Administrative Review of Visa Decisions

Administrative review is a narrower process than a full appeal. A UKVI reviewer (different from the original decision maker) checks whether the original decision contained a case working error. This means:

• The decision was made on incorrect consideration of the facts (e.g., a document was overlooked);
• The wrong legal provision was applied;
• There was a mathematical or factual error;
• The decision was made in breach of the duty to consider evidence submitted.

Administrative review does not allow a full reconsideration on the merits, nor does it generally allow new evidence to be submitted. The limited exceptions include where the original decision was based on a document that has since been verified as genuine, or where evidence was requested but not given adequate consideration.

Administrative review applications are submitted online through the UKVI portal. You need the application reference number from the original refusal decision. The fee for in-country reviews is £80. Overseas reviews are free.

In your review application, you must identify the specific case working error you believe was made. Stating simply that you disagree with the decision is not sufficient — you must point to a specific error. This is why getting legal advice before submitting an administrative review is important: an experienced adviser can identify genuine errors and articulate them correctly.

The review is conducted on the papers — there is no hearing or opportunity to make oral representations. A decision is generally made within 28 days for in-country reviews. If the review is successful, the original decision is withdrawn and the application is reconsidered (which may result in approval or a fresh refusal on different grounds). If the review fails, the original decision stands.

If the administrative review is successful and the application is reconsidered and approved, you will be granted leave. If the reconsidered application is still refused (on different grounds), you may be able to request a further administrative review of the new decision.

If the administrative review fails (the reviewer finds no case working error), the original refusal stands. At this point, your options are:

• Reapply — submit a new application, paying the fee again, with improved evidence that addresses the refusal reasons;
• Judicial review — if there is a legal error in the review decision itself, a judicial review in the Upper Tribunal may be possible, but this is expensive and technically complex.

Administrative review decisions are not themselves subject to a further administrative review in most cases. The system is designed as a single-stage check, not a multi-round process.

Administrative review is not the only remedy available after a visa or immigration refusal, and it is important to understand which remedy applies to your situation. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), also known as the IAC, is the specialist immigration appeal tribunal. Appeals to the IAC are available for a narrower category of decisions than administrative review: principally, refusals of entry clearance where the applicant is exercising a right to respect for family or private life under Article 8 ECHR; refusals of leave to remain on human rights or protection grounds; asylum and humanitarian protection claims; and some other specific decisions listed in section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

For points-based system refusals (Skilled Worker, Student, Graduate, etc.), there is generally no right of appeal to the IAC — only administrative review. This means that the range of reviewable questions is much narrower than in a full appeal. If you have a points-based system refusal and administrative review has failed, the only statutory remedy is reapplication. Judicial review in the Upper Tribunal is available if the administrative review decision itself was unlawful — for example, if the reviewer failed to apply the correct legal test, considered irrelevant factors, or the process was procedurally unfair — but judicial review does not allow a rerun of the merits. It is a supervisory jurisdiction that asks whether the decision was lawful, not whether it was correct.

Before deciding whether to pursue administrative review, IAC appeal (where available), or judicial review, consult an OISC-regulated adviser or immigration solicitor. The OISC levels of regulation are important: Level 1 advisers can handle straightforward applications; Level 2 advisers can handle appeal work before the IAC; Level 3 advisers can handle complex cases including Upper Tribunal judicial review. For judicial review and upper tribunal cases, instructing a solicitor with a specialist immigration litigation practice is advisable. The Law Society's immigration panel and the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA) member directory can help identify suitably experienced practitioners. If you have a complaint about the conduct of an OISC-regulated adviser, this can be reported to the OISC complaints process; complaints about solicitors go to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).