When Might a CPIN Not Be Enough? Independent Country Evidence in Latin American Asylum Cases

Country Policy and Information Notes (CPINs) are an important source of country-of-origin information for immigration solicitors and asylum lawyers. They provide information and analysis on conditions in countries relevant to international protection and human rights cases.

But a CPIN will not necessarily answer every question that arises in an individual case.

For a legal team, the more useful question is whether the available country information adequately addresses the particular issue in dispute. In some cases, it will. In others, the issue may be more specific, such as conditions in a particular region, the activities of a local non-state actor, access to state protection or the circumstances of a particular group.

Where an important evidential question remains unanswered, independent country evidence may be worth considering.

What Is a CPIN?

Country Policy and Information Notes are reports prepared by the Home Office Country Policy and Information Team (CPIT). They contain country-of-origin information and an assessment of particular issues relevant to international protection claims.

The Home Office's current methodology explains that CPINs are intended to provide carefully researched country-of-origin information and country policy to assist decision-making. It also makes clear that CPIN assessments are general in nature and cannot cover every possible individual circumstance. Decision-makers must consider the specific facts of each case.

The methodology also explains that country-of-origin information is assessed for factors including relevance, reliability, accuracy, balance, currency, transparency and traceability.

This makes CPINs an important part of the evidence available in asylum cases. It does not mean that every CPIN will address every factual or evidential question arising from an individual claim.

When Might the Existing Country Information Be Insufficient?

An asylum case can raise questions that are narrower than the subject covered by a CPIN.

For example, a solicitor may need to establish more about:

• conditions in the claimant's particular town or region;
• the presence of a particular gang, armed group or criminal organisation;
• the group's influence in that locality;
• the treatment of a particular category of person;
• the practical availability of state protection;
• conditions in a proposed area of internal relocation;
• recent developments that may not be fully reflected in the available material; or
• information contained in relevant local or native-language sources.

The existence of a CPIN on the country or subject does not necessarily answer all of these questions.

The starting point should therefore be the evidential issue in the case. If the existing material answers that issue adequately, further expert evidence may not be necessary. If it does not, a legal team may wish to consider whether additional independent country evidence would assist.

Why Local Conditions Can Matter

Country conditions are not always consistent across an entire country.

This can be particularly relevant in parts of Latin America where armed groups, criminal organisations and other non-state actors have different levels of influence from one region to another.

Colombia provides a useful example. The Home Office's Colombia country policy and information collection was updated on 19 March 2026 and includes separate material on internal relocation and armed groups and criminal gangs. The armed groups and criminal gangs note considers factors including the area where a claimant lives or would return to, the claimant's profile and the reach and capabilities of the relevant group.

That type of information can be important, but a particular case may still raise questions about a specific municipality, community or local actor.

A Latin America country expert can, where the issue falls within their expertise, examine relevant evidence and provide independent analysis of the conditions affecting the area in question.

What If the Claim Involves a Non-State Actor?

Gangs, criminal organisations and armed groups feature in a number of protection claims involving Latin American countries.

Establishing that an organisation operates somewhere in a country is not necessarily the same as establishing its presence or influence in the claimant's particular location.

Depending on the instructions, a country expert may be asked to consider matters such as:

• whether the relevant organisation operates in the claimant's area;
• its level of local influence;
• the nature of its activities;
• whether it exercises territorial or community control;
• the groups or individuals it is known to target;
• whether its influence extends to other areas; and
• information about the response of local authorities.

The purpose of the report is not simply to confirm that an organisation exists. The expert's role is to provide specialist evidence and opinion on country conditions that fall within their expertise.

State Protection May Require More Specific Evidence

State protection is another issue where general country information may not answer every question arising in a case.

A CPIN may contain information about the police, courts and other state institutions. A particular claim may nevertheless turn on how those institutions operate in a specific area or in relation to a particular type of threat.

The Home Office's Colombia material considers the availability and effectiveness of state protection in the context of armed groups and criminal gangs. The assessment also needs to be applied to the circumstances of the individual case rather than treated as an answer to every claim involving the country.

Where a solicitor needs further country evidence, an expert may be able to examine relevant local sources and provide evidence about how institutions operate in practice.

The expert does not determine whether the legal requirement for sufficient protection has been met. That remains a matter for the relevant decision-maker.

Internal Relocation and Country Evidence

Internal relocation can present another situation where more specific country evidence may be relevant.

The question is not simply whether a claimant could physically move to another part of the country. The circumstances in the proposed destination and the individual's circumstances also need to be considered.

