A recent response to a Freedom of Information request shows that there has been a sharp increase in the number of people being invited to more than one substantive asylum interview. In 2022, a total of 4,144 asylum applicants were invited to more than one substantive interview. In 2023 this increased to 17,264 applicants.

Decision making increased substantially last year as a result of the backlog clearance exercise, however this alone does not explain the increase, as in the period January to March 2024 alone, the total was 8,375 people invited to more than one substantive interview. In some cases people have been invited to as many as four interviews.

The asylum interview is a key component of the asylum process. For years, asylum applicants have generally undergone one substantive interview in which they are asked many questions and their answers form the bulk of the evidence used to decide their claim. The recent increase in the number of people receiving multiple invitations begs the question as to what has changed, and why is one interview not sufficient in these cases.

Why are multiple interviews taking place?

The policy objective behind asylum interviews is to gather enough evidence to be able to properly consider and determine an asylum claim. Potentially this is why more asylum interviews are being required, so that decision-makers can satisfy themselves that they have enough information to determine a claim. This is a justification I have received on several occasions from the Home Office.

However, this policy objective isn’t new and it seems more likely that there is another reason (or reasons) behind it. One possible explanation is that conducting multiple asylum interviews stalls decision making, this arguably allows the Home Office to delay decisions behind the implementation of the Illegal Migration Act.

Another explanation could be to do with the training or competency of those conducting the interviews. In April 2023 there was the equivalent of 1,274 full-time Home Office staff working on asylum casework. In April 2024 there were almost double that, at 2,545. It is possible that new staff are not being appropriately trained to conduct effective asylum interviews.

The increase in staff was in part to try and clear the backlog, which also involved more decisions being made without a substantive interview at all and instead being made on the basis of questionnaires. It follows, then, that new Home Office staff may also lack experience in interviewing applicants altogether.  

Cynically, multiple interviews also provides more opportunity for the Home Office to refuse or withdraw an asylum claim on the basis of inconsistencies or non-attendance.

Most likely, it is a combination of all these things.

Why are multiple asylum interviews a problem?

The immigration rules make clear that the interview must be conducted by someone who is “legally competent” to conduct such an interview. There is extensive guidance to interviewers about conduct and safeguarding, with extra guidance for interviewers in claims based on sexual orientation.

The guidance calls for an environment which ‘supports the claimant to disclose all evidence…to support their claim’, treats applicants with ‘respect, dignity and fairness’, encourages interviewers to ‘ask appropriate questions to encourage full disclosure’, ‘protect vulnerable adults’ and ‘take into account any medical evidence when preparing for and conducting the interview’. The fact that so many interviewers are failing to obtain the necessary information the first time round indicates that this guidance is not being adhered to.

Further, asylum interviews are by their nature a high-stress and challenging part of the asylum process. Applicants must recount personal, upsetting or traumatic events in a bid to substantiate their claims. Multiple interviews may increase the negative impact upon an individual’s mental health.

Multiple interviews are also a worry for those who are unrepresented – currently the figure is around 50% of applicants. More interviews mean there is more correspondence to miss, which can lead to withdrawal of an asylum claim on the basis of non-attendance. Unrepresented individuals are also disadvantaged as they do not have access to advice on this complex process.  

Finally, as we have noted, there is also far more opportunity for applicants to become confused, contradict a detail raised in a previous interview, or have issues with interpreters or interviewers. All of these factors can contribute significantly to the outcome of an asylum claim.   

How can an asylum interview be cancelled?

The Home Office has discretion to cancel or postpone an asylum interview, as well as to agree to decide the case on papers alone (without the interview). It is most common for this to be exercised in relation to medical matters.

If someone is unable to attend or proceed with an interview due to illness or a medical condition then evidence must be provided to the Home Office. The evidence must be from a GP, consultant or other appropriately qualified relevant healthcare professional.

It is very important that this evidence specifically confirms that the applicant is or was unable to attend their interview on the relevant date and the reasons why. It is likely that the asylum interview will be cancelled but it may require multiple emails to the Home Office to get confirmation of this. Try: asylumcustomercommunications@gov.uk or the specific casework unit that the interview invite came from.

If medical evidence has not yet been obtained, an asylum interview can also be postponed awaiting a medical report which specifically assesses fitness, however postponement is only possible if the report is about whether the applicant is fit to be interviewed. Again, the wording of any request is extremely important and must follow the guidance.

Finally, the Home Office also has a discretion under the immigration rules (paragraph 339NA) to omit the requirement of an interview altogether in a number of circumstances including where the applicant is unfit or unable to be interviewed owing to enduring circumstances beyond their control. Again, this is a good option where detailed medical evidence is available.

Conclusion

The increase of multiple asylum interviews will likely be most felt by those without extra support, be it legal representation or otherwise. It is only with specialised medical evidence and clear correspondence with the Home Office that interviews can be cancelled or postponed and it is only with this support that the negative impacts of multiple interviews can be mitigated. It waits to be seen whether this trend will continue throughout the rest of the year.