Key Takeaways
Judicial Review challenges the legality, not the merits, of immigration decisions made by the Home Office or tribunals, focusing on whether the process was lawful, rational, and fair, rather than whether the outcome was correct.
It is a remedy of last resort, available only when no right of appeal or administrative review exists, or after those options have been exhausted; strict deadlines apply—typically three months from the decision date.
The process involves three main stages: a Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) letter, a permission stage, and a substantive hearing; court fees range from £174 to £874, and successful claims typically lead to the decision being reconsidered, not reversed outright.
Applicants face significant risks and costs: if the claim fails, you may be liable for the Home Office’s legal fees, and judicial review does not extend immigration status like appeals do—urgent legal steps may be needed to prevent removal.
Table of contents
What is Judicial Review?
Judicial review is a legal process used to challenge the lawfulness of decisions or processes made by public bodies. For UK visa or citizenship decisions, Judicial Review challenges decisions or processes made by the Home Office or Immigration Tribunal.
Judicial Review aims to assess whether the decision or process was made lawfully. Therefore, it is not a way to appeal a decision simply because it led to a visa refusal or an unfavourable outcome. Instead, Judicial Review helps uphold accountability and ensures that public authorities act within their legal powers.
It is a remedy of last resort. Applicants must usually exhaust other available remedies first, such as Administrative Review, Reconsideration or by submitting a visa Appeal. Judicial review becomes relevant only when those routes are unavailable or have been properly pursued without success.
During the Judicial Review process, a judge does not decide whether the original decision was right or wrong. Instead, the court reviews whether the decision-making process was legal, rational, and fair. The three main legal grounds for assessing this are:
- Illegality: the decision-maker acted outside their legal powers
- Irrationality: the decision was unreasonable or perverse
- Procedural unfairness: the process followed was unfair or did not comply with legal standards.
In some cases, breaches of human rights or statutory obligations may also form the basis of a claim.
Applications for judicial review in immigration matters are usually made to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) or, in some instances, the Administrative Court of the High Court. The process begins with a judge deciding whether to grant permission for a full hearing. If permission is refused, the case does not proceed.
If the court finds the decision unlawful, it does not substitute its own decision. Instead, it can cancel the original decision and order the Home Office or Tribunal to reconsider it lawfully.
Who can bring a judicial review case?
A judicial review can be brought by anyone directly affected by a decision made by the Home Office or an immigration tribunal. This typically includes individuals whose visa applications have been refused or have not received a valid decision, but may also extend to organisations or sponsors in certain circumstances.
| Who Can Apply | Conditions / Requirements |
|---|---|
| Individual applicants | Must be directly affected by the immigration decision or process (e.g. visa or citizenship refusal, unreasonable delay in decision-making) |
| Advocacy groups | Must demonstrate sufficient interest in the issue (e.g. representing affected persons) |
| Employers / Sponsors | Can apply if impacted by decisions such as licence refusal, suspension, or revocation |
When you receive your visa decision, the Home Office will usually tell you whether the decision carries a right of appeal or administrative review. They must include this information in the decision letter and instructions on how and when to apply.
However, if no appeal or review right is available, the Home Office does not typically inform you about the option of Judicial Review. Judicial Review is a legal remedy outside their internal processes, and individuals generally need to seek legal advice to explore this route.
How the Judicial Review Process Works
Judicial Review is typically a three-stage process, beginning with a Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) letter, followed by an application for permission, and, if granted, leading to a full hearing.
A successful challenge may result in the Home Office being ordered to reconsider its decision or process. However, this does not guarantee a favourable outcome.
Stage 1: Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) Letter
Before starting Judicial Review proceedings, the applicant must send a Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) letter to the Home Office. This formal “letter before claim” outlines the legal grounds for challenge and invites the Home Office to reconsider the decision.
- The letter must follow a specific format designed to encourage early resolution without litigation.
- If the Home Office does not respond or refuses to reverse the decision, the applicant can proceed to the next stage.
Stage 2: Permission Stage
Suppose the issue is not resolved through the PAP letter. In that case, the applicant can submit a Judicial Review application to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), or in some cases, the Administrative Court at the High Court.
- A judge reviews the application on paper and decides whether there is arguable legal merit to justify a full hearing.
