Immigration Judicial Review Solicitors

Potential grounds can include applying the wrong legal test, procedural unfairness or an irrational decision. A failure to consider relevant material may also raise a public-law issue. The alleged error needs to be identified through the decision, legal framework and evidence.

Disagreement with the outcome alone is insufficient. Judicial review does not normally ask the judge to decide the immigration application afresh or to substitute a preferred assessment of all the evidence.

An available and adequate appeal or administrative review will normally need to be used rather than bypassed. The suitability of that remedy, any urgency and the decision being challenged require assessment.

The absence of an appeal right does not itself establish a valid judicial review claim. Equally, allowing an ordinary challenge deadline to expire does not create a new entitlement to judicial review.

• Appeals and administrative review

In England and Wales, many immigration and asylum judicial reviews are brought in the Upper Tribunal, but important categories fall outside that route. Government guidance directs challenges to the lawfulness of detention to the Administrative Court.

The guidance also identifies exceptions including citizenship, sponsor-register and certain other decisions. A challenge to removal and a challenge to detention must not be assumed to have the same forum simply because they involve the same person. Scotland and Northern Ireland have different arrangements and need jurisdiction-specific advice.

• Immigration and asylum judicial review
• Immigration detention

Upper Tribunal Rule 28 requires an application promptly and, generally, receipt no later than three months after the relevant decision, action or omission, unless a shorter statutory period applies. Administrative Court claims are also generally required promptly and, in any event, within three months after the grounds first arose. Specific procedural exceptions require checking. These are not interchangeable deadline calculations or a reason to wait.

A pre-action letter usually explains the proposed challenge, remedy sought and relevant information requested. The ordinary response period under the protocol is 14 days, but urgency can require a different approach. The pre-action process does not extend the claim deadline, and an extension should never be assumed.

Where removal or another event is imminent, any need for interim relief must be considered specifically. Sending a pre-action letter or making an enquiry should not be treated as an order stopping removal.

A claim requires focused grounds and supporting documents, filed and served in accordance with the relevant procedure. In the Upper Tribunal, the permission decision is normally considered first on the papers; the claimant must follow the directions and service requirements.

The options after permission is refused depend on the decision and procedure. A finding that a claim is totally without merit affects the ability to seek an oral reconsideration. Permission to proceed with judicial review is not immigration permission and does not itself decide the claim.

If permission is granted, the proceedings move towards determination of the substantive challenge unless resolved sooner. Urgent applications and interim orders have separate requirements; relief is not guaranteed.

• Immigration and asylum judicial review

A successful challenge may result in a decision being quashed and reconsidered lawfully. That is different from a guarantee that the underlying visa or immigration application will be granted. The available remedy depends on the error, jurisdiction and circumstances.

A representative may assess the grounds, prepare correspondence and advise on proceedings within an agreed scope of work. The record should include the decision, proof of receipt, application documents, relevant correspondence and a clear chronology of other remedies pursued.

Costs can be a significant consideration, including potential liability for another party’s costs. Legal-aid availability and eligibility require an individual assessment; this page does not confirm Highfin’s authorisation or funding arrangements.

• Identify the precise decision, act or omission challenged.
• Preserve the original evidence and record of service or receipt.
• Explain previous appeals or reviews and any urgent removal arrangements.

• Legal aid eligibility