Research and analysis

Review of appeals process changes in the Immigration Act 2014

Published 31 July 2026

Executive Summary

Background

Administrative Reviews were introduced as part of the 2014 Immigration Act. They were designed to provide a cost-effective mechanism for resolving immigration case working errors, replacing the right of appeal to the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal.

Unlike the pre-2014 system, where appeals to independent tribunals were broader in scope but slow and costly, the Administrative Review system was designed to be faster and more cost-effective, with the intent for typical cases to be decided within 28 days (Statement of Intent). This was to be achieved by narrowing the scope of challenges and removing opportunities for multiple appeals, focusing instead on identifying errors in applying rules or assessing evidence.

In response to concerns of MPs and peers, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI) produced a series of reports to assess the effectiveness of the new process. This report fulfils one of the recommendations from the 2019 ICIBI ‘An inspection of Administrative Reviews (May to December 2019) GOV.UK’ report for the Home Office to conduct and publish a comprehensive evaluation of the Administrative Review.

The ICIBI initially recommended basing any evaluation against the objectives set out in the 2013 Impact Assessment of Reforming Immigration Appeal Rights. However, limitations in available data – particularly around perceptions, behavioural trends and decision quality – have made it challenging to assess these directly.

This report focuses on areas where the evidence base is stronger, addressing 2 key themes:

Has the Administrative Review process improved access to justice?

This is assessed by determining whether it led to swifter and more appropriate outcomes through a comparison of average processing times between Administrative Review cases and tribunal appeals, and by examining its impact on the wider appeals system, including the volume of appeals and immigration tribunals’ productivity post-2014.

Is the Administrative Review process delivering value for money?

This involves evaluating potential cost savings for the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunal Service (HMCTS), and the Home Office compared to initial estimates pre-2014.

Evaluating changes to the appeals process in the Immigration Act 2014 is inherently challenging due to the significant evolution of the migration landscape since 2014. New visa routes, such as the British Nationals (Overseas) scheme, and global events like EU Exit, COVID-19, and conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East have reshaped migration patterns, increasing both case complexity and volume. These developments have placed significant pressure on the immigration system, potentially distorting the policy’s intended outcomes. Additionally, the financial and resource implications of the Administrative Review process span multiple organisations, including the Home Office, HMCTS, and the Ministry of Justice, complicating efforts to attribute costs and benefits directly to the policy.

Main Findings

Access to justice

The Administrative Review system was designed to deliver faster decisions, with a target of resolving cases within 28 days. Initially, between 2014 and 2019, this target was largely met, aided by lower case intake and a focus on resolving factual and procedural errors. However, from 2019 onwards, systemic pressures and global crises significantly increased case complexity and volume. For example, the addition of reviewing EU Settlement Scheme cases required caseworkers to gather and assess new evidence rather than simply reviewing existing case materials, effectively making Administrative Reviews more akin to tribunal processes. At the same time, macro-level pressures such as the crises in Afghanistan and Ukraine, combined with the post-pandemic surge in rest-of-world demand, significantly increased the monthly intake of cases to a record high of 4,842 in March 2021 (compared to monthly average of 741 cases in 2019).

Processing times have suffered as a result, rising to an average of 362 days per case in 2024, deviating significantly from the original 28-day target, and resulting in current guidance stating wait times of up to 12 months. Despite efforts to scale the Administrative Review Unit in proportion to growing demand by nearly doubling the case working headcount from October 2021 to October 2024, the volume stock of cases awaiting a decision remains high. These findings underscore the impact of systemic pressures on the Administrative Review system’s ability to deliver timely outcomes, especially as case complexity and resource constraints continue to grow.

Considering the broader impact of Administrative Reviews on the appeals system, the introduction of Administrative Review coincided with a reduction in the number of appeals handled by the Immigration and Asylum Tribunals since 2015, as initially expected. Evidence also suggests that Administrative Review has helped streamline tribunals’ caseload by resolving simpler disputes outside the tribunal system; tribunal productivity – measured by disposals per sitting day – has decreased over the same period, likely reflecting the increasing complexity of cases being heard, although other macro factors might also be influencing this trend.

