IMMIGRATION JUDICIAL REVIEW

Immigration judicial review is a legal procedure used to challenge the lawfulness of a decision, action or failure to act by the Home Office or another public body.

It is different from an immigration appeal. A judicial review does not ordinarily involve a judge deciding the immigration application again on its merits. Instead, the court or Upper Tribunal considers whether the public body acted lawfully.

Judicial review may be appropriate where, for example, there is no adequate statutory appeal, an Administrative Review has failed to correct an unlawful decision, a human rights or protection claim has been unlawfully certified, further submissions have wrongly been rejected as not amounting to a fresh claim, or the Home Office has failed to make a decision within a legally reasonable period.

Strict time limits apply. Proceedings must normally be brought promptly and in any event within three months, and sending a Pre-Action Protocol letter does not stop time running.

Where removal from the UK is imminent, neither a Pre-Action Protocol letter nor issuing a judicial review claim automatically prevents removal. An urgent application for interim relief may therefore be required.

This guide focuses principally on immigration judicial review procedure in England and Wales. Different procedural rules can apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

1. What Is Immigration Judicial Review?

Judicial review is the procedure by which a person with a sufficient interest in a matter can ask a court or tribunal to review the lawfulness of:

• an enactment;
• a decision;
• an action; or
• a failure to act

in the exercise of a public function.

In immigration cases, the public body challenged will commonly be the Home Office, although judicial review can also concern the First-tier Tribunal or, in some cases, another public authority.

Judicial Review and Lawfulness

Judicial review is concerned with whether the public authority acted within the law.

A decision can be unlawful even though the Home Office had legal power to make a decision of that general type.

For example, unlawfulness can arise because the decision-maker:

• applied the wrong legal test;
• misunderstood the Immigration Rules;
• failed to follow a relevant policy;
• ignored a material consideration;
• relied on an irrelevant consideration;
• acted procedurally unfairly;
• unlawfully fettered a discretion;
• reached a legally irrational conclusion; or
• acted incompatibly with protected human rights.

Judicial Review Is Not a Merits Appeal

An appeal and a judicial review perform different functions.

An appeal may permit an independent Tribunal to reconsider the relevant statutory grounds and, in appropriate cases, make its own findings of fact.

Judicial review does not normally ask:

“Was this the immigration decision the judge would have made?”

Instead, it asks:

“Was the decision, action or failure to act lawful?”

The distinction can be particularly important where a person simply disagrees with the Home Office’s assessment of evidence. A disagreement on the merits does not automatically establish a judicial review ground.

Decisions, Actions and Failures to Act

Judicial review is not limited to formal refusal letters.

It can potentially challenge:

• a decision already made;
• steps taken to implement a decision;
• an unlawful policy or practice; or
• an unlawful failure or delay in making a decision.

Whether judicial review is appropriate depends on the nature of the public-law error and the availability of any alternative remedy.

2. When Is Immigration Judicial Review the Right Remedy?

Judicial review is generally a remedy of last resort.

It will ordinarily be inappropriate where there is another adequate alternative remedy capable of dealing with the legal complaint.

This does not mean that every possible complaint or internal procedure must invariably be exhausted. The important question is whether another remedy provides an adequate means of obtaining redress.

Immigration Appeals

Where the decision carries a statutory right of appeal, an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal will usually be the appropriate remedy.

This commonly applies to decisions refusing:

• a human rights claim;
• a protection claim; or
• certain other separately appealable decisions.

An appellant should not normally use judicial review merely because they would prefer the court to consider the case instead of the Tribunal.

Administrative Review

Some immigration decisions carry a right to Administrative Review rather than appeal.

Where Administrative Review is capable of correcting the complained-of caseworking error, it will normally need to be used before judicial review is considered.

However, an Administrative Review may not be an adequate remedy for every type of unlawfulness.

The precise decision and remedy should therefore be considered rather than assuming that Administrative Review automatically excludes judicial review in all circumstances.

Fresh Immigration Applications

A fresh application can sometimes provide a quicker and more effective solution where the problem with the original application can readily be corrected.

That does not necessarily mean that a fresh application is always an adequate alternative to judicial review.

For example, judicial review may remain important where the Home Office has made a damaging unlawful finding of deception or where preserving an earlier legal position is significant.

