Accurate
Country-specific legal content
Drafted with legal expertise for each jurisdiction, far more thorough than AI-generated drafts that copy generic clauses across borders.
PersonalUnited Kingdom
Free UKVI Administrative Review Letter — Appendix AR Statement of Case
A UK statement of case for Administrative Review of a UKVI visa refusal under Appendix AR of the Immigration Rules — the paid internal review that replaced full appeal rights for points-based decisions in the United Kingdom. Our British template covers the location-based deadline switch (14 days in the UK, 28 days outside, 7 days in detention), the £80 fee and refund rule, the five case working error grounds, route-specific eligibility rebuttals for Skilled Worker, Student, Family and Settlement applications, the new-evidence exception, and the onward judicial review route.
Free to useInstant PDFNo account required
PDF (free) + editable Word (.docx) with Expert
Application for Administrative Review — Statement of Case
Priya Venkataraman · UKVI Ref 3434-0091-2208-4417 · Refusal 1 June 2026
Priya Venkataraman
Flat 7, Lansdowne Court, 18 Whitworth Street, Manchester M1 6LQ
0161 496 0734
priya.venkataraman@outlook.com
8 June 2026
UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI)
Administrative Review team — at the address stated in the decision notice
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW — APPENDIX AR
Ref 3434-0091-2208-4417 | Decision 1 June 2026
This is the statement of case in support of an application for ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW under Appendix AR of the Immigration Rules of the refusal of the applicant's Skilled Worker (including Health and Care Worker) application, notified on 1 June 2026 under reference 3434-0091-2208-4417.
The applicant is Priya Venkataraman, a national of India, born 18 March 1991. At the date of the decision the applicant was in the United Kingdom.
TIMING. Under Appendix AR, an application made while in the United Kingdom must be submitted within 14 calendar days of receipt of the decision. The deadline in this case is 15 June 2026; this application is made on 8 June 2026.
DUTY TO GIVE REASONS. Fairness requires the decision-maker to give reasons sufficient to enable the applicant to understand why the application was refused and to mount an effective challenge — R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531. The case working errors identified below are assessed against that standard.
The applicant is Priya Venkataraman, a national of India, born 18 March 1991. At the date of the decision the applicant was in the United Kingdom.
TIMING. Under Appendix AR, an application made while in the United Kingdom must be submitted within 14 calendar days of receipt of the decision. The deadline in this case is 15 June 2026; this application is made on 8 June 2026.
DUTY TO GIVE REASONS. Fairness requires the decision-maker to give reasons sufficient to enable the applicant to understand why the application was refused and to mount an effective challenge — R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531. The case working errors identified below are assessed against that standard.
1.
APPLICANT IDENTIFICATION
Full name: Priya Venkataraman
Date of birth: 18 March 1991
Nationality: India
Address for correspondence: Flat 7, Lansdowne Court, 18 Whitworth Street, Manchester M1 6LQ
Telephone: 0161 496 0734
Email: priya.venkataraman@outlook.com
UKVI reference: 3434-0091-2208-4417
Date of birth: 18 March 1991
Nationality: India
Address for correspondence: Flat 7, Lansdowne Court, 18 Whitworth Street, Manchester M1 6LQ
Telephone: 0161 496 0734
Email: priya.venkataraman@outlook.com
UKVI reference: 3434-0091-2208-4417
2.
DECISION UNDER REVIEW
Route: Skilled Worker (including Health and Care Worker)
Decision: Refusal notified on 1 June 2026
Location of applicant at decision: In the United Kingdom
Review deadline: 15 June 2026 (14 calendar days)
Decision: Refusal notified on 1 June 2026
Location of applicant at decision: In the United Kingdom
Review deadline: 15 June 2026 (14 calendar days)
3.
ELIGIBILITY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The refusal of a Skilled Worker application is an eligible decision under Appendix AR of the Immigration Rules. Administrative review is the applicable remedy; there is no full right of appeal because the application is not a protection or human rights claim (section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, as amended by the Immigration Act 2014).
