Use of “deport first, appeal later” process expanded to 23 countries

The Home Office announced over the weekend that the use of “deport now, appeal later” would be expanded from eight to 23 countries. The list of countries is missing from that announcement but has been covered elsewhere. Existing countries were Finland, Nigeria, Estonia, Albania, Belize, Mauritius, Tanzania and Kosovo. New countries are Angola, Australia, Botswana, Brunei, Bulgaria, Canada, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Malaysia, Uganda and Zambia.

“Deport now, appeal later” refers to when a person has made a human rights claim which has been refused and certified under section 94B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The Home Secretary can certify a claim under this section where it is considered that it would not breach the ECHR to remove the person from the UK before their appeal has concluded. The Home Secretary may certify a claim where it is concluded that the person will not face a real risk of serious irreversible harm if removed from the UK.

This is separate to certification of a claim as clearly unfounded under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The Home Office guidance states that where certification is possible on this basis as well as section 94B, then section 94 must be used as this will remove the right of appeal entirely.

The guidance indicates that one of the barriers to use of the process is the ability for evidence to be taken by video link from the country it is proposed to return the person to. This was also stated in a letter from former Home Secretary Suella Braverman to the Home Affairs Select Committee in June 2023. This position presumably followed on from the Upper Tribunal’s decision in Agbabiaka (evidence from abroad, Nare guidance) Nigeria [2021] UKUT 286 (IAC) (our write up).

The First-tier Tribunal (IAC) has published a Presidential Guidance Note No 2 of 2024 – Taking evidence from abroad which sets out that where a person wants to rely on live oral evidence given from abroad then approval is required from the tribunal. This refers to a list produced by the Foreign Office which sets out the position of various countries in relation to video link evidence.

The Home Office’s announcement states:

Under the expanded scheme, foreign nationals who have had their human rights claim refused will be removed from the UK to their home country before they can appeal the decision. Individuals can then take part in their UK appeal hearing from overseas using video technology.

So I am assuming that the mechanism for this is the expansion of number of countries which have agreed that live oral evidence can be given by video in immigration proceedings, although I can’t see that anything much has changed with that Foreign Office list of countries recently. On 21 July 2025 the list was changed as follows:

The rules for some countries included the advice ‘Where there is no response, this is not to be interpreted as permission to proceed with the taking of video evidence’. This line has been removed wherever it appeared, following a recent change of policy. Where there has been no response, it is now assumed that evidence can be given by videolink from abroad in immigration tribunals only.

However looking at the old list, those words appeared in relation to far more countries than have been announced as participating in the expanded scheme. So it appears that we might be missing some information, perhaps some updated guidance will turn up soon.