Complaints and Other Remedies

An internal complaint can be relevant to some administrative problems, particularly service issues.

However, a complaints procedure is not automatically an adequate alternative where urgent legal relief is required or where the legality of an immigration decision must be determined.

The proper remedy depends on what the claimant needs the court or Tribunal to achieve.

3. Common Immigration Decisions That Can Be Challenged by Judicial Review

Judicial review can arise across a wide range of immigration and asylum matters.

The following are examples rather than an exhaustive list.

Visa and Immigration Refusals With No Adequate Appeal

Some immigration decisions do not carry a statutory right of appeal.

Judicial review may potentially be available where such a decision is unlawful.

Examples can include a refusal based on:

• an incorrect interpretation of the Immigration Rules;
• an unlawful application of published policy;
• procedural unfairness;
• irrational reasoning; or
• another material public-law error.

A fresh application or Administrative Review may nevertheless be a more appropriate remedy in some cases.

Unsuccessful Administrative Review Decisions

Where Administrative Review has been completed but has failed to correct a material legal error, judicial review may potentially be available.

The challenge will normally concern the lawfulness of the decision as maintained following review, rather than simply asking another decision-maker to reconsider the merits.

Clearly Unfounded Certification

A protection or human rights claim can, in specified circumstances, be certified as clearly unfounded.

Certification can remove the ordinary section 82 right of appeal.

Where a certification decision is alleged to be unlawful, judicial review may provide the appropriate means of challenge.

Further Submissions Rejected as Not a Fresh Claim

A person whose protection or human rights claim has previously been finally determined may make further submissions.

Where the Home Office rejects those submissions and concludes that they do not amount to a fresh claim, no new statutory appeal ordinarily arises.

A judicial review may challenge the lawfulness of the fresh-claim decision, including whether the Home Office correctly applied the relevant realistic-prospect-of-success test.

Unlawful Removal Decisions

Judicial review can arise where the Home Office proposes to remove a person from the UK and the removal itself is alleged to be unlawful.

These cases can require urgent proceedings and an application for interim relief.

The existence of an underlying immigration decision does not mean that a person should wait until removal is imminent if the legal issue could and should have been raised earlier.

Unreasonable Home Office Delay or Failure to Decide

Judicial review can also challenge a public authority’s failure to act.

There is no universal period after which an outstanding immigration application automatically becomes unlawful.

The question is whether the delay has become legally unreasonable in the circumstances.

Relevant factors can include:

• the published or expected decision period;
• the complexity of the case;
• explanations given for the delay;
• whether further information has been requested;
• the impact of delay on the applicant;
• urgency;
• the length of inactivity; and
• whether the Home Office is genuinely progressing the case.

In an appropriate case, the remedy sought may be an order requiring the Home Office to make a decision rather than dictating what that decision must be.

4. Where Do You Bring an Immigration Judicial Review?

Many immigration judicial reviews in England and Wales are brought in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber).

However, not every immigration-related judicial review falls within UTIAC’s jurisdiction. Determining the correct forum is an important first step.

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

UTIAC can determine judicial review proceedings concerning the lawfulness of many immigration and asylum decisions.

Typical challenges can involve Home Office immigration decisions, fresh-claim decisions, removal decisions and other matters within the Tribunal’s transferred judicial review jurisdiction.

Administrative Court

Certain matters must instead be brought in the Administrative Court.

Current categories include challenges concerning:

• the validity of the Immigration Rules or legislation;
• the lawfulness of immigration detention;
• refusal to include a sponsor on the register of licensed sponsors;
• refusal of British citizenship;
• refusal of asylum seeker support;
• a decision of the Upper Tribunal;
• a decision of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission;
• a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act;
• certain national-security-certified decisions; and
• decisions of the competent authorities concerning whether a person is a victim of trafficking.

The correct venue can depend on the precise decision challenged rather than the broad subject area.

Immigration Detention

A challenge to the lawfulness of detention itself is brought in the Administrative Court rather than UTIAC.

This should be distinguished from a detained person’s challenge to a separate immigration decision.

For example, a person in detention may potentially challenge a removal decision in UTIAC while bringing a separate challenge to the legality of their detention in the Administrative Court.

Challenges to Upper Tribunal Decisions

Judicial review is not an ordinary route for challenging an Upper Tribunal decision. In particular, the former procedure commonly known as Cart judicial review, used to challenge an Upper Tribunal refusal of permission to appeal from the First-tier Tribunal, was abolished for ordinary cases in 2022.

Such a refusal is now generally final, subject only to exceptionally narrow statutory circumstances.

5. Grounds for Immigration Judicial Review

The precise grounds depend on the decision being challenged.

Public-law grounds overlap and should not always be forced into rigid categories, but the following concepts commonly arise.

Illegality and Error of Law

A decision can be unlawful because the public body misunderstood or misapplied the law.

Examples can include:

• applying the wrong Immigration Rule;
• misunderstanding the meaning of legislation;
• using an incorrect legal test;
• acting outside the scope of a statutory power;
• misunderstanding the limits of a discretion;
• applying an unlawful policy; or
• failing to apply a legally relevant exception.

Relevant and Irrelevant Considerations

A public authority can act unlawfully by:

• failing to consider a matter it was legally required to consider; or
• materially relying on a consideration that was legally irrelevant.

The issue is not whether the decision-maker mentioned every item of evidence.

The omitted or irrelevant consideration must be sufficiently significant to the legal decision-making exercise.

Fettering Discretion

Where a decision-maker has a genuine legal discretion, they must ordinarily exercise it rather than applying a policy as if it admitted no exception.

A public body may have a lawful policy guiding how discretion should normally be exercised. The error arises where the authority unlawfully closes its mind to circumstances that the legal framework requires it to consider.

Procedural Unfairness

A decision may be unlawful because the procedure followed was unfair.

Examples can include:

• failing to give a person a fair opportunity to respond to a serious allegation;
• relying on undisclosed material;
• failing to follow a procedure required by law;
• inadequate notice;
• failing to consider properly submitted representations; or
• another procedural defect that deprived the claimant of a fair process.

The requirements of fairness depend on the context.

Irrationality

A decision can also be challenged because it is irrational in the public-law sense. This is a demanding legal test. It is not enough that the claimant or another reasonable decision-maker would have reached a different conclusion.

A decision may be legally irrational where its reasoning or conclusion falls outside the range lawfully open to the decision-maker.

Legitimate Expectation

In appropriate circumstances, a clear representation, promise or established practice by a public authority can give rise to a legitimate expectation.

Whether that expectation is legally enforceable depends on the nature of the representation, the circumstances and the public authority’s justification for departing from it.

Human Rights and Proportionality

A judicial review can also raise protected human rights.

Where the legality of a public authority’s action depends on compatibility with Convention rights, the court or Tribunal may need to consider proportionality rather than applying only traditional irrationality review.

This commonly arises in immigration cases involving Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

6. Does the Legal Error Have to Affect the Outcome?

Identifying a legal error does not necessarily mean that permission or a remedy will follow.

In judicial review proceedings in England and Wales, the Tribunal may consider whether the outcome for the claimant would have been substantially different if the complained-of conduct had not occurred.

If it is highly likely that the outcome would not have been substantially different, the court or Tribunal may be required to refuse permission or relief, subject to the applicable exceptional-public-interest provisions.

The practical question is therefore often not simply:

“Was there an error?”

but also:

“Could correcting that error realistically make a material difference?”

For that reason, grounds for judicial review should ordinarily explain both the alleged unlawfulness and its practical significance.

7. Immigration Judicial Review Time Limits

Judicial review must be brought promptly. For most immigration judicial reviews in UTIAC, the claim must in any event be received no later than three months after the date of the decision, action or omission being challenged, unless another enactment prescribes a shorter period.

Three months is a maximum limit, not an entitlement to wait three months.

Why “Promptly” Matters

A claim can potentially encounter difficulty even where it is technically issued within three months if there has been unjustified delay.

Delay can be particularly important where:

• removal is imminent;
• third-party interests are affected;
• circumstances are changing rapidly; or
• granting relief would prejudice good administration.

A prospective claimant should therefore obtain advice as soon as the potential unlawfulness is identified.

Judicial Review of Certain First-tier Tribunal Decisions

The Upper Tribunal Rules contain a particular one-month provision for certain judicial review challenges to First-tier Tribunal decisions.