The applicant confirms that (a) no other administrative review of this decision has been made; (b) no other immigration application has been or will be submitted while this review is pending — the applicant is aware that doing so would automatically withdraw this review; and (c) the prescribed fee of £80 accompanies this application and is refundable if the review succeeds.
The applicant confirms that (a) no other administrative review of this decision has been made; (b) no other immigration application has been or will be submitted while this review is pending — the applicant is aware that doing so would automatically withdraw this review; and (c) the prescribed fee of £80 accompanies this application and is refundable if the review succeeds.
4.
SUMMARY OF CASE WORKING ERRORS
The refusal of 1 June 2026 contains THREE case working errors. FIRST, the decision states that the salary on the Certificate of Sponsorship (£44,200) does not meet the going rate for SOC 2136 (programmers and software development professionals), but the caseworker applied the 40-hour weekly baseline to a 37.5-hour contract: pro-rated correctly under the Rules, £44,200 for 37.5 hours exceeds the going rate. SECOND, the decision asserts that no evidence of the required English language qualification was provided, yet the IELTS for UKVI test report form (TRF 26IN004412VENA001A, dated 4 February 2026) was uploaded with the application on 17 April 2026 — the upload receipt is enclosed to demonstrate the error. THIRD, the decision applies the Temporary Shortage List version published after the application date, rather than the version in force on 17 April 2026. Each error is material: correcting any one of them results in the points requirements being met.
5.
OUTCOME SOUGHT
The applicant asks the reviewer to find that the decision of 1 June 2026 contains the case working errors identified, to withdraw the refusal, and to grant the Skilled Worker application as originally submitted. The £80 review fee should be refunded in accordance with Appendix AR.
6.
CASE WORKING ERROR GROUNDS MATRIX — APPENDIX AR
The review is limited to case working error. Each applicable category is addressed in turn.
(1) FAILURE TO APPLY THE IMMIGRATION RULES OR GUIDANCE CORRECTLY. The original decision-maker must apply the version of the Rules and published caseworker guidance in force at the date of application. The caseworker applied the going-rate calculation for SOC 2136 on a 40-hour baseline. The Rules require the going rate to be pro-rated to the weekly hours stated on the CoS (37.5 hours). On a 37.5-hour week, the annualised going-rate equivalent is below the CoS salary of £44,200, and the general threshold of £41,700 (in force from 22 July 2025) is also exceeded. The refusal therefore misapplies the salary rules in force at the date of application.
(2) FAILURE TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE THAT WAS SUBMITTED. Where the refusal treats evidence as absent that was in fact provided, that is a classic case working error; the evidence may be re-submitted with this review solely to demonstrate the error. The decision states "no evidence of an English language qualification at the required level has been provided". The IELTS for UKVI Academic test report form (TRF 26IN004412VENA001A, overall 7.5, all components above 6.5, test date 4 February 2026) was uploaded as document 9 of the application bundle on 17 April 2026 at 14:32 — the system-generated upload receipt bearing that timestamp is enclosed solely to demonstrate this case working error.
(3) MATERIAL FACTUAL MISTAKE. Dates, sums, document contents or personal details misread or transposed. The decision records the CoS start date as 1 April 2026 and concludes the certificate had expired by the date of decision. The CoS (C2G7K91004X) states an employment start date of 1 August 2026. The certificate was live and valid at both the application date and the decision date.
(4) PROCEDURAL ERROR. Failure to follow mandated process — for example, not exercising evidential flexibility where guidance required clarification to be sought, applying the wrong Rules version, or refusing on a ground the applicant was never given an opportunity to address. The published caseworker guidance on evidential flexibility required the decision-maker to contact the applicant where a listed document appeared to be missing but related evidence indicated it existed — the application form expressly listed the IELTS TRF number. No clarification request was made before refusal.
(5) DECISION OTHERWISE UNJUSTIFIED BY THE EVIDENCE. The conclusion does not rationally follow from the material before the decision-maker, or the reasons given are so inadequate that the basis of refusal cannot be understood — contrary to ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 and the individualised-assessment standard in R (Hiri) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 254 (Admin). The refusal letter consists of template paragraphs that do not engage with the actual CoS hours, the uploaded TRF, or the listed document index. Reasons of that character do not enable the applicant to understand the true basis of refusal and fail the standard in ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531; the individualised-assessment requirement in R (Hiri) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 254 (Admin) is likewise not met.