Value for money

Assessing the net-cost of the Administrative Review policy reveals a complex picture. The 2013 Impact Assessment anticipated that Administrative Reviews would be cost-neutral for the Home Office, funded by an £80 application fee per case. Administrative Review was also expected to deliver savings for HMCTS by reducing tribunal submissions, preparation costs, sitting days, and legal aid expenditure. While the fee structure was sufficient for simpler cases between 2014 and 2019, it proved unsustainable for more complex disputes, such as EU Settlement Scheme cases requiring assessment of new evidence. Large-scale fee-waived applications, such as those under the Ankara Agreement, further strained resources. Between 2014 and 2024, we estimate a £35 million funding gap for the Home Office.

However, Administrative Reviews appear to have delivered savings for the Ministry of Justice and HMCTS, with cumulative savings estimated at £217 million between 2014 and 2024, assuming a like-for-like substitution of appeals to Administrative Review cases. Despite financial pressures on the Home Office, the evidence available suggests that the Administrative Review policy has achieved overall net savings for taxpayers worth £182 million over the 10-year period. It is important to note that the ongoing annual efficiency saving is already fully reflected in the existing budgets of the Ministry of Justice and its agencies.

Conclusion

The full financial and operational impact of the Administrative Review process remains ambiguous. Evidence suggests that while the process has streamlined the resolution of simpler immigration disputes, reduced tribunal caseloads, and delivered meaningful savings for HMCTS and the Ministry of Justice, it faces significant challenges. Systemic pressures, such as increased case complexity, global crises, and resource constraints, have limited its ability to meet its original targets for speed and cost-effectiveness. These pressures have led to backlogs and delays, a funding gap for the Home Office, and a shift in tribunals toward handling more complex appeals. Despite these challenges, the Administrative Review process has achieved its broader objective of reducing costs to taxpayers while alleviating pressure on the appeals system, therefore presenting as an adequate remedy compared to pre-2014 processes.

Nevertheless, its sustainability under current conditions remains a concern. Further data collection and monitoring would be necessary to quantify changes in service performance and potential savings with greater accuracy and evaluate the system’s long-term value for money.

Introduction

Policy context

The Administrative Review policy, introduced under the Immigration Act 2014, replaced the traditional right to appeal for many immigration decisions with an internal review process. This reform aimed to streamline the system by addressing case working errors without resorting to formal tribunal appeals, which were reserved for asylum, human rights, and deportation cases. Administrative Review focused on correcting straightforward mistakes, such as misapplications of immigration rules or errors in evidence assessment.

The Administrative Review process enables individuals to challenge immigration decisions made by the Home Office if they believe an error has occurred. Upon receiving a refusal decision, applicants can request a review – typically within 14 days if they are in the UK or 28 days if they are outside the country. Applicants are required to explain the suspected mistake, but any new evidence submitted is only considered by the reviewer in strictly limited circumstances set out in the Immigration Rules. The Administrative Review Unit then assesses the case for factual errors, such as incorrect application of immigration rules or misinterpretation of evidence. An £80 fee applies to the review, which is refunded if the applicant’s claim is found to be valid.

Applicants are then informed of the outcome – whether the decision is upheld, corrected, or overturned – and if an error is identified, the original decision is revised, either granting the original application or amending the refusal. Figure 1 below illustrates the lifecycle of a typical Administrative Review case.

The Administrative Review process begins when an applicant submits an online request, including payment. Once received, the application is registered in the system. The next step is validation, where the review is checked for completeness and the payment is confirmed. After validation, a caseworker considers the application, focusing on the specific grounds raised by the applicant. If the review is rejected at this stage, for example if it does not meet eligibility criteria, the fee is refunded. If the review proceeds, there are three possible outcomes:

• if the original decision is upheld, this is recorded and the outcome is communicated to the applicant
• if the review finds a problem with the original decision but further assessment is needed, the case is sent back to the original decision-maker for reconsideration; the applicant’s case is reopened and reviewed again, but a final outcome is not given until this further step is complete
• if the review finds that the applicant’s arguments are correct and no further checks are needed, the original decision is overturned and the applicant is granted the outcome they sought

Figure 1: Lifecycle of a typical Administrative l case

Source: Administrative review: caseworker guidance

A further type of Administrative Review is permissible at the border, applicable only in cases where a Border Force officer has cancelled a person’s leave to enter or remain on specific grounds, namely: a change of circumstances, false representations, or failure to disclose material facts during the visa application process. The application for Administrative Review at the border must be made within 14 days if the individual is in the UK, 7 days if the applicant is in immigration detention, and 28 days if the application is made from overseas. The same fee of £80 applies.