- If permission is refused, the applicant can request an oral renewal hearing within 7 days to argue the case in person.
- If permission is granted, the case proceeds to a substantive hearing.
Permission may be refused if:
- The claim lacks legal merit
- Alternative remedies (e.g., appeal or administrative review) should have been used
- There has been undue delay in bringing the claim, unless exceptional circumstances apply
Stage 3: Substantive Hearing
At the full hearing, the judge examines whether the Home Office acted lawfully and followed the correct legal process and not whether the original decision was "right" in substance.
- Both sides (the applicant and the Home Office) present legal arguments.
- The judge decides whether the decision should be upheld or quashed.
The court will not substitute its own decision or grant the visa directly.
Stage 4: Outcome and Remedies
What Happens If My Immigration Judicial Review Is Successful?
The court does not remake the original decision if your judicial review succeeds. Instead, it finds that the Home Office (or tribunal) acted unlawfully and orders the decision to be reconsidered lawfully.
The court may grant one or more of the following remedies:
- Quashing order – sets aside the unlawful decision
- Mandatory order – requires the Home Office to take a specific action
- Prohibiting order – prevents the Home Office from taking certain unlawful steps
- Injunction – compels or restricts action while a decision is pending
- Declaration – clarifies the legal position on a specific issue
The Home Office must then reconsider the decision, considering the judge’s findings and complying with the law. However, this does not guarantee a favourable outcome—the application may still be refused again if the new decision is made lawfully.
What If My Judicial Review Is Unsuccessful?
If the court refuses permission or dismisses your judicial review after a hearing, the original decision stands. You may be required to pay the Home Office’s legal costs. In some cases, it is possible to appeal to the Court of Appeal, but only if there are legal grounds with a realistic prospect of success.
It is essential to seek specialist legal advice before pursuing any further steps. An experienced immigration lawyer can assess your prospects and guide you through the following options available.
Examples of When Judicial Review May Be Used
| Scenario | Why Judicial Review May Apply |
|---|---|
| No right of appeal or administrative review is available | Judicial Review may be the only legal remedy to challenge the decision. |
| Administrative Review is refused unfairly or unlawfully | If the review ignored evidence, misapplied the law, or failed to follow procedure. |
| Visa application rejected based on a misinterpretation of policy | Pre-action Protocol for Judicial Review requesting the Home Office to reconsider its decision. For example, incorrect application of the Immigration Rules or guidance in Visit Visa refusal. |
| Delay by the Home Office in making a decision (unreasonable delay) | Pre-action Protocol for Judicial Review can compel the Home Office to decide on excessive delay. |
| Sponsor licence revoked without a fair process | Employers seek to challenge the process or lawfulness of the decision to revocation. |
| Detention without a lawful justification | Unlawful immigration detention may be challenged, including claims for damages |
| Refusal to accept further representations as a fresh claim | Where the Home Office wrongly decides that new submissions do not amount to a fresh claim. |
| Certification of a claim as "clearly unfounded" (under section 94) | It prevents appeal rights, and the judicial review can challenge the certification. |
| Grant of incorrect Leave to Remain or Leave to Enter | Pre-action Protocol for Judicial Review may be submitted if you do not accept the Home Office's decision to grant leave in a category different from what you applied for. |
Time Limits for Filing a Judicial Review Application
Time is critical when considering Judicial Review. Applications must be made promptly, and in most immigration cases, they must be received by the Upper Tribunal no later than three months from the date of the decision being challenged. This strict deadline helps ensure that legal issues are raised while still current and procedurally valid.
Where the decision being challenged was made by the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), the time limit is even shorter—one month from either:
- the date written reasons for the decision were sent, or
- notification that a request to set aside the decision has been refused.
Late applications are rarely accepted and risk being dismissed outright. Therefore, it’s essential to act quickly. Before filing, you should confirm whether Judicial Review is appropriate for your case, particularly if other remedies (like appeal or administrative review) are available.
Cost of Judicial Review Proceedings
Judicial Review can be costly, with court fees and legal representation to consider. Below are the key fees payable to the tribunal:
- £174 – to submit the initial Judicial Review application
- £438 – to request an oral hearing if permission is refused on paper
- £874 – for a full Judicial Review hearing
In addition to these fixed fees, applicants should also budget for the cost of legal advice and representation, which can be significant depending on the case's complexity. Legal support is highly recommended to navigate the procedural and legal challenges involved.
