The making of an asylum ‘Advice Shark’ economy

Ali Ahmadi, Catherine Barnard and Fiona Costello consider the problems caused by ‘advice sharks’ providing fraudulent or poor legal advice to migrants in the UK.

In April 2026, a BBC undercover investigation found a ‘shadow industry’ of law firms and advisors charging up to £7,000 to help migrants ‘pretend to be gay’ and secure asylum in the UK. In 2023, former Home Secretary Suella Braverman had also claimed that people pretended to be homosexual to ‘game our system.’

We are also aware of ‘advice sharks’ charging high fees for poor or fraudulent advice, within the wider immigration ecosystem, particularly to EU migrants.

Why is this happening, and what does it mean for LGBTQIA+ asylum seekers, community organisations, and immigration advisers?

While some individuals may knowingly try to ‘game’ the system, there is little evidence of systematic abuse by asylum seekers. For instance, the Home Office was unable to provide any evidence for Suella Braverman’s 2023 claims. Asylum claims based on sexual orientations or gender identity make up around only 2% (1,377 claims) of total claims. The BBC discoveries may instead reveal how lack of availability of regulated legal advice creates space for unscrupulous advisors and how the Home Office’s assessment process may reward applicants who conform to stereotypical expectations, making it coachable. We consider both issues.

First, legal advice. In England and Wales, immigration advice is regulated by the Immigration Advice Authority ((IAA), formerly OISC)) and the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) when provided by solicitors (under its general regulatory framework). Under IAA accreditation, only qualified advisors who pass competence assessments are allowed to advise at the level they are authorised for. The IAA has three levels (levels 1, 2 and 3), corresponding to the complexity of the advice an advisor can provide. Government guidance requires advisors to be regulated and limits their practice according to these qualifications. The regulation is to protect migrants and asylum seekers from poor, fraudulent, or exploitative advice. Many of the advisers and lawyers identified in the BBC report were allegedly unregulated or operating without a licence.

For most asylum seekers, the primary way to access regulated legal advice is through government-funded legal aid that provides advice and representation to those who cannot afford a solicitor. However, many areas of civil law (e.g. immigration) have been disqualified from the scheme for many years now, particularly since the 2012 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO), and what remains eligible is financially unsustainable for providers as fees have not kept up with costs. As a result, providers have been leaving the market, creating expanding ‘legal aid deserts’ in England and Wales. For example, between 2005-2018, the number of immigration and asylum legal aid providers dropped by 56%. Recent data shows that there is a legal aid deficit in every region of England and Wales, including London.

Consequently, legal aid is largely inaccessible. In 2022-23, around 63% of the population in England and Wales did not have access to immigration and asylum legal aid in their area. And at least 51% (37,450 people) of asylum applicants were not able to find a legal aid lawyer. A refugee support organisation in the East of England that took part in our research said the Home Office’s asylum dispersal policy which often houses asylum seekers in remote rural areas further limits their access to legal services.

Some are fortunate enough to have access to free legal advice from third sector organisations such as RAMA in Colchester or from Law Centres. Their advisers are IAA / SRA regulated but often struggle to keep up with increasing demand.

But there are parts of the country where there is no paid for or free legal advice. This creates an advice vacuum. This, coupled with long wait times (sometimes years) for a decision on asylum claims, leaves people at risk of exploitation from rogue advisors selling the illusion of a quick fix. This seems to have been what was at issue in the BBC report.

Second, sexual orientation. The BBC research focused on advice given about LGBTQIA+ status. Research shows that there is in fact already a widespread attitude of ‘disbelief’ and ‘denial’ by asylum authorities towards asylum applicants, particularly in the case of sexual orientation-based claims which are presumed ‘fake’. The BBC investigation is likely to deepen this suspicion.

Further, academic research shows that asylum decision-makers often have linear and stereotypical understandings of sexuality that are ‘either partially or entirely unsupported by psychological research’. This means that asylum seekers appear to have ‘greater chances of being believed by conforming to a given stereotype than by telling their true story’, especially ‘if the latter deviates from the official’s expectations’. This may also create opportunities for fraudulent applicants to exploit officials’ narrow understanding of sexuality by presenting familiar narratives of moving ‘from internalised homophobia to pride and acceptance.’ The fraudulent cases may in turn reinforce the stereotypes.

Apostate (a person who left religion) asylum seekers have faced similar issues. For instance, some were asked in their asylum interview to name humanist philosophers and explain the ‘thoughts and beliefs of prominent non-religious thinkers’. Many people would struggle to answer such questions regardless of their beliefs. Instead, such questions may create an ‘insider knowledge’ market for fraudulent applicants, who could be coached to provide rehearsed answers.

The BBC report may also create suspicion among the public and the Home Office about community organisations supporting LGBTQIA+ asylum seekers, despite the fact that most provide essential services and are often the first to identify false requests, and challenge poor or fraudulent advice. Immigration lawyers and advisers may likewise face reputational damage. They may find themselves having to defend not only their clients’ credibility but also their professional integrity.

Fraudulent immigration advice is unlawful and condemned by respected advisors. And so are the broader structural issues within the asylum system. A growing ‘legal aid desert’, uneven geography of regulated advice, prolonged uncertainty, and assessment processes that can reward particular narratives all create conditions in which rogue advisors are able to operate. Addressing these issues therefore requires not only prosecuting individual fraudsters, but also addressing systemic issues that enables such practices to emerge, including by ensuring accessible legal aid, as well as fair and reliable asylum decision-making processes.

By Ali Ahmadi, Research Associate, University of Cambridge and PhD student at Anglia Ruskin University, Catherine Barnard, Senior Fellow, UK in a Changing Europe & Professor of EU Law and Employment Law, University of Cambridge and Fiona Costello, Assistant Professor, University of Birmingham.