Administrative Review policy was designed to provide faster resolutions, improve accessibility, and reduce costs for both applicants and the government. By transferring straightforward error corrections to an internal mechanism, Administrative Review aimed to free up the tribunal system for more complex cases, creating a more efficient and targeted approach to immigration decision-making. Over time, Administrative Review policy has expanded to include a broader range of immigration decisions, such as those related to visa routes introduced post-2020 as part of the UK’s new Future Borders and Immigration System.

This report examines the implementation and impact of the Administrative Review policy, evaluating its effectiveness in achieving its stated objectives.

Review of existing reports on the introduction of Administrative Reviews

The Administrative Review process, introduced under the Immigration Act 2014, was appraised in an Impact Assessment of Reforming Immigration Appeal Rights: published in 2013 and several reports by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI). The 2013 Impact Assessment projected that Administrative Review would reduce appeals by 39,500 annually, delivering a net benefit of £219 million over 10 years. Although additional costs of £5 million annually were anticipated – primarily due to reduced appeal fee revenue and setup expenses – these would be offset by savings of £31 million per year, largely from reduced appeal costs for the Home Office and HMCTS. The Home Office also anticipated revenue from Administrative Review application fees.

Following concerns from MPs and peers after the roll-out of the Administrative Review policy, the ICIBI conducted an inquiry to evaluate its effectiveness. The ICIBI’s 2016 inspection highlighted deficiencies in the implementation of the Administrative Review system, including unclear procedures, untrained staff, weak quality assurance, and poor utilisation of data and feedback. It made 14 recommendations to address these issues. The ICIBI’s 2017 re-inspection noted progress, with most recommendations implemented, but flagged ongoing gaps in staff training and transparency in communicating outcomes to applicants. A further 2019 ICIBI inspection report identified persistent shortcomings in data recording and monitoring, limiting the Home Office’s ability to evaluate the effectiveness of Administrative Review policy. It recommended a comprehensive policy evaluation to address these systemic issues.

In response to the ICIBI’s recommendation, this report represents the Home Office’s effort to evaluate the Administrative Review process and assess its impact.

Data and methodology

This review uses primarily quantitative insights to assess whether the Administrative Review process has 1) improved access to justice and 2) delivered value for money.

Analysis in this report spans the decade from 2014 to 2024 and presents time series data comparing pre- and post-implementation of Administrative Review policy. Key metrics include average processing times for Administrative Review cases and tribunal appeals, volumes of Administrative Review intake and output, and estimated costs and savings. These data points are contextualised with reference to policy changes and global events that have influenced the UK’s immigration and appeals systems.

The primary data sources include internal management information from the Home Office, published tribunal statistics from the Ministry of Justice, and published cost estimates from the 2013 Impact Assessment. A summary of data sources used to inform this report is listed in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Data sources

Home Office
Indicator	Source	Date range
Administrative Review intake and output (for cases submitted in-country, internationally, and under EU Settlement Scheme)	Internal – Administrative Review Capacity Planning	2018 to 2024
Administrative Review row-level data	Internal – Systems Data	2014 to 2024
Administrative Review processing days (calculated from received and completed dates)	Internal – Administrative Review Control Sheets	2014 to 2024
Administrative Review income, pay costs, non-pay costs, and staff headcount	Internal – Payroll Records	2017 to 2024
Border Force Administrative Review staff headcount, case volumes, and average processing days	Administrative Review Hub	2021 to 2024
Estimates of appeals costs and savings	2013 Impact Assessment of Reforming Immigration Appeal Rights - Impact Assessment	2014 to 2024
Ministry of Justice
Appeals receipts by case type	First-tier Immigration and Asylum Chamber Disposals - Tribunals statistics - GOV.UK	2012 to 2024
His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service
Total number of disposals and sitting days	Number of tribunal disposals and judicial sittings by jurisdiction - Tribunals statistics - GOV.UK	2007 to 2024
Estimate sitting day costs	Internal – HMCTS Finance	2023 to 2024

Limitations

This report acknowledges several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings.

The immigration system has undergone substantial change over the past decade, making it difficult to isolate the specific impact of the Administrative Review process from broader factors. Consequently, the report refrains from drawing definitive conclusions about causal links between the introduction of Administrative Review and specific outcomes. Instead, it adopts a descriptive approach, outlining trends and events before and after the policy’s implementation without asserting direct causality.

To assess the value for money of the Administrative Review process, several assumptions were made regarding the hypothetical scenario in which Administrative Review had not been introduced. This includes estimating the number of appeals that would have occurred and the associated costs to the government.