(6) MATERIALITY. Each error identified above changed the outcome: but for the error, the application fell to be granted on the evidence before the decision-maker. Errors (1)-(3) are each independently material: with the salary pro-rated correctly the mandatory points are met; with the TRF considered the English language requirement is met; with the correct CoS dates the sponsorship requirement is met. Absent the errors the application fell to be granted, so the refusal cannot stand.
(1) FAILURE TO APPLY THE IMMIGRATION RULES OR GUIDANCE CORRECTLY. The original decision-maker must apply the version of the Rules and published caseworker guidance in force at the date of application. The caseworker applied the going-rate calculation for SOC 2136 on a 40-hour baseline. The Rules require the going rate to be pro-rated to the weekly hours stated on the CoS (37.5 hours). On a 37.5-hour week, the annualised going-rate equivalent is below the CoS salary of £44,200, and the general threshold of £41,700 (in force from 22 July 2025) is also exceeded. The refusal therefore misapplies the salary rules in force at the date of application.
(2) FAILURE TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE THAT WAS SUBMITTED. Where the refusal treats evidence as absent that was in fact provided, that is a classic case working error; the evidence may be re-submitted with this review solely to demonstrate the error. The decision states "no evidence of an English language qualification at the required level has been provided". The IELTS for UKVI Academic test report form (TRF 26IN004412VENA001A, overall 7.5, all components above 6.5, test date 4 February 2026) was uploaded as document 9 of the application bundle on 17 April 2026 at 14:32 — the system-generated upload receipt bearing that timestamp is enclosed solely to demonstrate this case working error.
(3) MATERIAL FACTUAL MISTAKE. Dates, sums, document contents or personal details misread or transposed. The decision records the CoS start date as 1 April 2026 and concludes the certificate had expired by the date of decision. The CoS (C2G7K91004X) states an employment start date of 1 August 2026. The certificate was live and valid at both the application date and the decision date.
(4) PROCEDURAL ERROR. Failure to follow mandated process — for example, not exercising evidential flexibility where guidance required clarification to be sought, applying the wrong Rules version, or refusing on a ground the applicant was never given an opportunity to address. The published caseworker guidance on evidential flexibility required the decision-maker to contact the applicant where a listed document appeared to be missing but related evidence indicated it existed — the application form expressly listed the IELTS TRF number. No clarification request was made before refusal.
(5) DECISION OTHERWISE UNJUSTIFIED BY THE EVIDENCE. The conclusion does not rationally follow from the material before the decision-maker, or the reasons given are so inadequate that the basis of refusal cannot be understood — contrary to ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 and the individualised-assessment standard in R (Hiri) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 254 (Admin). The refusal letter consists of template paragraphs that do not engage with the actual CoS hours, the uploaded TRF, or the listed document index. Reasons of that character do not enable the applicant to understand the true basis of refusal and fail the standard in ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531; the individualised-assessment requirement in R (Hiri) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 254 (Admin) is likewise not met.
(6) MATERIALITY. Each error identified above changed the outcome: but for the error, the application fell to be granted on the evidence before the decision-maker. Errors (1)-(3) are each independently material: with the salary pro-rated correctly the mandatory points are met; with the TRF considered the English language requirement is met; with the correct CoS dates the sponsorship requirement is met. Absent the errors the application fell to be granted, so the refusal cannot stand.
7.
ELIGIBILITY REBUTTAL — ROUTE REQUIREMENTS MET
Skilled Worker framework. The applicant must hold a valid Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS) assigned by a licensed sponsor, and the salary must meet or exceed the higher of (i) the general threshold of £41,700 per year / £17.13 per hour (in force for applications from 22 July 2025) and (ii) the going rate for the occupation code. From 22 July 2025 the role must be at RQF Level 6 (degree level) unless the occupation appears on the Temporary Shortage List. Sponsorship is the foundation of the route — R (New London College Ltd) v SSHD [2013] UKSC 51.
