Country Expert Report: What a Judge Reads First

Last updated: 15 October 2026

A country expert report can change the outcome of an asylum appeal, but only if the judge trusts it. Judges rarely read a report from the first line to the last. Instead, they go straight to the parts that show who wrote it, what the author was asked and what the author concluded. After that, they test the reasoning against country guidance, the Home Office or DHS evidence and the client's own account.

This guide follows that reading order. It covers the UK First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and US immigration courts, because the two systems use different rules. It also sets out the most common reasons judges give a report little weight, based on tribunal and Board decisions up to 2026. Last reviewed: 14 October 2026.

What a country expert report does in an asylum case

A country expert report gives the judge independent, sourced opinion on conditions in the claimant's country. It also explains how those conditions apply to a person with the claimant's profile. However, the report does not decide credibility or the legal result. Those questions belong to the judge alone.

The UK courts drew this line in Mibanga v SSHD. Wilson J accepted that experts cannot take over the fact finder's role on credibility. Nevertheless, he held that experts can offer "a factual context" against which the judge assesses the account. He also held that a judge who rejects an expert view must explain why.[1] In the US, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) makes the same point. Expert testimony is evidence, but only the immigration judge (IJ) makes factual findings.[2]

In practice, lawyers instruct a country expert on a short list of disputed issues. Typical questions cover the plausibility of the account, risk on return, whether the state can protect the person, and whether internal relocation is reasonable. Plausibility here means consistency with known conditions in the country. It is different from credibility, which is a finding only the judge can make. For a broader introduction to the service, see our guide to country expert reports in asylum cases.

UK rules for a country expert report

The 2024 Practice Direction

In the First-tier Tribunal, the starting point is the Practice Direction of 1 November 2024. Paragraph 9.1 says reports should be "as concise as possible" and focused on the disputed issues within the author's field. Paragraph 9.2 sets a limit of 20 pages, unless the party applies in writing with reasons. Page limits assume at least size 12 font with 1.5 line spacing.[3]

Paragraph 9.3 then lists what every report must contain. In short, the report must:

• be addressed to the Tribunal, not to the instructing party;
• give the expert's qualifications and the literature relied on;
• attach the letter of instruction, including the disputed issues;
• confirm the material provided and say which facts are within the expert's own knowledge;
• summarise any range of opinion and give reasons for the expert's own view;
• contain a summary of conclusions, any qualification, a statement of duty and the date of signature.

In addition, paragraph 9.4 requires a statement of truth in a set form.[3] A report that misses these items gives the Home Office an easy argument before anyone reads the analysis.

Expert duties from MOJ and the Ikarian Reefer

The duties come from civil law. In The Ikarian Reefer, Cresswell J said expert evidence should be "the independent product of the expert". He added that an expert must never act as an advocate and must consider facts that detract from the opinion.[4] The Upper Tribunal adopted these duties in MOJ & Ors (Somalia). It summarised seven of them: independence, considering all material facts, objectivity, avoiding advocacy, being fully informed, staying within one's expertise, and changing one's view where appropriate.[5]

Later, in MS (Pakistan), the Tribunal said lawyers should send every expert paragraphs 23 to 27 of MOJ. Each report should then confirm, by a simple declaration, that the expert has read them.[6] For this reason, judges often look for that declaration first.

Weight, compliance and country guidance

Compliance affects weight. In AAW (Somalia), the Upper Tribunal held that a witness who does not meet the Practice Direction will not be treated as an expert. Such a witness "risks being regarded as an informed advocate" rather than an independent expert.[7] Similarly, in AA (Somalia), the Tribunal said it is not enough for a person simply to assert expertise. The author must show current knowledge and must identify sources clearly enough for the judge to weigh them.[8]

Country guidance (CG) also shapes how a judge reads a report. Under paragraph 10.1 of the Practice Direction, a reported CG decision is authoritative on the issue it covers. Moreover, the Court of Appeal held in SG (Iraq) that judges must follow CG unless "very strong grounds supported by cogent evidence" justify departing from it.[9] As a result, an expert who ignores an applicable CG case loses credibility at once.