On estimating the volume of appeals, it was assumed that every Administrative Review case raised would have been pursued as an appeal to the Tribunal in the absence of Administrative Reviews. However, this assumption does not account for potential behavioural changes. For instance, if applicants found the Administrative Review process easier to navigate than the traditional appeals system, more appeals would have been saved. Conversely, if the Administrative Review process proved less attractive, the savings could be overestimated.

To simplify the scope of the assessment, the analysis focuses on savings associated with First-tier Tribunal appeals. The costs of appeals to higher courts are not considered, although it is a reasonable assumption that cases eligible for Administrative Review were unlikely to be complex enough to warrant multiple levels of appeal.

The internal management data used in this analysis are subject to several limitations, including potential human error in manual logging, missing data due to system transitions, and challenges with data validation.

A final limitation is that the conclusions of this report are based primarily on quantitative insights derived from internal management data and estimated cost models. As such, the analysis does not consider qualitative evidence that would help evaluate the effectiveness and perceived fairness of Administrative Review from the perspective of service users. While trends in processing times and estimated cost savings present one dimension of performance, they do not capture potential qualitative benefits, such as improved accessibility or greater clarity in challenging decisions, which may be significant for visa customers.

Part 1: Access to justice

Potential improvements in access to justice resulting from the Administrative Review process is assessed by determining whether it enabled faster decision-making through a comparison of average processing times between Administrative Review and tribunal appeals, and by examining its impact on the wider appeals system, including the volume of appeals and immigration tribunals’ productivity post-2014.

Impact on processing time

Figure 2 below compares the average processing times for Administrative Review cases in the international, EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS), and in-country categories, alongside the mean clearance times for First-tier Tribunal appeals to the Immigration and Asylum Chamber, between 2014 and 2024.

Analysis in this section divides the period into 2 primary phases: the pre-COVID-19 pandemic period (2014 to 2019), during which processing times largely aligned with policy expectations, and the post-pandemic period (2020 to 2024), when the system faced increased challenges.

Figure 2: Average processing times for Administrative Review cases and First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) appeals, by application category, 2014 to 2024.¹

Source: Internal Home Office Administrative Review management data and Tribunals statistics, 2014 to 2024

Notes:

1. Analysis of Administrative Review cases consider valid, completed cases in year of reporting, and excludes those still in progress.

2014 to 2019: Pre-pandemic period

The Administrative Review system was introduced in 2014 with the aim of providing quicker decisions, targeting a resolution time of 28 days – a significant reduction from the average 16 weeks it took for a managed migration appeal to be heard between April to June 2013 (Tribunal Statistics (quarterly) – April to June 2013 - GOV.UK). During the period from 2014 to 2019, this target was generally met, supported by relatively fewer case intake and a focus on addressing factual and procedural errors.

As illustrated in Figure 2, mean processing times for Administrative Review across all case categories gradually increased from 2014 to 2019, while largely remaining within the 28-day target.

The intake of Administrative Review cases across the same period is illustrated in Figure 3, which shows a stable trend in intake prior to the pandemic, with a gradual decline in cases filed from late 2017 onwards. This decline continued until the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, which led to a sudden decrease in the number of Administrative Reviews, with intake falling to 142 in June 2020, largely due to travel restrictions and a reduced volume of initial decisions within the immigration system. This was followed by a post-pandemic surge of international Administrative Review applications, peaking at 4,842 cases in March 2021.

Figure 3: Volume of Administrative Review intakes between 2014 to 2024 by case category

Source: Internal Home Office Administrative Review management data 2014 to 2024

Throughout the pre-pandemic period, completed Administrative Review cases (Figure 4) generally tracked the same trajectory as intakes, until around the time of the spike in international cases in March 2021. Sinc then, Administrative Review outputs have gradually increased across all application categories, reaching a peak of 3,454 cases completed in June 2024.

Figure 4: Volume of Administrative Review cases completed between 2014 and 2024 by case category

Source: Internal Home Office Administrative Review management data 2014 to 2024

2020 to 2025: Post-pandemic period

Since 2020, average processing times for Administrative Review cases (Figure 2) saw a notable increase, with time taken to complete applications in all categories on an upward trajectory. This increase can be attributed to a combination of higher intakes and increased case complexity.

The introduction of Administrative Reviews for new schemes like the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) made the review process more complex. Caseworkers had to assess new evidence specific to these schemes, such as proof of residency for EUSS applicants, rather than just reviewing the original case materials. This shift meant that the Administrative Review process became more detailed and time-consuming, as it involved evaluating applicants against updated policy criteria. The launch of EUSS also brought a new addition to tribunal workloads and further knock-on impacts throughout the wider judicial system.

