evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

ACS & APS — the UK Home Office's AI Tools for Asylum Casework, With a Documented 9% Failure Rate

United Kingdom · London · See the United Kingdom profile · See the London profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 62% 53/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Piloted May-December 2024, the Home Office's ACS and APS tools cut asylum casework time by up to an hour per case, but its own evaluation found 9% of AI summaries too flawed to use and almost a quarter of caseworkers lacked confidence in the outputs, ahead of a January 2026 wider

23 minutes
Time saved per case, ACS
37 minutes
Time saved per case, APS
9%
ACS summaries flawed enough to be removed
23%
Caseworkers lacking full confidence in outputs
62,000+
Asylum backlog awaiting initial decision (September 2025)
ACS & APS — the UK Home Office's AI Tools for Asylum Casework, With a Documented 9% Failure Rate

Details

Maturity
Scaling
Promoter
UK Home Office
Period
2024-2026
Keywords
generative AI, asylum casework, immigration compliance, document summarisation

Context

Facing an asylum backlog of more than 62,000 applications awaiting an initial decision as of September 2025, the UK Home Office piloted two generative-AI tools between May and December 2024: Asylum Case Summarisation (ACS), built on ChatGPT-4 to condense asylum interview transcripts, and Asylum Policy Search (APS), which retrieves and summarises country-of-origin policy guidance.

Results

A Home Office research note reported that ACS saved decision-makers an average of 23 minutes per case and APS saved 37 minutes searching policy material -- up to an hour combined -- with neither tool appearing to change the quality of final decisions. The same evaluation reported that 9% of ACS-generated summaries were flawed enough to be removed from the pilot, and that 23% of caseworkers lacked full confidence in the tools' outputs.

Conclusions

Civil-society reviewers noted the Home Office declined to disclose the prompts behind the tools or whether errors correlated with applicants' nationality or case complexity, and that asylum seekers are not told when AI is used in their case. Both tools require a human decision-maker to review AI output before a decision is made, and the Home Office's own research note recommends larger-scale evaluation before full rollout; ACS nonetheless proceeded toward a wider rollout in January 2026.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k)
Time to results
Short (< 1 year)
Staffing & skills
UK Home Office

Conditions for success

  • mandatory human decision-maker review of AI output before any decision

Common failure modes

  • 9% of ACS summaries flawed enough to be pulled from the pilot; prompts and error-correlation analysis undisclosed; asylum seekers not informed when AI is used in their case

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes AMIF — Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund Digital Europe Programme

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful