Asylum Tribunal Lawyers Strike Over Pay Concerns, Highlighting Systemic Issues in Ireland’s Immigration Appeals Process

In January 2025, several part-time members of Ireland’s International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT), comprised of solicitors and barristers, commenced industrial action in response to ongoing concerns over inadequate remuneration. This strike has drawn attention to significant challenges within the country’s asylum appeal system, including issues related to compensation, workload, and the government’s approach to processing asylum claims. The strike also underscores broader concerns about access to justice for those seeking asylum in Ireland.

Background of the Strike

The Department of Justice has confirmed that a number of tribunal members have requested an increase in pay for adjudicating asylum appeals. These appeals play a vital role in the international protection process, allowing applicants to challenge initial decisions on their asylum claims. The department, in coordination with the Department of Public Expenditure, is currently reviewing these requests.

A spokesperson from the department stated that while the strike has reduced the availability of part-time tribunal members for oral hearings, paper-based appeal cases are still being processed. However, with the already stretched capacity of the appeals system, legal professionals and asylum advocates are concerned that this industrial action will contribute to further backlogs and delays in the system.

Soaring Caseloads and Increased Pressures

The strike coincides with an unprecedented rise in the number of cases handled by the tribunal. Official figures show that appeals before IPAT surged from 1,180 in 2022 to 8,808 in 2024, representing a staggering increase of over 646%. This sharp rise in appeals is partly due to changes in government policies designed to fast-track asylum applications and increase deportation rates.

The Irish government has sought to reduce waiting times by implementing a fast-track process for applicants from countries deemed “safe” and by prioritising cases from countries with the highest number of asylum applications. However, legal experts argue that without sufficient legal representation and a fair procedural framework, fast-tracking cases merely shifts the burden onto appeals, leading to an increase in rejected applications that require further review.

Lowered Qualifications for Tribunal Members

In an attempt to speed up asylum processing, the government has revised the eligibility criteria for tribunal members, making it easier to appoint new adjudicators. Previously, a minimum of five years’ experience as a practising solicitor or barrister was required. However, recent legislative amendments have expanded eligibility to include legal academics and professionals from related fields with at least two years of legal experience.

This move has sparked criticism from legal professionals who argue that the complexity of asylum law requires adjudicators with specialised expertise in immigration and human rights law. Immigration barrister Cathal Malone commented that tribunal members require a high level of legal proficiency to assess appeals fairly, and the dilution of qualification standards could compromise the integrity of the system.

Legal Community Reactions

Legal professionals and human rights advocates have expressed support for the striking tribunal members, stating that their concerns are long overdue. Malone remarked that the only surprise is that industrial action had not occurred sooner, given the mounting pressures and inadequate compensation faced by tribunal members.

Stephen Kirwan, a solicitor and partner at KOD Lyons, a law firm specialising in immigration and asylum cases, noted that the lack of adequate legal aid funding discourages experienced lawyers from taking on asylum work. Kirwan stressed that proper compensation is necessary to attract skilled professionals to asylum cases, which involve complex legal assessments, credibility determinations, and in-depth country-of-origin research.

Compensation Structure for Tribunal Members

The current pay structure for tribunal members varies depending on the type of appeal being processed.

• Standard “slow-track” cases: Oral hearings, which require the most legal scrutiny, pay €730 per case for a single applicant. If an applicant has a spouse or partner with a similar case, the fee increases to €1,095, and if their partner’s case differs, the fee rises to €1,460.
• Paper-based “slow-track” cases: These cases pay €490 for a single applicant’s appeal review.
• Fast-track cases: These do not involve oral hearings and are instead reviewed based on written submissions. These cases pay significantly less—just €248 per appeal.

Many tribunal members argue that fast-track cases, despite being lower-paid, often involve complex legal assessments, particularly when credibility issues are at stake. Kirwan pointed out that proper adjudication requires a detailed examination of each applicant’s claims and country conditions, making it unfair that these cases receive lower compensation despite the workload involved.

Systemic Implications of the Strike

The industrial action taken by tribunal members highlights wider systemic problems in Ireland’s asylum process. The sharp increase in asylum applications has placed enormous strain on the appeals process, leading to prolonged waiting times and additional pressure on legal professionals.

While the government has introduced reforms to accelerate asylum procedures, concerns remain about the potential impact on fairness and due process. A 2025 draft programme for government outlines plans to introduce new domestic legislation in 2026 to further expedite application processing. The proposal also suggests replacing IPAT with a new, faster appeal system, though specific details remain unclear.

However, the draft programme does not address the underfunding of asylum legal aid, which legal experts argue is a key factor in the high volume of appeals. Without adequate legal representation at the initial decision-making stage, rejected applicants are more likely to lodge appeals, further overwhelming the system.

The government has also hinted at plans to restrict asylum seekers’ ability to appeal decisions, such as allowing judicial reviews only after an applicant has left the country. Legal professionals warn that such measures could undermine fundamental human rights protections and result in unfair removals.

Potential Consequences for Asylum Seekers

The ongoing strike, coupled with broader policy changes, has serious implications for those seeking asylum in Ireland. Delays in the appeals process prolong uncertainty for applicants, many of whom have fled persecution and are reliant on tribunal rulings for legal protection.

Furthermore, the low pay for asylum legal aid discourages junior lawyers from specialising in asylum law, exacerbating the shortage of experienced legal representatives for applicants. Kirwan noted that many lawyers split tribunal casework with barristers due to the extensive workload, yet the fees remain unsustainable for professionals seeking a viable career in asylum law.

A 2020 government advisory group report estimated that preparing an asylum case for its initial decision requires around 20 hours of legal work. Given that legal aid lawyers receive only €300 for assisting with an initial asylum interview and €400 for drafting an appeal in slow-track cases (or just €250 for fast-track appeals), the financial viability of asylum legal work is in question.

Conclusion: The Need for Reform

The strike by IPAT members has exposed serious flaws in Ireland’s asylum appeals system, from inadequate remuneration and increased workloads to broader policy changes that threaten procedural fairness. Addressing these issues requires a comprehensive strategy that ensures both efficiency and fairness in the asylum process.

Investment in legal aid, competitive pay for tribunal members, and a commitment to upholding the rights of asylum seekers are all crucial components of a fair and functional system. As the government moves forward with legislative changes, it must consider the perspectives of legal professionals and asylum rights advocates to ensure that efficiency does not come at the cost of justice.

Ultimately, a well-funded and fair asylum process benefits not only applicants but also the legal professionals who uphold the integrity of the system. Without meaningful reform, Ireland risks undermining the credibility of its international protection framework, leaving asylum seekers in an even more precarious position.