(A) REQUIREMENT FOUND UNMET — REBUTTAL. The only requirements found unmet were salary (going rate) and English language. Both were satisfied on the original evidence: the CoS salary of £44,200 exceeds both the £41,700 general threshold and the correctly pro-rated going rate for SOC 2136, and the IELTS for UKVI score of 7.5 exceeds level B1 by a wide margin. The role (senior software developer) is an RQF Level 6 occupation, so no Temporary Shortage List issue arises on the correct version of the list.
(B) SPONSORSHIP / CoS / CAS POSITION. CoS C2G7K91004X was assigned on 15 April 2026 by Hexworthy Systems Ltd (sponsor licence number A1B2C3D4E5), a licensed A-rated Skilled Worker sponsor. The role is senior software developer, SOC 2136, 37.5 hours per week, employment start 1 August 2026, Manchester. The certificate was unused, unexpired and correctly assigned at the date of application (17 April 2026).
(C) FINANCIAL / MAINTENANCE POSITION. The CoS salary is £44,200 per year for 37.5 hours per week (£22.67 per hour), which exceeds the £17.13 per hour floor and the £41,700 general threshold in force for applications made on or after 22 July 2025. Maintenance was certified by the sponsor on the CoS, so no separate funds evidence was required.
Route narrative:
The sponsor has confirmed in writing that the role and salary remain open pending the outcome of this review. The sponsor relies on the certificate as assigned and has made no change to the role since the application date.
(A) REQUIREMENT FOUND UNMET — REBUTTAL. The only requirements found unmet were salary (going rate) and English language. Both were satisfied on the original evidence: the CoS salary of £44,200 exceeds both the £41,700 general threshold and the correctly pro-rated going rate for SOC 2136, and the IELTS for UKVI score of 7.5 exceeds level B1 by a wide margin. The role (senior software developer) is an RQF Level 6 occupation, so no Temporary Shortage List issue arises on the correct version of the list.
(B) SPONSORSHIP / CoS / CAS POSITION. CoS C2G7K91004X was assigned on 15 April 2026 by Hexworthy Systems Ltd (sponsor licence number A1B2C3D4E5), a licensed A-rated Skilled Worker sponsor. The role is senior software developer, SOC 2136, 37.5 hours per week, employment start 1 August 2026, Manchester. The certificate was unused, unexpired and correctly assigned at the date of application (17 April 2026).
(C) FINANCIAL / MAINTENANCE POSITION. The CoS salary is £44,200 per year for 37.5 hours per week (£22.67 per hour), which exceeds the £17.13 per hour floor and the £41,700 general threshold in force for applications made on or after 22 July 2025. Maintenance was certified by the sponsor on the CoS, so no separate funds evidence was required.
Route narrative:
The sponsor has confirmed in writing that the role and salary remain open pending the outcome of this review. The sponsor relies on the certificate as assigned and has made no change to the role since the application date.
8.
PROCEDURAL DEFENCES — REASONS AND NATURAL JUSTICE
(A) FAILURE TO GIVE ADEQUATE REASONS. Under R v SSHD, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531, fairness requires reasons sufficient to enable the person affected to understand why the decision was reached and to challenge it effectively. Pro-forma or template reasoning that does not engage with the actual evidence fails that standard. The refusal recites the standard salary paragraph without stating the hours figure used, the going-rate figure applied, or the version of the Rules relied on. The applicant had to reverse-engineer the 40-hour error from the arithmetic. Reasons that conceal the operative calculation do not meet the ex parte Doody standard of enabling an effective challenge.
(B) BREACH OF NATURAL JUSTICE. Where the refusal relies on a concern the applicant was never given an opportunity to address — credibility doubts, document authenticity, third-party checks — fairness required that the concern be put to the applicant before refusal. The decision raises, for the first time, a doubt about the authenticity of the employer reference letter. That concern was never put to the applicant or the sponsor before refusal. Had it been raised, the sponsor would have confirmed the letter on company letterhead within days — fairness required the opportunity.
