Very few systems are perfect. But this is a system that incentivizes its staff to get particular outcomes, and which sets arbitrary targets for appeal rejections (which are nearly 50% higher than the historical rate). Oh, and an appeals process which was just found unlawful and which almost certainly reduces the likelihood of successfully appealing, but which we’re still using anyway.
Despite which, the successful appeals rate is IIRC roughly 12 times higher than the criminal appeals rate which suggests the initial decisions are pretty unreliable. Theresa May’s office withdrew 3000 immigration decisions unchallenged in 2013 after an appeal was lodged. So even the Home Office itself clearly has no faith in those decisions.
Imagine you’re depending on a legal process, and you know that historically 50% of people will win their case, but a new rule has been brought in that says now only 30% should win.
This isn’t imperfect- it’s broken, and by design. And what do these decisions and these numbers suggest about the government’s approach as a whole?