The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA) has issued a statement on the introduction of the 24-week statutory timeframe for determining certain appeals in the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). Under regulation 2 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 (Commencement No 5) Regulations 2026, SI 2026/766, the new timeframe was introduced for appeals lodged on or after 12 August 2026 by appellants receiving asylum accommodation support, and non-detained appellants who are liable to deportation under section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 (IA 1971). A letter was sent by the Tribunal to practitioners on 7 August 2026 to flag this up and confirm the relevant operational changes. The ILPA statement notes several concerns, including lack of consultation on the changes, and the effects on unrepresented appellants and access to justice, the backlog and legal aid funding mechanisms.

The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA) has published a statement opposing the proposal in the Immigration and Asylum Bill, introduced on 30 June 2026, to replace the First-tier Tribunal with a new Independent Immigration Appeals Authority (IIAA). ILPA considers that the existing tribunal system, with its established procedural rules, judicial practice guidance and appellate structures, should be retained. It states that replacing immigration tribunals with a body integrated into the immigration and asylum system would weaken the separation of powers, undermine the rule of law and raise serious concerns about judicial independence.

The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA) has published a House of Commons Second Reading briefing opposing the Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026 in its entirety. ILPA argues that the Bill would not address the principal causes of delay in the asylum system, which it identifies as poor initial Home Office decision-making and inadequate legal aid provision. The briefing raises concerns about the proposed Independent Immigration Appeals Authority (IIAA), changes to the domestic application of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, delegated powers concerning protection status, recovery of asylum accommodation costs and changes to modern slavery protections.

The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA) has published a blog post by Francesca Parkes, a senior caseworker and Northern France coordinator at Refugee Legal Support. The blog looks at what is described as the current arbitrary application of section 24 D1 of the Immigration Act 1971, which was introduced by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 to criminalise persons who did not technically ‘enter’ the UK, but instead have arrived by ‘small boat’ without a valid entry clearance. Parkes critiques the lack of defences available for those prosecuted under this section and suggests legislative amendments to align with the Refugee Convention. The blog also addresses the inconsistencies in prosecution decisions. Recommendations include expanding the Article 31 defence to asylum seekers and revoking section 40 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 to ensure fairer treatment. The blog also discusses how new offences targeting individuals arriving in the UK on ‘small boats’ are included in the Border Security, Immigration and Asylum Bill, which may exacerbate the situation. These offences relate to supplying and handling articles for immigration crime and the collection of information for immigration crime.

The Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA) has published a briefing on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-25, introduced to Parliament on 30 January 2025. The Bill proposes significant repeals of previous legislation, including the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and substantial portions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (IMA). Key reforms include restoring judicial oversight, reinforcing human rights protections, and removing the duty to deport irregular arrivals.

The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA) has published a briefing by the Centre for the Study of Emotion and Law (CSEL) at Royal Holloway, University of London, which outlines key considerations for interviewing unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, highlighting how development, memory, trauma, culture and early separation affect a child’s ability to recall and explain their experiences. The briefing emphasises adapting communication expectations, using open questioning and creating child‑friendly, rapport‑based interview environments to support accurate, detailed narratives.

The Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA) has published a position statement responding to the High Court's judgment in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), which confirmed that conducting litigation is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007 that cannot be delegated or exercised under supervision. The judgment has created uncertainty for immigration and asylum practitioners, particularly those accredited under the Law Society's Immigration and Asylum Accreditation Scheme (IAAS) or qualified through CILEX without formal litigation practice rights. ILPA notes that this judgment reinforces existing law but has significant implications for immigration and asylum practitioners, given that the sector has long relied on well-established accreditation and supervision frameworks to ensure competence and ethical practice. The position statement notes that CILEX Regulation issued interim guidance in October 2025 confirming individuals without litigation practice rights may support but not conduct litigation, while the Legal Services Board has approved CILEX Regulation's application for standalone litigation practice rights. The Law Society has confirmed that IAAS accreditation does not constitute authorisation to conduct litigation under the Legal Services Act 2007.

The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA) has published its response to the Home Office call for evidence on the proposed new Independent Appeals Body (IAB), opposing the reforms and arguing that they risk undermining judicial independence, access to justice and the constitutional framework governing immigration appeals. ILPA states that the proposals fail to address the root causes of delays and backlogs in the asylum appeals system, which it attributes primarily to poor-quality Home Office decision-making and shortages in immigration and asylum legal aid provision.

The Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA) has published a detailed response to the Home Secretary's statement on 'Legal Migration'. ILPA states that the government's plans to reduce net migration have 'manufactured a narrative to address issues that do not exist', arguing that government reliance on ONS net migration figures inflates net migration as it neglects eventual emigration from the UK's predominantly temporary student cohort. ILPA argues that the Home Secretary's plan aims to combat 'non-existent' exploitation of the immigration system, stating for example that dependants accompanying immediate family members on the Health and Care Worker route positively contribute to the economy, and that post-study work visas can enhance the workforce. ILPA states that preventing care workers from bringing dependants to the UK will negatively affect the availability and quality of social care. Also, introducing a requirement for care homes to register with the Care Quality Commission is insufficient to end exploitation, given the existing regulatory framework in England and Wales. It additionally argues that the increased salary threshold for Skilled Workers will disproportionately impact certain sectors such as hospitality which are facing recruitment and retention challenges, and that the minimum income requirement for family migration has 'no rational basis', will disproportionately affect protected groups and those living outside of London and the South East, and will lead to more complex human rights based immigration applications. ILPA calls for the Home Secretary to reconsider the measures announced in the statement.

The Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA) has submitted a response to the Migration Advisory Committee's call for evidence on family migration visa financial requirements. ILPA strongly opposes the current Minimum Income Requirement (MIR), set at £29,000, deeming it much too high for many ordinary working people. They argue there is no legal necessity for financial requirements in the Immigration Rules, highlighting that existing legislation already addresses concerns about recourse to public funds. ILPA criticises the complexity of the system, noting it leads to difficult human rights assessments and longer settlement routes for successful appellants. The response also points out that even with planned increases to the National Living Wage, many workers will still struggle to meet the MIR threshold, potentially excluding a significant portion of the UK workforce from family reunification.

The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA) has sent a joint open letter, signed by over 230 experienced practitioners, experts and relevant organisations, to the Home Office expressing its concerns on the UK’s transition to eVisas and the processes involved in the digitalisation of immigration status. ILPA sets out concerns regarding the lack of harmonisation in the wider strategy of the immigration system across the Home Office, the absence of a transitional phase after the 31 December 2024 deadline, risks to migrants if faced with technical errors due to the lack of a technological safety net, insufficient engagement with vulnerable migrants, and a lack of public awareness on the transition. ILPA also suggests immediate and medium-term recommendations, including accepting expired physical evidence or issuing new physical evidence when there are technical errors, engaging meaningfully through mass forms of communication, setting up a 24/7 helpline, and introducing digital tokens that can be used without internet connection.

The Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA) has signed a joint statement and letter to Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood MP, warning of potential harms from proposed immigration and asylum changes on survivors of modern slavery and human trafficking seeking asylum in the UK. The signatories, coordinated by After Exploitation, state that the plans would weaken protections for refugees, make asylum claims more difficult, and further restrict the process for recognising victims of modern slavery, despite many survivors needing asylum due to risks arising from their exploitation or from immigration rules that leave them vulnerable.