(C) MECHANISTIC OR INFLEXIBLE APPLICATION OF POLICY. Policy and guidance must not be applied as a rigid checklist: R (Hiri) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 254 (Admin) requires a comprehensive, individualised assessment, "not just ticking boxes on a form". The decision applies the Temporary Shortage List mechanically by reference to the version current at the decision date, without considering the version in force at the application date as the transitional guidance requires. A blanket approach of that kind is the box-ticking that R (Hiri) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 254 (Admin) condemns.
Procedural narrative:
The combination of template reasons, an unraised authenticity doubt and the wrong list version indicates that the application was not assessed on its individual merits as the guidance requires.
(B) BREACH OF NATURAL JUSTICE. Where the refusal relies on a concern the applicant was never given an opportunity to address — credibility doubts, document authenticity, third-party checks — fairness required that the concern be put to the applicant before refusal. The decision raises, for the first time, a doubt about the authenticity of the employer reference letter. That concern was never put to the applicant or the sponsor before refusal. Had it been raised, the sponsor would have confirmed the letter on company letterhead within days — fairness required the opportunity.
(C) MECHANISTIC OR INFLEXIBLE APPLICATION OF POLICY. Policy and guidance must not be applied as a rigid checklist: R (Hiri) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 254 (Admin) requires a comprehensive, individualised assessment, "not just ticking boxes on a form". The decision applies the Temporary Shortage List mechanically by reference to the version current at the decision date, without considering the version in force at the application date as the transitional guidance requires. A blanket approach of that kind is the box-ticking that R (Hiri) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 254 (Admin) condemns.
Procedural narrative:
The combination of template reasons, an unraised authenticity doubt and the wrong list version indicates that the application was not assessed on its individual merits as the guidance requires.
9.
EVIDENCE CROSS-REFERENCE AND ONWARD ROUTES
(A) NEW EVIDENCE RULE. The applicant understands that the reviewer will not consider evidence that was not before the original decision-maker, save where submitted to demonstrate that a case working error occurred. Any document enclosed with this review is enclosed on that basis only — to prove that it formed part of the original application bundle or to evidence the error itself. Enclosure E1: system upload receipt of 17 April 2026, 14:32, listing document 9 "IELTS TRF 26IN004412VENA001A.pdf" — enclosed solely to demonstrate that the English language evidence was before the original decision-maker. Enclosure E2: CoS extract showing employment start date 1 August 2026 — enclosed to demonstrate the factual error as to certificate validity.
(B) ORIGINAL BUNDLE CROSS-REFERENCE. Original bundle index: item 1 passport (identity); item 2 BRP/eVisa share code printout (status); item 3 CoS C2G7K91004X (sponsorship); items 4-6 payslips January-March 2026 (current employment); item 7 employer reference letter (role and salary); item 8 degree certificate with Ecctis confirmation (RQF 6); item 9 IELTS for UKVI TRF (English language); item 10 TB certificate (not required in-country, included for completeness).
(C) ONWARD ROUTES RESERVED. If this review maintains the refusal, the applicant reserves the right to (i) send a pre-action protocol letter and issue a claim for judicial review promptly and in any event within 3 months of the review outcome, and (ii) submit a fresh application addressing the refusal reasons. Nothing in this statement waives those routes. If the review maintains the refusal, a pre-action protocol letter will follow within 14 days and a judicial review claim will be issued promptly and in any event within 3 months, relying on the same errors as public law errors. In parallel the sponsor is prepared to assign a fresh CoS for a new application, but only as a fallback: the employment start date of 1 August 2026 makes time of the essence.
Evidence narrative:
The applicant asks that the review be completed before the employment start date of 1 August 2026 and notes that the current published service standard for administrative review decisions can extend to 6 months, which would defeat the purpose of the review in this case.
(B) ORIGINAL BUNDLE CROSS-REFERENCE. Original bundle index: item 1 passport (identity); item 2 BRP/eVisa share code printout (status); item 3 CoS C2G7K91004X (sponsorship); items 4-6 payslips January-March 2026 (current employment); item 7 employer reference letter (role and salary); item 8 degree certificate with Ecctis confirmation (RQF 6); item 9 IELTS for UKVI TRF (English language); item 10 TB certificate (not required in-country, included for completeness).
