A report drafted for the wrong forum is a weaker report.

United Kingdom

• First-tier Tribunal (IAC)
• Upper Tribunal (IAC)
• Administrative Court
• Court of Appeal

Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (IAC) Rules 2014 and the Immigration and Asylum Chamber Practice Directions on expert evidence. CPR Part 35 applies where the matter is judicial review in the Administrative Court.

The report must declare the expert’s duty to the tribunal, disclose the basis of the opinion, and carry a statement of truth. Reports engaging internal relocation are drafted against Januzi and AH (Sudan); discretion reasoning against HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon); sufficiency of protection against Horvath. Where the applicant is a vulnerable witness, the Practice Direction on vulnerable and sensitive witnesses is addressed directly rather than left implicit.

United States

• EOIR immigration courts
• Board of Immigration Appeals
• Federal circuit courts
• USCIS asylum offices

The immigration courts are not strictly bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence, but reports are prepared to withstand Daubert-style scrutiny on federal review, with qualifications, methodology, and the basis of each opinion set out explicitly.

Reports address the regulatory framework applicants must satisfy — nexus to a protected ground, particular social group formulation, government unwillingness or inability to control the persecutor, and the internal relocation enquiry — and where relevant the corroboration expectations introduced by the REAL ID Act. Country conditions are tied to the one-year filing bar and changed-circumstances arguments where those are live.

Europe & the ECtHR

• National asylum tribunals
• European Court of Human Rights
• Court of Justice of the EU

The recast Qualification Directive 2011/95/EU — in particular the assessment of facts and circumstances, internal protection, acts of persecution, and grounds — together with Article 3 ECHR jurisprudence on real risk of ill-treatment on return.

Evidential practice varies significantly between member states, and a report acceptable in one national system may be structured wrongly for another. Article 3 submissions require evidence pitched at the threshold the Strasbourg case law sets, including on reception conditions and onward removal risk, rather than at general country conditions.

Canada

• IRB — Refugee Protection Division
• Refugee Appeal Division
• Federal Court

IRB practice and the Chairperson’s Guidelines — notably those on gender-based claims, on sexual orientation and gender identity and expression, and on vulnerable persons appearing before the Board.

The Board maintains its own National Documentation Packages, so expert evidence is most valuable where it addresses what the NDP does not cover or where the package is out of date for the applicant’s region or group. Reports also address state protection in the terms Canadian jurisprudence uses, and the objective basis for the fear alongside the applicant’s profile.

Australia & New Zealand

• Administrative Review Tribunal
• Federal Circuit and Family Court
• New Zealand Immigration and Protection Tribunal

Australian merits review practice before the Administrative Review Tribunal, which replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in October 2024, and the statutory complementary protection criteria alongside the refugee criteria.

Reports address both the refugee and complementary protection limbs where each is engaged, and are written for a merits review setting in which the decision-maker may question the expert directly. New Zealand IPT instructions follow the Tribunal’s own practice on country evidence and on credibility.

UNHCR RSD & resettlement

• UNHCR Refugee Status Determination
• Mandate refugee procedures
• Resettlement submissions

The UNHCR Handbook, including the treatment of benefit of the doubt in the assessment of an applicant’s statements, together with the relevant Guidelines on International Protection for the ground engaged.

RSD is not adversarial in the way national appeals are, and evidence is structured accordingly: less directed at rebutting a refusal, more at supplying the caseworker with the country context and profile analysis the file lacks. Resettlement submissions require particular attention to specific-needs categories and to protection risks in the country of asylum, not only in the country of origin.