US rules: admission first, then weight

US immigration courts use a looser test for admission. Under 8 CFR 1240.1(c), the IJ must "receive and consider material and relevant evidence". The Federal Rules of Evidence do not bind the court. Instead, the test is whether evidence is probative and whether admitting it is fundamentally fair.[10]

In Matter of J-G-T-, the BIA said expert testimony "generally warrants being admitted in most cases". The IJ first asks whether the testimony is relevant and reliable enough. Then the IJ decides how much weight it deserves, by asking how probative and persuasive it is on the key issues in dispute.[11] Furthermore, the Immigration Court Practice Manual requires the expert's CV to be part of the record.[12] Experts usually sign a declaration under penalty of perjury rather than a UK-style statement of truth.[13]

Two 2026 precedents raised the bar on weight. In Matter of G-M-I-, the Board said an expert's relevance and reliability are "significantly undercut" when the opinion rests on anecdotal or inaccurate facts. In Matter of D-J-L-, it held that an IJ errs in giving significant weight to an expert who shows a reluctance to consider contrary evidence.[14] You can read both decisions in volume 29 of the BIA precedents.

On the other hand, the courts of appeals protect properly reasoned reports. For example, the Ninth Circuit said in 2022 that expert testimony "can itself provide evidence of country conditions". So an IJ cannot reject it only because other reports do not repeat it.[15]

What a judge reads first, step by step

Judges and IJs read under time pressure. In our experience, and in line with the rules above, they usually move through a report in the order below. Each step answers a question the judge must settle before trusting the next part.

1. The summary of conclusions

The judge first wants to know what the expert says. Paragraph 9.3(i) of the Practice Direction requires a summary of conclusions in UK reports. In the US, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS) recommends an introduction that summarises the expert's opinion.[16] A good summary answers each question in one or two sentences and gives a level of certainty. It also points to the paragraph where the reasoning appears.

2. The instructions and questions

Next, the judge checks what the expert was asked and what the expert saw. In the UK, the letter of instruction must be attached and must list the disputed issues. In addition, the report must confirm the documents provided, such as the interview record, witness statement and refusal letter.[3] If the questions do not match the issues in the case, much of the report will be irrelevant. Our article on expert report contents, section by section shows how to frame these questions.

3. Qualifications and independence

Third, the judge reads the expert's background. The question is narrow: is this person an expert on this issue, in this country, now? A Mexico gangs specialist, for instance, may not be qualified to speak about gangs in El Salvador.[17] Recent fieldwork, language skills, publications and contact with in-country sources all help. Meanwhile, the judge looks for the declaration of independence and, in the UK, the confirmation that the expert has read MOJ. CGRS also advises experts to explain how many cases they accept and on what criteria, since repeat work for one side can raise questions of bias.[18]

4. Methodology and sources

Fourth, the judge checks how the expert reached the opinion. The report should say which material is first-hand knowledge and which comes from published sources. It should also explain the method, such as interviews, field visits or a review of local-language media. In SU (Bangladesh), decided in July 2026, the Upper Tribunal gave little weight to two reports from an accepted expert. According to the guidance in the decision, quoted material must be marked as a quotation with a link to the source. The report should also use primary sources where possible, rather than news articles about them.[19]

5. Engagement with country guidance, the CPIN and the refusal

Fifth, the judge looks for engagement with the other side's evidence. In a UK appeal, that means the relevant CG case, the Home Office Country Policy and Information Note (CPIN) and the refusal letter. Where the expert disagrees, the report should quote the specific paragraph and give sourced reasons. In the US, the same applies to the State Department country report and any DHS evidence. Under J-G-T-, the IJ should explain why the expert's inferences are more persuasive than contradictory evidence in the record.[11]

6. Specific answers on the client's facts

Finally, the judge reads the part that applies the evidence to the client. This is where a report wins or loses weight. The analysis should cite the client's documents by paragraph, for example "AIR 46" or "RFRL 7". It should then say whether each element of the account is plausible and consistent with known conditions. Above all, it should explain what risk a person with this exact profile would face on return.