(C) ONWARD ROUTES RESERVED. If this review maintains the refusal, the applicant reserves the right to (i) send a pre-action protocol letter and issue a claim for judicial review promptly and in any event within 3 months of the review outcome, and (ii) submit a fresh application addressing the refusal reasons. Nothing in this statement waives those routes. If the review maintains the refusal, a pre-action protocol letter will follow within 14 days and a judicial review claim will be issued promptly and in any event within 3 months, relying on the same errors as public law errors. In parallel the sponsor is prepared to assign a fresh CoS for a new application, but only as a fallback: the employment start date of 1 August 2026 makes time of the essence.
Evidence narrative:
The applicant asks that the review be completed before the employment start date of 1 August 2026 and notes that the current published service standard for administrative review decisions can extend to 6 months, which would defeat the purpose of the review in this case.
10.
DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED
The applicant encloses:
(a) a copy of the refusal decision notice dated 1 June 2026;
(b) this statement of case identifying each case working error;
(c) a cross-referenced index of the evidence that was before the original decision-maker;
(d) any item submitted solely to demonstrate a case working error (with the matching upload or postal receipt).
(a) a copy of the refusal decision notice dated 1 June 2026;
(b) this statement of case identifying each case working error;
(c) a cross-referenced index of the evidence that was before the original decision-maker;
(d) any item submitted solely to demonstrate a case working error (with the matching upload or postal receipt).
I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signed on 8 June 2026.
APPLICANT
Priya Venkataraman
Date: ____________________
Available as a print-ready PDF or an editable Microsoft Word (.docx) file.
What Is a UKVI Administrative Review?
Administrative Review (AR) is the United Kingdom Home Office internal review of an eligible UKVI refusal decision, governed by Appendix AR of the Immigration Rules. A different UKVI caseworker re-examines the refused application — on the evidence that was before the original decision-maker — to determine whether the refusal contains a case working error: the Immigration Rules or published guidance applied incorrectly, submitted evidence treated as missing, a material factual mistake, a procedural error, or a conclusion unjustified by the evidence. The fee is £80, refunded if the review succeeds.
AR exists because the Immigration Act 2014 removed full appeal rights for most non-human-rights decisions in the UK: section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 now reserves First-tier Tribunal appeals for protection and human rights claims. Points-based refusals — Skilled Worker, Student, Graduate and most work and settlement routes — get administrative review instead. Standard Visitor refusals get neither: for visitors the practical remedies in the United Kingdom are a fresh application or judicial review, and this template then operates as a reconsideration request and pre-action letter.
Deadlines are strict and depend on where you were when the decision was given: 14 calendar days in the UK, 28 calendar days outside the UK, and 7 calendar days in immigration detention. Only one review per decision is allowed, and submitting any other British immigration application automatically withdraws a pending review. The statement of case is the heart of the application: English public law requires decision-makers to give reasons sufficient to enable an effective challenge (R v SSHD, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531), and assessments must be individualised rather than box-ticking (R (Hiri) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 254 (Admin)) — the statement holds the refusal to those standards, error by error.
What's Covered in This UK Administrative Review Template
Our UKVI Administrative Review statement of case covers the deadline switch, the eligibility check, the five-ground case working error matrix, route-specific rebuttals and the onward routes if the review fails.
Appendix AR Framework
The UK Immigration Rules Appendix AR review mechanism — eligible decisions, the single-review rule, automatic withdrawal if another application is submitted, and the £80 fee with refund on success.
Location-Based Deadline Switch
British AR deadlines run from receipt of the decision: 14 calendar days in the UK, 28 calendar days outside the UK, 7 calendar days in immigration detention — the template calculates your date automatically.
Eligibility Check by Route
Points-based refusals (Skilled Worker, Student, Graduate) carry AR; human rights claims carry a section 82 NIAA 2002 appeal to the First-tier Tribunal instead; UK visitor refusals carry neither — the letter adapts to each.
Case Working Error Matrix
Five recognised error grounds, each tied to the refusal wording: Rules or guidance misapplied, submitted evidence not considered, material factual mistake, procedural error, and a decision unjustified by the evidence.