However, this is not a routine alternative to the normal permission-to-appeal process.

The abolition of ordinary Cart judicial review means that a claimant cannot simply use judicial review because permission to appeal has been refused.

Applying Out of Time

An application made after the applicable deadline must include a request for an extension of time and explain why the claim was not brought in time.

There is no guarantee that an extension will be granted.

The court or Tribunal can consider matters such as:

• length of delay;
• explanation;
• impact on other parties;
• good administration; and
• the circumstances of the proposed challenge.

The Pre-Action Protocol Does Not Extend Time

Sending a Letter Before Claim does not stop the judicial-review time limit running. Nor does asking the Home Office to reconsider a decision automatically extend the deadline.

Where necessary, proceedings may need to be issued before the Pre-Action Protocol process is complete in order to protect the claimant’s position.

8. The Immigration Judicial Review Pre-Action Protocol

Before issuing judicial review proceedings, a prospective claimant should normally follow the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review.

The purpose of the Protocol is to enable the parties to:

• identify the issues;
• exchange necessary information;
• consider whether the dispute can be resolved;
• avoid unnecessary proceedings; and
• narrow the issues if litigation cannot be avoided.

Letter Before Claim

The first formal step is generally a Letter Before Claim, sometimes called a Pre-Action Protocol letter.

It should normally identify:

• the proposed claimant;
• the decision, action or omission challenged;
• the relevant factual background;
• the legal errors alleged;
• the remedy sought;
• relevant documents or information requested;
• any interested parties;
• urgency; and
• the date by which a response is requested.

A Pre-Action letter should be focused on the legal challenge rather than reproducing every aspect of the claimant’s immigration history.

Home Office Response

The defendant should normally provide a substantive response within 14 days. A shorter or longer period may be appropriate depending on the circumstances.

Where the defendant cannot respond within the proposed period, it should normally explain why and propose a reasonable alternative date.

That does not extend the judicial-review limitation period.

Settlement Before Proceedings

A Letter Before Claim can lead to the public body:

• maintaining its position;
• providing an explanation;
• reconsidering;
• withdrawing a decision;
• agreeing to take a specified step; or
• otherwise resolving or narrowing the dispute.

There is no assumption that sending a letter will cause the Home Office to concede.

9. When Can You Skip the Pre-Action Protocol?

The ordinary Pre-Action Protocol process is not suitable for every case. In a very urgent case, proceedings may need to be issued immediately.

Imminent Removal

Where directions have been set for removal from the UK and there is insufficient time to complete the normal Protocol process, a claimant may need to issue proceedings and seek urgent interim relief.

Even in such circumstances, the defendant should ordinarily be notified as soon as practicable.

Urgent Interim Relief

An urgent judicial review can also arise where immediate court intervention is required to compel or restrain conduct before serious harm occurs.

The claimant should explain:

• what is about to happen;
• when it will happen;
• why the decision or conduct is allegedly unlawful;
• what interim order is required; and
• why the issue cannot await the normal timetable.

Protecting the Judicial Review Deadline

Urgency can also arise because the judicial-review deadline itself is about to expire.

A claimant should not allow time to expire merely because a response to the Pre-Action letter has not yet been received.

10. Urgent Immigration Judicial Review and Interim Relief

Starting a judicial review claim does not automatically suspend the decision being challenged. This is especially important where the Home Office intends to remove a person from the UK.

Does Judicial Review Automatically Stop Removal?

No. Neither:

• sending a Pre-Action Protocol Letter Before Claim; nor
• filing the judicial review itself

automatically prevents implementation of the challenged decision.

The Home Office may voluntarily agree not to take action while the dispute is considered.

Where it does not, the claimant may need to seek an urgent interim order.

Interim Injunctions

The Upper Tribunal has power to grant an injunction in an appropriate judicial review case.

A claimant seeking to prevent removal may ask the Tribunal for an interim order preventing removal pending further consideration of the claim.

Interim relief is discretionary.

The application will ordinarily need to address matters such as:

• the arguability of the claim;
• urgency;
• risk of harm;
• consequences if relief is refused;
• consequences if relief is granted;
• the public interest; and
• any other relevant factors.

UTIAC4 and UTIAC5

Where urgent consideration or interim relief is sought at the same time as the judicial review is issued, the relevant UTIAC urgent application form is UTIAC4, filed with the UTIAC1 claim.

There is currently no additional fee simply for including UTIAC4 with the initial application. Where the judicial review has already been issued, an urgent application can be made using UTIAC5.

The current fee for a UTIAC5 application is £298.

Evidence of Urgency

An urgent application should be supported by appropriate evidence.

Depending on the case, this may include:

• removal directions;
• travel documentation;
• medical evidence;
• evidence relating to children;
• evidence of risk on return;
• correspondence with the Home Office; and
• a clear chronology.

Urgency should be demonstrated rather than merely asserted.

11. How to Start an Immigration Judicial Review in the Upper Tribunal

A judicial review in UTIAC is started by applying for permission to bring judicial review proceedings.

The current application form is UTIAC1.

Electronic Filing

A legally represented applicant must currently use the HMCTS E-Filing service.

E-Filing is also the preferred method for an unrepresented claimant, although alternative filing arrangements remain available in specified circumstances.

Grounds for Judicial Review

The grounds should clearly identify:

• the decision, act or omission challenged;
• relevant facts;
• legal principles relied upon;
• each alleged public-law error;
• why the error matters; and
• the remedy sought.

Judicial review grounds should not simply repeat immigration representations and add the word “unlawful”.

They should identify why the public authority exceeded or misused its lawful decision-making powers.

Evidence and Claim Bundle

The claim will ordinarily need to include relevant material such as:

• the challenged decision;
• immigration application or submissions;
• supporting evidence relevant to the legal issue;
• correspondence;
• the Pre-Action Protocol exchange;
• policies or guidance relied upon; and
• any evidence relevant to urgency or interim relief.

The bundle should be proportionate and directed to the issues.

12. Serving the Judicial Review Claim

After the claim has been accepted, it must be served on the respondent and any interested parties.

Nine-Day Service Requirement

In UTIAC immigration judicial review proceedings, the applicant must ordinarily serve the application and accompanying documents within 9 days.

The applicant must also provide the Tribunal with a statement confirming when and how service took place. Failure to complete the required service can result in the proceedings being struck out.

Interested Parties

A person directly affected by the relief sought may need to be identified and served as an interested party. Who must be joined depends on the nature of the claim.

Acknowledgement of Service

A respondent or interested party who wishes to take part in the proceedings ordinarily has 21 days to provide an Acknowledgement of Service.

The Acknowledgement can set out:

• whether permission is opposed or supported;
• summary grounds; and
• other information said to assist the Tribunal.

Once this material has been filed, a judge can determine whether the case should receive permission to proceed.

13. Permission to Apply for Judicial Review

A claimant does not automatically obtain a full judicial review hearing merely by issuing a claim. Permission is required.

The permission stage is designed to filter out cases that do not establish a properly arguable basis for judicial review.

Sufficient Interest

The applicant must have a sufficient interest in the matter being challenged.

In most personal immigration challenges concerning the claimant’s own immigration decision, this will not usually be controversial.

Arguability

The claimant must put forward a properly arguable case that the challenged decision or conduct is unlawful.

Permission is not the final determination of the claim. A grant of permission means that the case is sufficiently arguable to proceed to substantive judicial review.

Permission on the Papers

Permission is ordinarily considered initially without an oral hearing.

The judge considers the claim, grounds, evidence, any Acknowledgement of Service and the applicable legal framework.

The judge may:

• grant permission;
• grant permission on limited grounds;
• impose conditions;
• refuse permission; or
• refuse permission and certify the claim as totally without merit.

Would the Outcome Have Been Different?

At permission stage, the Tribunal can also consider whether the outcome for the claimant would have been substantially different if the complained-of unlawful conduct had not occurred.

An immaterial error may therefore fail to justify permission.

14. What Happens if Permission Is Refused?

The next step depends on whether the claim has been certified as totally without merit.

Permission Refused but Not Totally Without Merit

Where permission is refused on the papers but the claim is not certified totally without merit, the applicant can ordinarily ask for the decision to be reconsidered at an oral permission hearing.

For immigration judicial review proceedings, the request must be made within 9 days after the Tribunal sends the permission-refusal decision.