The Home Office's March 2026 Colombia CPIN on internal relocation addresses conditions in different parts of the country and the factors that should be considered when assessing relocation. The guidance makes clear that the individual circumstances of the person and conditions in the proposed destination are relevant to the assessment.

Depending on the case, country evidence may therefore need to address matters such as:

• security conditions in the proposed destination;
• the presence or reach of the feared actor;
• whether the actor operates outside the claimant's original area;
• local access to state institutions;
• restrictions affecting movement;
• relevant social or community connections; and
• circumstances arising from the claimant's particular profile.

Whether relocation is legally available or reasonable remains a matter for the decision-maker. An expert's role is to provide evidence about the relevant country conditions.

When Might a CPIN Critique Be Appropriate?

A CPIN critique or audit is not simply an alternative way of saying that a CPIN is wrong.

The purpose is to examine a particular issue in the existing country information and assess whether the evidence and analysis adequately support the relevant proposition.

Depending on the case, this might involve looking at:

• the sources relied upon;
• important evidence that may not have been considered;
• whether information has become outdated;
• regional evidence that may be relevant;
• additional authoritative sources;
• conflicting information; and
• the treatment of a particular issue or claimant profile.

This can be useful where a legal team has identified a specific proposition in a CPIN that requires closer examination.

Latin America Expert provides CPIN critiques and audits alongside country condition reports and other specialist country evidence.

When Might a Country Condition Report Be More Appropriate?

A full country condition report may be more suitable where the issue is broader than the examination of one particular CPIN proposition.

For example, the legal team may need independent analysis covering several connected questions about:

• political or security conditions;
• armed groups or criminal organisations;
• regional differences;
• state protection;
• internal relocation;
• risks affecting a particular group; or
• the circumstances of the claimant's country or region of origin.

The scope should depend on the issues that actually require expert evidence.

A useful report should identify the sources used, explain the research undertaken and distinguish information established by those sources from the expert's own opinion.

Independent Country Evidence Should Be Properly Scoped

More evidence is not necessarily better evidence.

If a legal team is considering instructing a country expert, it is useful to identify the precise question that remains unresolved before preparing the instructions.

Questions might include:

• What part of the existing country evidence is relevant?
• What proposition is disputed?
• Is the issue national, regional or local?
• Does the claimant's profile affect the country evidence that needs to be considered?
• Has the situation changed since the relevant material was published?
• Are additional local or native-language sources relevant?
• Would a CPIN critique or a broader country condition report better address the issue?

Clear instructions can help the expert concentrate on the matters that require specialist knowledge and avoid unnecessary research outside the scope of the case.

When Might an Expert Not Be Necessary?

A country expert is not automatically required because a claim concerns a Latin American country.

If existing country-of-origin information adequately addresses the relevant issue, additional expert evidence may not add anything significant.

Similarly, if a proposed report would simply repeat information already available without providing additional specialist analysis, its value may be limited.

The decision to instruct an expert should therefore be based on the evidence already available, the issue that remains unresolved and whether the proposed expert has the appropriate expertise to address it.

CPINs and Independent Country Evidence Can Work Together

CPINs and independent expert evidence do not have to be treated as competing sources.

A CPIN may provide important general country information while an expert report addresses a narrower question that requires further research or specialist interpretation.

For example, a CPIN may provide information about an armed group's activities, while an expert report may be instructed to examine the group's presence in a particular locality, its influence there and other relevant local conditions.

The value of the expert evidence will depend on the question asked, the quality of the research and the expert's qualifications and experience.

The Home Office's own methodology recognises that country-of-origin information can be specific or general, local or national, and that the usefulness of a source depends on the context in which it is being considered.

Finding the Right Country Evidence for a Latin American Asylum Case

For legal teams, the important question is not simply whether more country evidence can be obtained. It is whether the available evidence answers the questions that matter in the case.

Where a CPIN provides sufficient information, it can remain an important source of country-of-origin evidence.

Where the case turns on a more specific issue, such as local conditions, the reach of a non-state actor, access to state protection, internal relocation or the circumstances of a particular claimant profile, independent country evidence may provide useful additional context.

Latin America Expert provides independent country condition reports, CPIN critiques and audits, human rights and persecution mapping, nationality and localised linguistic context, and procedural litigation support for legal professionals working on Latin American asylum and protection cases.

If your legal team has identified a country-evidence issue that requires specialist analysis, you can explore Latin America Expert's services.

For further information about the expert instruction process and available evidence, visit the Latin America Expert FAQ.