Duty to Give Reasons
R v SSHD, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 — English law requires reasons sufficient to enable an effective challenge; template or pro-forma refusal reasoning is held to that standard.
No Box-Ticking Assessment
R (Hiri) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 254 (Admin) — UK decision-makers must make a comprehensive, individualised assessment, not apply policy mechanistically.
Skilled Worker Rebuttal
CoS validity, the £41,700 / £17.13 per hour general threshold (from 22 July 2025), occupation going rates, RQF Level 6 and the Temporary Shortage List — with the sponsor position set out.
Student & Family Rebuttals
Student CAS and the 28-day maintenance rule; Appendix FM £29,000 Minimum Income Requirement (from 11 April 2024) or £88,500 cash savings; UK settlement continuous residence limits.
New Evidence Rule
The reviewer considers only the original bundle — new documents are admissible solely to PROVE a case working error (e.g. an upload receipt showing the evidence was submitted). The template frames every enclosure correctly.
Original Bundle Cross-Reference
A document-by-document index of the evidence that was before the UKVI decision-maker, so the reviewer can locate each item without re-assembly.
Onward Routes Reserved
If the review maintains the refusal: pre-action protocol letter and judicial review in the UK courts promptly and within 3 months, or a fresh application — expressly reserved so nothing is waived.
How to Create a UK Administrative Review Statement of Case
Follow these steps to build an Administrative Review application that meets the Appendix AR deadline, identifies every case working error, and preserves your onward routes in the United Kingdom.
- 1
Check the Remedy in Your Decision Notice
The UKVI decision notice states whether administrative review is available. Points-based refusals (Skilled Worker, Student, Graduate) are eligible decisions; refusals of human rights claims attract a First-tier Tribunal appeal under section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 instead; Standard Visitor refusals carry neither remedy — for those, this letter becomes a reconsideration request and pre-action statement.
- 2
Diary the Deadline Immediately
The British deadline runs from receipt of the decision: 14 calendar days if you were in the UK, 28 calendar days if outside the UK, 7 calendar days if in immigration detention. Late applications are accepted only where applying in time was not reasonably practicable. Enter the refusal date and the template calculates your deadline.
- 3
Identify Each Case Working Error
Go through the refusal line by line against your application bundle. Tag each defect to a ground: Rules or guidance misapplied, evidence overlooked, factual mistake, procedural error (including evidential flexibility not exercised), or a conclusion unjustified by the evidence per ex parte Doody. Disagreement with a discretionary judgment is not enough — every point must name a specific error.
- 4
Rebut the Route Requirement on the Original Evidence
Show the requirement found unmet was in fact satisfied on the documents already in the bundle: the CoS salary against the UK £41,700 threshold and going rate, the CAS and 28-day maintenance funds, the £29,000 MIR evidence, or the continuous residence record. New merits evidence cannot be added at review.
- 5
Frame Enclosures Under the New-Evidence Exception
Only documents proving the error are admissible — an upload receipt showing a bank letter was submitted, a CoS extract showing the date the caseworker misread. Label each enclosure with the error it demonstrates and cross-reference the original bundle index.
- 6
State the Outcome and Reserve Onward Routes
Ask the reviewer to withdraw the refusal and grant the application, with the £80 fee refunded. Reserve judicial review (pre-action protocol letter, claim within 3 months) and a fresh application in case the review fails — the United Kingdom courts expect those routes to be flagged early.
Why Doxuno documents are different
Four things that make our templates more thorough than AI-generated drafts and more current than static template libraries.
Always current
Always current with the law
Templates carrying statute references are continuously updated as the law changes. Your document always reflects the current legal framework.
Free PDF
Print-ready PDF
Free to download. Vector text, embedded fonts, statute citations baked in. Print, sign, file. Ready for any signing flow including electronic signature.
Word · .docx
Editable Word (.docx)
Continue editing in Word after download. Add custom clauses, reuse the template for similar agreements, or share with a colleague for collaborative review.
Requires Expert one-time unlock or any paid Doxuno subscription.