The current oral-reconsideration fee is £449.

A different judge will ordinarily reconsider the permission application at the hearing.

Oral Permission Hearing

At an oral permission hearing, the claimant explains why the claim is properly arguable.

The respondent may also appear and make submissions.

The hearing is about whether the judicial review should be permitted to proceed, not ordinarily about finally determining the underlying immigration dispute.

If permission is granted, the claim continues to the substantive stage.

Totally Without Merit

Where the Upper Tribunal refuses permission and certifies the judicial review as totally without merit, the applicant cannot request the ordinary oral reconsideration before UTIAC.

The decision notice should explain any right to seek permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The current UTIAC14 fee for an application to the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal is £117.

A totally-without-merit certification should therefore not be confused with an ordinary paper refusal of permission.

15. What Happens if Permission Is Granted?

Permission means that the judicial review can proceed to the substantive stage.

It does not mean that the claimant has won.

Continuation Fee

Where permission is granted on the papers, the current continuation fee is £897.

It must ordinarily be paid within 9 calendar days of the Tribunal sending the permission decision. Failure to pay can cause the claim to be struck out.

Where permission is obtained after an oral reconsideration for which the £449 fee has already been paid, the current further continuation fee is £448.

Detailed Grounds of Defence

A respondent wishing to contest the judicial review after permission will ordinarily provide detailed grounds setting out its substantive response.

Under the Upper Tribunal Rules, detailed grounds are ordinarily due within 35 days of the notice granting permission.

Home Office Concession or Settlement

Permission can prompt the parties to reconsider their positions.

The Home Office may:

• defend the claim;
• concede part of the claim;
• agree to withdraw and reconsider a decision;
• agree other terms of settlement; or
• continue to a final hearing.

A grant of permission does not create any presumption that the Home Office must withdraw the decision or grant immigration permission.

Additional Grounds

A claimant cannot ordinarily rely at the substantive stage on grounds outside those for which permission was granted without the Tribunal’s consent.

If circumstances change or further legal issues arise, an application to amend may be required.

16. The Substantive Judicial Review Hearing

If the case is not resolved following permission, it proceeds towards a substantive hearing.

Skeleton Arguments and Bundles

Before the hearing, the parties will ordinarily prepare the material required by the Tribunal’s directions.

This can include:

• skeleton arguments;
• authorities;
• agreed or disputed factual material;
• evidence; and
• the hearing bundle.

The judicial review should remain focused on the public-law issues for which permission has been granted.

Evidence

Judicial review frequently turns principally on documentary material and legal submissions. It is not normally a full factual rehearing comparable to a First-tier Tribunal immigration appeal.

Witness evidence can nevertheless be relevant in an appropriate case, particularly where factual matters are necessary to resolve a procedural or public-law issue.

The Legal Issues

At the substantive hearing, the claimant seeks to establish that the challenged conduct was unlawful and that an appropriate remedy should be granted.

The respondent will ordinarily argue either:

• that there was no public-law error;
• that any error was immaterial;
• that relief should be refused as a matter of discretion; or
• that another reason prevents the relief sought.

The Tribunal then gives judgment.

17. What Remedies Can the Upper Tribunal Grant?

Judicial review remedies are discretionary.

The Upper Tribunal’s statutory judicial review powers include:

• a quashing order;
• a mandatory order;
• a prohibiting order;
• a declaration; and
• an injunction.

Quashing Order

A quashing order sets aside an unlawful decision. In an immigration context, the usual practical consequence is that the Home Office must reconsider the matter lawfully.

The Tribunal does not ordinarily replace the Home Office’s merits decision simply because it disagrees with the conclusion.

Mandatory Order

A mandatory order can require a public body to take a legally required step. This can be relevant, for example, where the Home Office has unlawfully failed to make a decision.

The order may require a decision to be taken without dictating that it must necessarily be favourable.

Prohibiting Order

A prohibiting order prevents a public body from taking an unlawful step.

Declaration

A declaration formally states the legal position or rights of the parties.

Injunction

An injunction can require or restrain conduct. Interim injunctions can be particularly important where urgent action, such as removal from the UK, is imminent.

Damages

Damages are not automatically available merely because a decision was unlawful.

