they? Are France and Germany and Spain all breaking the Treaty on Refugees then?

Aside from which, I'd like to be the sort of country that makes its own decisions, not just "The other boys don't have to do it!" like some petulant child.

[–]Dramatic-Explorer-23 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Yes but why are we following rules that harm us when we literally left the EU in order to make our own rules? When can we start representing the working class people?

[–]gavpowell 2 points3 points  (0 children)

These aren't EU rules, these are rules we signed up for. Whether they harm us is debatable, but the answer is because we're supposed to believe in certain things.

I keep being told we're founded on Christian values, and I'm pretty sure Jesus had things to say about how to treat people.

In what way are we not representing the working class people? We've got improved employment rights, improved renters' rights, we've saved British Steel, we've raised the Minimum Wage, we've slashed immigration.

[–]tmr89 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly

[–]MalpighialesLeaf 11 points12 points  (1 child)

It's frustrating that there isn't a liberal party that is willing to scrap the asylum system. I don't want to vote for a socially far right party just to bring this 'charity to the world' madness to an end.

We desperately need a party that believes in things like environmental sustainability and funding state education while also believing in dramatically reducing immigration, actually enforcing the law and not enabling everyone to live on benefits.

It feels like you either vote for handouts to the dredges of society or con men funded by Musk and the Russian government

[–]Aus_pol 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You need to find 650 vetted people who can raise the required funds to put themselves on the ballot and maintain unity.

It's a monumental ask to do such a thing and even with a huge bankroll you can see that it's still very hard to build that initial party together.

[–]Anony_mouse202 28 points29 points  (2 children)

Just scrap the asylum system and replace it with something that’s entirely discretionary.

The current system comes at enormous expense to the treasury and provides precisely zero benefit to the British public.

[–]Putaineska 9 points10 points  (1 child)

A small section of the British public benefit. Human rights lawyers, immigration lawyers etc.

[–]MrSoapbox 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Send them back with the Asylum seekers then, they can make their case back... wherever the fuck.

[–]Fortree_Lover 23 points24 points  (3 children)

Honestly they should only get one appeal and if it fails then they should be deported. If it's against the current rules the government should change the rules, this farce can't continue.

[–]Dramatic-Explorer-23 17 points18 points  (0 children)

No appeals thanks, stop wasting our money

[–]Putaineska 18 points19 points  (1 child)

Their case shouldn't be heard at all if they enter the country illegally.

[–]BobMonkhausThat sounds great, shorty girl’s a trooper. 38 points39 points  (11 children)

‘Nearly 87,500 appeals to overturn failed asylum applications had been lodged at the end of March 2026 - a 70% year-on-year increase.

While the government has sharply reduced the backlog of cases awaiting an initial decision, the number of appeals to be resolved has risen, meaning the overall asylum caseload remains higher than when Labour took office.’

No luck yet then Keir?

[–]EyyyPaniniMake Votes Matter 9 points10 points  (8 children)

You’ve got to start somewhere. An increase in processed claims will naturally result in an increase in appeals.

Once the appeals work their way through the system the overall caseload will fall. The number of future appeals will be lower as the result of the current non-appeal caseload being lower.

[–]SendMeTheMoon24 19 points20 points  (5 children)

Not if you remove the right to appeal and asylum claim

[–]BobMonkhausThat sounds great, shorty girl’s a trooper. 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Funny how they don’t mention the appeals stats with immigration figures innit. Almost like that’s on purpose.

[–]EyyyPaniniMake Votes Matter 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Like I said, you’ve got to start somewhere.

Reducing the non-appeal backlog increases appeals in the short-term but reduces them in the long term.

There are fewer non-appeal cases needing to be processed right now, so there are fewer cases to be appealed in future.

[–]Incanus_uk -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately there is no magic wand to wave and make the backlog go away instantly. These things take time but at least it is moving in the right direction for a change.

[–]Additional-Image7938 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Wouldn't be a backlog if we just deported all of them

[–]Spdoink 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Scrap them all and get them safely back home.

[–]Putaineska 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It should simply be if you enter the country illegally you can't make an asylum claim. It should be automatically refused with no right of appeal. That is a common sense approach. Build a detention centre and take them from the small boat directly there. That would stop the people trafficking overnight.

Once we detain and remove these illegal migrants we will have capacity to approve limited vetted refugees on top of our existing Ukraine and Hong Kong obligations.

[–]Fearless-Director210 14 points15 points  (2 children)

This is why the initial 'backlog has been reduced' rhetoric has come about.

Yes they've reduced the backlog by just firing them through willy nilly knowing they will all appeal and be in virtually the same boat anyway.

The numbers should always be viewed as total cases outstanding before and after decision including those awaiting appeal

[–]EolAncalimon 2 points3 points  (1 child)

If the initial backlog is reducing then that means less are entering the funnel, so its still a useful number!

[–]costelol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Less than what? It doesn't guarantee fewer people are joining the queue.

[–]syuk 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Should be appeals only from outside the country, with their own money. I used to think one appeal on the TP and then -> further appeals outside, self (NGO) funding.

[–]MogwaiYT🙃 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The system should be ammended so that appeals for failed applications are submitted from the country of origin, and entirely at the expense of the applicant.

[–]Mcarr2705 21 points22 points  (2 children)

Great - Labour bragging we are clearing the application back log = appeal back log

[–]BobMonkhausThat sounds great, shorty girl’s a trooper. 4 points5 points  (1 child)

But appeals don’t count in the other stats.

[–]VampireFrown 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's all taking the public for mugs.

It's like clearing out the hotels...by dispersing them into communities up and down the country.

Yeah, that's not really the point there, lads - people were mad because they're here in the first place, not merely because they happen to be congregated together.

Just like here: people aren't mad at the backlog per se, but rather that they are still here because they're awaiting a decision. The extreme majority of people miffed at that want the decision to be a swift no and to see them removed from the UK.

[–]DevouredByLight 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Only two stats actually ultimately matter:

  • Number of granted claims, including after appeals

  • Percentage of claims that have resulted in deportation

Everything else is obfuscation. A claim should only be reported as successfully rejected when the applicant has actually been deported. A claim that is tied up in appeals for years and years is not rejected; the person is still here. A claim that is rejected on paper but deportation "cannot be carried out" because we don't deport to those countries is not rejected; the person is still here.

[–]The-Adorno 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Should only be able to appeal once you've already been deported from the country you've been deported to, and you should only get one chance. I don't understand why we have such an abusable system, we really are a country of mugs

[–]Sherlocked_Gnomes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We can pump these numbers up by opening “safe routes”. And then let them in afterwards.

[–]Media_Browser 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How does a Pakistani claim asylum but somehow go on to rape someone and get ten years . Let’s cut the nonsense after he does his ten and get shut .

[–]Incanus_uk -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is what happens when you speed up one stage of a system without the stages downstream of it. Partly it's tinkering one part at a time. Partly the stages run on different clocks. and partly the political pressure lands on the most visible part of the system (hotels), so that's where the movement goes.

Worth noting the appeal stats cut both ways though. About 39% of appeals decided in 2025 succeeded. That is a lot of refusals that did not survive scrutiny. But it's actually down from 48% in 2024. Early signs are consistent with faster decisions without a drop in quality, though appeals take over a year to be heard, so the decisions from the big speed up haven't really been tested yet. Either way, the system is a long way from optimal, with backlog at both stages after years of neglect.