The role of emotion in asylum processes is one that has gained attention in recent years. This article situates itself as a response to this emerging body of literature by shedding new light on how emotions shaped the asylum appeals of a group of former unaccompanied minors in England through the application of the new concept of “empathy gap.” Five socio-legal themes are used to structure the analysis: (i) age disputes, (ii) credibility, (iii) affective ties, (iv) right to voice, and (v) precarious legal status. It is the first article to explore in depth what happens during the asylum appeals process for former unaccompanied minors in Britain and the first to consider how questions of emotion affect their lived experiences of, and the process of, legal proceedings. The article has wider implications for how social processes and relations and informal processes, in particular emotions, influence formal legal proceedings leading to potential for unfair outcomes. The article finds that, to avoid empathy-enhanced reasoning becoming yet another variable leading to inconsistency in the judicial process, systematic training and monitoring are required. These findings carry implications far beyond the immediate context of UK asylum tribunals by offering empirically informed insights for theory and practice regarding the role of emotion in judicial proceedings, and therefore have enduring relevance.