The Upper Tribunal can award damages, restitution or recovery of a sum due where the claim properly includes such relief and the claimant would have been entitled to that award in an equivalent High Court action.

There must therefore be an independent legal basis for the financial remedy.

Reconsideration by the Home Office

In many successful immigration judicial reviews, the practical outcome is that the unlawful decision is withdrawn or quashed and returned to the Home Office for lawful reconsideration.

A successful judicial review does not necessarily establish that the claimant is substantively entitled to a visa or immigration permission.

18. How Much Does Immigration Judicial Review Cost?

UTIAC judicial review proceedings involve court or Tribunal fees at several stages.

As at 8 October 2026, the principal fees are:

Judicial Review Stage	Current Fee
Initial application for permission to bring Judicial Review	£179
Oral reconsideration after paper refusal of permission	£449
Continuation to substantive hearing after permission granted on papers	£897
Further continuation fee where permission is granted at oral reconsideration	£448
General application made on notice / without consent	£298
General application by consent or without notice	£117
Application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal using UTIAC14	£117

These are court and Tribunal fees, not legal fees.

Additional costs may arise for:

• legal advice and representation;
• counsel;
• expert evidence;
• translations;
• document preparation; and
• potential adverse costs orders.

Help With Fees

A claimant with limited financial means may qualify for Help with Fees, subject to the applicable eligibility requirements.

Legal Aid

Public funding can be available for judicial review in qualifying cases. Eligibility depends on the scope of legal aid, financial means and the merits of the case.

Legal aid is provided through organisations and legal professionals holding the appropriate Legal Aid Agency contracts.

19. Costs Risk in Immigration Judicial Review

Judicial review carries a materially greater costs risk than an ordinary First-tier Tribunal immigration appeal. The Upper Tribunal has power to make costs orders in judicial review proceedings.

If the Claim Succeeds

A successful claimant may seek recovery of reasonable legal costs from the defendant.

The precise order can depend on:

• the issues on which the claimant succeeded;
• whether the claim was conceded;
• timing of any concession;
• conduct of the parties; and
• the terms of any settlement.

If the Claim Fails

An unsuccessful claimant can potentially be ordered to pay the defendant’s reasonable costs.

The amount will depend on the proceedings and the orders made. Costs risk therefore needs to be considered before litigation is started.

Pre-Action Conduct and Costs

The parties’ behaviour before proceedings can affect costs. A party that unreasonably fails to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol can face costs consequences.

Equally, commencing proceedings unnecessarily without giving the public body an appropriate opportunity to respond can be relevant.

Settlement and Costs

Many judicial review claims are resolved by consent. Where the substantive dispute is settled, the parties may also agree how costs should be dealt with.

If agreement is not possible, the Tribunal may need to determine costs separately.

20. How Long Does an Immigration Judicial Review Take?

There is no single published processing period that applies to all immigration judicial reviews.

The overall duration depends heavily on the point at which the dispute is resolved.

A case may conclude:

• following the Pre-Action Protocol response;
• shortly after proceedings are issued;
• before permission is determined;
• after permission but before the final hearing;
• through a consent order;
• at a substantive hearing; or
• after an onward appeal.

Urgent removal cases can move very quickly at the interim-relief stage, while a contested claim proceeding to final hearing can take substantially longer.

Factors affecting the timetable include:

• urgency;
• Tribunal listing;
• complexity;
• amendments;
• evidence;
• interlocutory applications;
• settlement discussions;
• availability of counsel; and
• onward appeals.

For this reason, a fixed general promise that an immigration judicial review will take a particular number of months is not reliable.

21. What Happens if an Immigration Judicial Review Succeeds?

The result depends on the legal error established and the remedy granted.

A successful claim may lead to:

• the challenged decision being quashed;
• the Home Office agreeing to withdraw the decision;
• a requirement that the Home Office reconsider;
• an order requiring a delayed decision to be made;
• an injunction preventing unlawful action;
• a declaration concerning the parties’ legal rights; or
• another appropriate order.

A successful judicial review does not necessarily mean that the claimant will immediately receive the visa, leave to remain or other immigration outcome originally sought.

For example, a refusal may be quashed because the Home Office applied the wrong legal test. The Home Office may then need to reconsider the application using the correct test.