Why judges give a country expert report little weight

Tribunals rarely exclude a report outright. More often, they admit it and give it little weight. The reasons repeat across UK and US decisions.

Advocacy. Emotional language, one-sided selection of sources or a tone of argument suggests the expert works for the client. AAW and D-J-L- both turn on this point.[7][14]

No engagement with contrary evidence. An expert who ignores the CPIN, the CG case or the State Department report leaves the judge with nothing to weigh. Consequently, the judge may simply prefer the official source.

Opinion outside the expert's field. A political scientist who comments on medical scarring, for example, steps beyond their expertise. Medical issues need a clinician, often following the Istanbul Protocol. Our guide to medical evidence of torture covers that type of report.

Weak or copied sourcing. Vague claims, unattributed passages and secondary sources were central to the outcome in SU (Bangladesh).[19] Likewise, G-M-I- shows that anecdotal or inaccurate data undercuts reliability in the US.[14]

Generic content. Long background chapters that never reach the client's facts do not help. The Practice Direction warns against "lengthy and discursive commentary" that is not relevant to the disputed issues.[3]

Out-of-date knowledge. In one Third Circuit case, the IJ gave an expert declaration only the same weight as State Department reports. The expert had not visited the country for ten years.[20]

Legal conclusions. Statements such as "the applicant should be granted asylum" or "Y is a particular social group" belong to the judge. CGRS warns that such statements can reduce the weight of the expert's actual expertise.[16]

Our video below shows how we write an expert witness report, from the first reading of the papers to the final statement of truth.

YouTube video player

Common questions about country expert reports

Can an expert say the claimant is credible?

No. Credibility is for the judge. An expert can say that an account is plausible and consistent with conditions in the country. That wording respects the line drawn in Mibanga and helps the judge without taking over the decision.[1]

Is a report useless if country guidance goes against the client?

Not necessarily. A report can show that the client's profile falls outside the CG findings. It can also present new evidence that conditions have changed. Even so, the expert must meet the SG (Iraq) standard of "very strong grounds supported by cogent evidence" to persuade a judge to depart from CG.[9]

Can a UK report be longer than 20 pages?

Yes, but only with permission. The party relying on the report must apply in writing and give reasons, under paragraph 9.2 of the Practice Direction.[3] In most cases, a focused report within the limit is the better choice.

Does the expert need to meet the client?

Not always. A desk-based report can be enough for many country questions. However, CGRS notes that an opinion based only on the client's declaration can be challenged. Where nationality or ethnicity is disputed, a meeting or interview is often needed.[18]

Where to get help

First, get legal advice. In the UK, speak to a solicitor or regulated adviser; in the US, speak to an immigration attorney or accredited representative. Second, ask your representative to list the disputed issues from the refusal letter or the DHS position. Third, make sure the expert receives every relevant document, including evidence that does not help the claim. MOJ places that duty on lawyers as well as experts.[5]

When the case needs country evidence, you can find an expert witness for the relevant country and issue. A clear letter of instruction at the start saves time and makes the final report easier for the judge to use.

Conclusion

A judge reads a country expert report in a set order. First comes the summary, then the instructions, then the expert's qualifications and independence. After that, the judge tests the method and sources, the engagement with country guidance and official reports, and finally the answers on the client's facts. In the UK, the 2024 Practice Direction and MOJ set out these requirements in detail. In the US, J-G-T- lets most expert evidence in, while G-M-I- and D-J-L- show how quickly weight can fall. Therefore, a report that is short, sourced, balanced and tied to the client's profile gives the judge the best reason to rely on it.

Since judges look first at who wrote a report and what they were asked, choosing a qualified author matters; our expert witness finder lists specialists by country.