Legal Considerations
UK administrative review sits at the intersection of the Immigration Rules, the post-2014 appeals framework and English public law fairness standards — with strict deadlines and a closed evidence base.
This template is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Administrative review involves strict, short deadlines and a single attempt per decision; complex refusals — alleged deception, document authenticity disputes, or refusals engaging human rights — should be handled with a UK-regulated immigration solicitor or OISC-registered adviser without delay.
Reviewed for UK immigration procedure
Appendix AR and the Post-2014 Appeals Landscape
The Immigration Act 2014 removed full rights of appeal for most non-human-rights decisions in the United Kingdom, leaving section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 appeals only for protection and human rights claims. Administrative review under Appendix AR of the Immigration Rules is the substitute remedy for points-based and most work, study and settlement refusals. The review is conducted by a different UKVI caseworker, costs £80 (refunded on success), and is limited to identifying case working errors — it is not a fresh merits decision.
The Deadline Triad: 14 / 28 / 7 Days
Appendix AR sets three deadlines, all running from receipt of the decision: 14 calendar days where the applicant is in the UK, 28 calendar days where the applicant is outside the UK, and 7 calendar days where the applicant is in immigration detention in the United Kingdom. The deadline runs from deemed receipt, not from the date you read the letter. Late applications are entertained only where it was not reasonably practicable to apply in time — a high bar that British caseworkers apply strictly.
Case Working Error — the Only Ground
The UK reviewer corrects case working errors: misapplication of the Immigration Rules or published caseworker guidance, failure to consider evidence that was before the decision-maker, material factual mistakes, procedural errors (including failure to exercise evidential flexibility where guidance required clarification to be sought), and conclusions unjustified by the evidence. Mere disagreement with how discretion was exercised is not a case working error — successful reviews tie every submission to a specific, demonstrable defect.
Reasons and Fairness — Doody and Hiri
English public law requires the Home Office to give reasons sufficient to enable the person affected to understand why they lost and to mount an effective challenge: R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531. Template reasoning that conceals the operative calculation or ignores the evidence fails that standard. R (Hiri) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 254 (Admin) adds that policy must not be applied "mechanistically and inflexibly" — assessment must be individualised, "not just ticking boxes on a form". Both standards convert vague unfairness into named, reviewable errors.
The New Evidence Rule
Administrative review in the UK is decided on the evidence that was before the original decision-maker. New evidence is admissible only to demonstrate that a case working error occurred — for example, a system upload receipt proving a document was submitted with the application, where the refusal asserts it was missing. Merits evidence that post-dates the application (a new bank statement, a new test certificate) cannot cure a refusal at review; the correct vehicle for new evidence is a fresh application.
Route Frameworks in 2026
The rebuttal must engage the current United Kingdom requirements: Skilled Worker applications from 22 July 2025 face a £41,700 general salary threshold (£17.13 per hour), occupation going rates, and an RQF Level 6 skills floor subject to the Temporary Shortage List; Students need a valid CAS and maintenance funds held for 28 consecutive days; Appendix FM partners face the £29,000 Minimum Income Requirement (applications from 11 April 2024) or £88,500 in cash savings; settlement routes turn on continuous residence and absence limits. The review asks whether those requirements were correctly applied to the original bundle.
Onward Routes: Judicial Review and Fresh Applications
If the review maintains the refusal, the remaining UK routes are judicial review and a fresh application. Judicial review requires a pre-action protocol letter and a claim filed promptly and in any event within 3 months of the decision under challenge; the same case working errors are then argued as public law errors. A fresh application restarts the fee and processing clock but admits new evidence. Where employment or course start dates make time critical, both routes should be prepared in parallel.
Frequently Asked Questions
Create Your UKVI Administrative Review Letter Now
Challenge a UK visa refusal with a structured Appendix AR statement of case — deadline switch (14/28/7 days), the five case working error grounds with Doody and Hiri authority, route-specific eligibility rebuttals and the onward judicial review route preserved. Fill in the details, preview your statement, and download as a PDF (free) or editable Microsoft Word (.docx) with Expert.
Free PDF · Editable Word with Expert · No account required