The result of that reconsideration will depend on the lawful application of the relevant immigration framework.

22. What Happens if an Immigration Judicial Review Fails?

If permission is refused, the claimant may have the right to seek oral reconsideration unless the claim is certified totally without merit.

If the claim is dismissed following the substantive hearing, an onward appeal may potentially be available.

Appeal to the Court of Appeal

An appeal from an Upper Tribunal judicial review decision is to the Court of Appeal on a point of law. Permission to appeal is required.

An application should ordinarily first be made to the Upper Tribunal, with the applicable deadline stated in the decision notice and Tribunal Rules. If the Upper Tribunal refuses permission, a further application may potentially be made to the Court of Appeal.

Costs

An unsuccessful judicial review can also result in an adverse costs order.

The costs position should therefore be considered alongside the merits of any proposed onward appeal.

23. Frequently Asked Questions: Immigration Judicial Review

What is immigration judicial review?

Immigration judicial review is a legal procedure for challenging the lawfulness of a Home Office or other public-body decision, action or failure to act. It is normally concerned with public-law error rather than simply asking a judge to reconsider whether an immigration decision was correct on its merits.

Can I judicially review a Home Office visa refusal?

Potentially, where the refusal is unlawful and there is no adequate alternative remedy. If you have a statutory appeal or an effective Administrative Review, that procedure will ordinarily need to be considered first.

Is Judicial Review the same as an immigration appeal?

No. An immigration appeal allows the First-tier Tribunal to determine specified statutory appeal grounds. Judicial review considers whether a public authority acted lawfully. The available evidence, procedure, remedies and costs consequences are materially different.

Do I have to use Administrative Review before Judicial Review?

Usually where Administrative Review is an adequate available remedy, but not in every conceivable case. The question is whether the alternative process is capable of providing effective redress for the legal error alleged.

What is the time limit for immigration judicial review?

A judicial review must normally be brought promptly and in any event within three months of the decision, action or omission challenged. Some claims have different or shorter rules, so the precise deadline should always be checked immediately.

Does sending a Pre-Action Protocol letter extend the Judicial Review deadline?

No. A Pre-Action Protocol letter does not stop the judicial-review time limit running. Proceedings may need to be issued before the Home Office responds if waiting would place the claim out of time.

Does filing Judicial Review stop removal from the UK?

No. Neither sending a Pre-Action Protocol letter nor issuing the claim automatically prevents removal. Where removal is imminent, the claimant may need an urgent interim injunction or other order preventing removal while the legal challenge is considered.

How do I stop an imminent removal?

An urgent judicial review and application for interim relief may be required. In UTIAC, form UTIAC4 is used when urgent relief is sought with the initial claim and UTIAC5 can be used where proceedings have already been issued. Urgent legal advice should be obtained immediately.

How much does immigration Judicial Review cost?

The current UTIAC issue fee is £179. Further fees can arise at permission and substantive-hearing stages, including £449 for oral reconsideration and £897 to continue after permission granted on the papers. Legal fees and adverse costs exposure are separate.

Can I recover my legal costs if I win?

Potentially. The Tribunal has power to make costs orders in judicial review proceedings. The precise order depends on the outcome, conduct of the parties and circumstances in which the claim was resolved.

What happens if permission for Judicial Review is refused?

If permission is refused on the papers but the claim is not certified totally without merit, you can ordinarily seek oral reconsideration within nine days. If it is certified totally without merit, oral reconsideration is unavailable and any onward challenge follows a different procedure.

What does “totally without merit” mean?

It is a certification made when refusing permission that prevents the claimant from obtaining the ordinary oral reconsideration of the permission decision in UTIAC. The decision notice should explain any available route for seeking permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

What happens if Judicial Review succeeds?

The court or Tribunal may quash an unlawful decision, require a lawful reconsideration, compel action, prevent unlawful action or grant another appropriate remedy. Success does not necessarily mean that a visa or immigration permission is automatically granted.

Can I judicially review an Upper Tribunal refusal of permission to appeal?

Generally not. Ordinary Cart judicial review was abolished in 2022. An Upper Tribunal refusal of renewed permission to appeal from the First-tier Tribunal is now generally final, subject only to extremely narrow statutory exceptions.