Home Office asylum AI flunks one in five accuracy checks

Ministers promised faster decisions, but campaigners say the technology is making mistakes while asylum processing times are getting worse

The Home Office's latest attempt to speed up asylum decisions with AI has hit an awkward snag: a new report says more than one in five interview summaries checked by experts failed accuracy tests.

A 20-page investigation by the Open Rights Group (ORG) claims the department is pressing ahead with AI tools despite concerns about their accuracy, oversight, and promised efficiency gains.

The findings, based on Freedom of Information requests and correspondence with ministers, concern two systems used by Home Office caseworkers: Asylum Case Summarisation (ACS), which summarizes asylum interviews, and Asylum Policy Search (APS), a chat-style tool helping officials search country policy information. Both use OpenAI's GPT-4o model through Microsoft's Azure AI Foundry.

REG AD

The government insists humans remain responsible for asylum decisions, but ORG questions how reliably caseworkers can spot mistakes in AI-generated information.

REG AD

Figures obtained by the campaign group show that 45 of 203 AI-generated interview summaries failed initial expert checks after the system was rolled out in April 2026. That's a 22 percent failure rate, compared with the 9 percent rejection rate recorded during the original pilot.

Another 19 summaries were flagged for further review. The figures also record 56 second-stage reviews, of which 30 failed to meet the required standard.

The errors can include factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations of what asylum seekers said during interviews. ORG also found that summaries could pass the checks even if they omitted important details, as long as the information they did include was accurate.

Despite those results, relatively few summaries have been examined. ORG estimates that Home Office experts checked only 0.3 percent between April and July, based on the department's projected monthly caseload of 17,515.

ORG also questioned whether the tools were saving much time. It says the average monthly number of initial substantive asylum decisions since April 2026 fell about 42 percent compared with the same period in 2025, while the mean time from interview to decision rose 29 percent.

While those figures don't prove that AI caused the slowdown, they offer little evidence of the productivity gains ministers have promised.

Oversight of the separate Asylum Policy Search tool also appears lacking. The Home Office confirmed in August that expert testing had stopped, despite previously telling MPs that checks were continuing. ORG says no summary of the testing results was produced.

Meanwhile, asylum applicants are not specifically told when AI has been used in their cases and cannot inspect or correct the summaries generated from their interviews.

REG AD

ORG also questions the Home Office's claims of human oversight. The department's own data protection assessment says ACS automates work previously done by technical specialists, who reviewed and summarized asylum cases before passing them to decision-makers. ORG warns the tool could remove an experienced layer of scrutiny, rather than simply save staff time.

The group is calling for both tools to be suspended and independently audited, arguing that the current safeguards are inadequate for decisions that determine whether someone can remain in the UK.

It's not the first time the Home Office's technology plans have come under fire. In June, more than 60 rights groups urged ministers to abandon plans for AI-powered age estimation of asylum-seeking children, warning that the technology was unreliable around the crucial 16-to-18-year-old age range.

Later that month, an inspection found that the department's long-delayed Atlas immigration system was failing to provide caseworkers with feedback from asylum appeals, forcing staff to rely on workarounds.

The Home Office did not respond to The Register's questions. ®