What Does an Expert Report Contain? Section by Section

Last updated: 30 September 2026

Photo: Project Report - Nick Bramhall

You have been told that you need an expert report — but what does it actually contain? This is a common question for asylum seekers and their lawyers. Understanding the expert report contents helps you read the report better, ask the right questions, and use it well at the hearing. In this guide, we walk through every section of a typical country expert report. We use simple language, with clear examples for each part.[1]

An expert report is a long document. A typical asylum expert report runs from 25 to 80 pages. Moreover, every page should serve a purpose. Each section answers a specific question that the tribunal needs to decide. By the end of this article, you will know what to expect in each part. To put this into a wider context, see our asylum guide.

Section 1: Expert's Qualifications and Declaration

The first section of any expert report sets out who the expert is. It lists their education, languages, field experience, and publications. This part is important because the tribunal must trust the expert. Therefore the report must show that the writer knows the country and the relevant issues. A short CV is usually attached as an annex.[2]

Next comes the expert's declaration. The expert states that they understand their duty to the court. They confirm that the report is their own independent opinion. Furthermore, they confirm that they have no personal interest in the outcome. In the UK, this duty is set out in CPR Part 35 and Upper Tribunal Practice Direction 10. As a result, the declaration is not just a formality. It is the legal basis for the whole report.

Section 2: Instructions and Scope

The second section explains what the expert was asked to do. It quotes the letter of instruction from the legal team. It also lists the documents the expert reviewed, such as the witness statement, the Home Office decision, and any medical reports. Finally, it sets out the key questions to be answered.[3]

This section matters for a simple reason. An expert can only answer the questions they were asked. If the scope is too narrow, important risks may be missed. If it is too wide, the report becomes unfocused. Therefore lawyers must draft the instructions with care. The expert must also flag any gaps in the instructions. Moreover, a clear scope helps the tribunal weigh the evidence properly.

Section 3: Country Background

The country background gives the tribunal the wider picture. It covers recent history, political context, and the rule of law. It also describes the security situation, ethnic groups, and major conflict lines. This section is usually 5 to 15 pages long. It draws on UN reports, NGO reports, academic papers, and news sources.[4]

However, the country background is not a general history lesson. It must be focused on the issues that matter for this case. For example, in an Iranian convert case, the section will focus on religious freedom, apostasy laws, and the treatment of converts. As a result, the rest of the report can build on solid factual ground. To explore current country conditions, see our country reports.

Section 4: Individual Risk Assessment

This is often the heart of the report. The individual risk assessment looks at the applicant's specific profile. It connects the personal facts to the country conditions. The expert asks: given who this person is, what risk do they face? They consider ethnicity, religion, gender, political activity, sexual orientation, and family ties.[5]

The expert also considers visibility. Does the state know about this person? Have they been arrested before? Are there court records or wanted lists? Furthermore, the expert assesses whether the persecution would come from the state, from non-state actors, or from both. This profile-based analysis is what tribunals value most.

Country information must be linked to the personal profile of the applicant. A general country picture, no matter how detailed, cannot answer the legal question of personal risk on its own.
EUAA, Practical Guide on the Use of Country of Origin Information (2023), p 14

Section 5: Return Risk Analysis

The return risk section asks a simple but vital question. What would happen if the applicant were sent back today? The expert considers the route of return, the airport, and the first hours after arrival. They look at risks of detention, interrogation, or violence.[6]

The expert also looks at the medium term. Can the person live safely in their home town? Will they be tracked by the state or by a non-state actor? Will they be forced to hide their identity, faith, or sexual orientation? Tribunals often rely on this section when applying the test of "real risk of serious harm." Reported cases on BAILII show how return risk analysis can decide the outcome.

Section 6: Internal Relocation Assessment

If risk in one area is shown, the next question is whether the person could move to a safer area inside the country. This is called internal relocation, or the "internal flight alternative." The expert assesses this carefully. They consider the reach of the state, the reach of non-state actors, and practical conditions in the proposed area.[7]

Internal relocation is more than a map question. The expert must ask whether relocation is reasonable. Can the person find work, housing, and safety? Do they speak the local language? Are they part of a minority that would face new risks in the new area? Furthermore, the expert must consider gender, family status, and mental health. As a result, this section often runs 4 to 8 pages.

Section 7: Sources and Methodology

The final main section sets out the methodology. The expert explains how they collected the information. They list databases, news archives, and direct contacts. They also explain how they tested each source. Did the source come from a reliable outlet? Was the information confirmed by a second source?[8]

A bibliography follows. Every claim in the report links to a numbered source. This allows the tribunal, the lawyers, and the Home Office to check each fact. Moreover, the methodology shows that the report is not just opinion. It is built on a transparent, repeatable process. The EUAA and UNHCR have published methodology standards that experts often follow.

All Sections at a Glance

The table below summarises the seven core sections of an expert report. It also gives a typical length for each part. These numbers are for a standard asylum case. Complex cases — especially those involving multiple risks — may run longer. By contrast, very focused reports may be shorter.[9]

What a Good Report Includes vs a Bad Report

Not every expert report is equally strong. Tribunals see many reports, and they can tell quickly whether one is reliable. A good report is structured, well-sourced, and balanced. A weak report is short, vague, and one-sided. The callouts below show the main differences.[10]

How Our Reports Follow This Structure

Every report we produce follows the seven-section structure described above. Furthermore, our experts use a shared template that has been tested in tribunals across the UK, US, Canada and the EU. This means tribunals already know how to read our reports. They can find the declaration, the scope, and the methodology in the same place every time.[11]

Each report passes through peer review and a legal check. As a result, the declaration is correct, the scope matches the instructions, and the sources are verified. To start a new report, lawyers can submit a brief through our find an expert witness page. Our team will reply with a draft scope and a timeline within 48 hours.

Conclusion

An expert report is a tool, not a story. Each section answers a clear legal question. The qualifications build trust. The instructions set the limits. The country background gives context. The individual risk assessment connects facts to law. The return risk and internal relocation sections answer the key questions in most asylum cases. Finally, the sources and methodology show that the report can be trusted. When all seven parts are strong, the report is far more likely to support a successful claim. Therefore lawyers and applicants should look for these features when choosing an expert.