Immigration Judicial Review Processing Times
The timeline for an immigration judicial review varies significantly depending on the case's progress. The key factor is whether the Home Office concedes early or defends the claim to a full hearing.
If the matter is resolved after submitting a Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) letter, the Home Office may respond within 14 to 21 days. In some cases, they may agree to reconsider the decision, avoiding the need for formal proceedings.
If the claim proceeds through all stages—including permission, possible oral hearing, and a full substantive hearing—the process can take 9 to 12 months or longer, depending on the case's complexity and court scheduling.
Note: While judicial review is ongoing, your legal status in the UK may be affected depending on the circumstances. It's important to seek legal advice to understand how this applies in your case.
What to Consider With Judicial Review
Judicial Review is a complex and often costly legal process. It should generally be treated as a last resort, used only after all other remedies, such as visa appeals or administrative review have been exhausted. Before deciding to proceed, it’s essential to carefully assess whether this is the right course of action for you.
Because the Home Office does not inform applicants about the possibility of Judicial Review, and due to the legal complexity involved, most individuals will need to consult with an experienced immigration lawyer. A legal professional can help evaluate the merits of your case and guide you on the most appropriate next steps. Judicial Review is not a decision to take lightly.
One of the first considerations is whether you have other available remedies. Those options should be pursued first if you are eligible for an appeal or administrative review. Judicial Review is only appropriate when such alternatives are unavailable or have been tried without success.
Judicial Review applications must usually be filed within three months of the decision. Delays can result in the case being dismissed, even where valid legal grounds exist.
Judicial Review can be expensive. Even if legal aid or third-party funding is available, there is a risk that you may be ordered to pay the Home Office’s legal costs if your claim is unsuccessful.
It’s important to understand that success is not guaranteed. The court does not assess whether the decision was fair or correct, but whether it was made lawfully. Even if your claim succeeds, the usual outcome is that the Home Office is required to reconsider the decision, not that a visa is automatically granted.
The process itself is legally and procedurally complex. It involves formal pleadings, deadlines, and legal arguments. For this reason, legal representation is strongly advised.
Finally, Judicial Review can be lengthy and emotionally draining. The uncertainty may affect your personal, family, or employment situation. Sometimes, the Home Office may agree to settle the matter early by reconsidering the decision before a full hearing, but this is not guaranteed.
Judicial Review Checklist
✅ Have you exhausted all alternative remedies (e.g. appeal, administrative review)?
✅ Are you within the 3-month deadline from the date of the decision?
✅ Have you taken legal advice on the merits of your case?
✅ Can you afford the costs involved, including the risk of paying the Home Office’s costs if you lose?
✅ Are you prepared for the complexity and duration of the process?
✅ Do you understand that a successful outcome may only result in the decision being reconsidered, not reversed outright?
Immigration Status During Judicial Review Proceedings
Filing a judicial review does not automatically protect or extend your immigration status. If your visa has been refused, the Home Office may still proceed with removal unless specific legal steps are taken to prevent it.
Legally speaking, judicial review proceedings do not trigger the protections under section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971, which would otherwise extend your leave while an appeal or administrative review is pending. This means that, unlike appeals, your existing leave does not continue automatically while a judicial review is in progress.
If the court grants permission for your judicial review to proceed, the Home Office may choose to defer removal or deportation. However, this is not guaranteed, especially in cases involving repeated or abusive claims, or where the applicant has a criminal record.
Urgent Consideration and Injunctions
If you are detained, face imminent removal, or are concerned about your immigration status while pursuing judicial review, you may apply for urgent consideration or seek an injunction to stop removal.
This emergency application must clearly explain the urgency and provide supporting evidence. If successful, the court may issue a temporary order preventing removal until the judicial review has been properly considered.
FAQ
What are the grounds for filing a judicial review?
How soon must I file a judicial review application after receiving a decision?
What is the primary focus of a judicial review in immigration cases?
When should I consider filing for a judicial review?
Can a judicial review prevent deportation?