As a result, the conclusion of EU Exit and the introduction of the EUSS led to a substantial increase in workload. EUSS cases experienced a significant rise in completion time since 2020, rising to an average of 523 days per case in 2024. A combination of macro-level global events – including conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East – also contributed to a significant rise in the volume of Administrative Review cases. This was further exacerbated by pent-up demand following travel restrictions after the COVID-19 pandemic, causing intake of international Administrative Review cases (Figure 3) to sharply spike in March 2021.

Increasing volumes of applications on work and study routes further contributed to the intake and complexity of the Administrative Review process. The Administrative Review Unit, initially focused on in-country cases, gradually expanded its remit from 2019 to include international cases, which were previously handled by overseas visa decision-making centres. This expansion was followed by various new schemes gaining eligibility for Administrative Review, such as the EUSS, Hong Kong British National (Overseas) route , and Short-term students. These changes make it challenging to directly compare the earlier period (2014 to 2019) with later years (2019 to 2024), as the system’s scope and demands have evolved. A full list of routes with eligibility for Administrative Review is listed in Table 2 below.

Table 2: List of routes with eligibility for Administrative Review

• EU Settlement Scheme (from 2018 to 2023)
• Skilled Worker (previously Tier 2 General) and Health and Care
• Intra-company Transfer (previously Tier 2 Intra-company Transfer Long-term Staff)
• Intra-company Transfer Graduate (previously Tier 2 Intra-Company Transfer Graduate Trainee)
• Innovator Founder (previously Innovator)
• Start-up (previously Tier 1 Graduate Entrepreneur)
• Global Talent (previously Tier 1 Exceptional Talent)
• Service Providers from Switzerland
• S2 Healthcare Visitor
• Frontier Worker
• Short-term Student
• Parent of a Child Student (previously Parent of a Tier 4 Child Student)
• Hong Kong British National (Overseas) route
• Graduate
• International Sportsperson (previously Tier 2 Sportsperson and Tier 5 Temporary Worker – Creative and Sporting visa T5)
• Temporary Work (previously Tier 5 Temporary Work)
• Minister of Religion (previously Tier 2 Minister of Religion)
• Global Business Mobility (previously Intra-Company Transfer and Representative of an Overseas Business)
• High Potential Individual
• Scale Up
• Youth Mobility Schemes
• ECAA: Extension of Stay
• Student
• UK Ancestry
• Overseas Domestic Worker
• Bereaved Partner
• Victim of Domestic Abuse
• Returning Resident
• Statelessness
• Armed Forces

Despite a significant increase in caseloads, staffing levels and resources did not scale proportionally, resulting in growing pressures on the system. From October 2021 efforts were made to address this gap, with the number of decision-makers in the Administrative Review Unit increasing from 36 full-time staff to 67 by October 2024, nearly doubling over a 3-year period. Figure 5 shows that following the recruitment drive, the ratio of cases per decision-maker dropped from around 140 in April 2021 to about 40 by June, then stabilised between 20 and 60, indicating a more balanced workload over time.

Figure 5: Ratio of Administrative Review cases per decision-maker (EO grade) in the Administrative Review Unit

Source: Internal Home Office payroll data and Administrative Review management data, 2021 to 2024

While case intake began to stabilise in 2023 (Figure 3), it remained nearly double pre-pandemic levels, placing continued pressure on resources. This sustained demand outpaced staffing increases during the reporting period, affecting the efficiency and timeliness of case handling. Notably, the removal of Administrative Review eligibility for EUSS decisions in October 2023 is expected to contribute to a gradual reduction in caseloads and alleviate operational pressures over time.

Border Force Administrative Reviews

Following inspectorate recommendations in 2019, a dedicated Border Force Administrative Review Hub was established in January 2021 to centralise the handling of border-related Administrative Review cases. Previously, these were managed individually at ports, leading to inconsistent outcomes and limited oversight. The Hub reviews refusal decisions made by Border Force officers at UK and juxtaposed ports, ensuring procedural accuracy and compliance with Immigration Rules.

Due to its narrow remit, the volume of Border Force Administrative Review cases is relatively low compared to other streams. However, a 2022 inspection by the Operational Assurance Directorate highlighted improvements in consistency and quality. The team, based at Glasgow Airport, currently comprises one Senior Officer and 3 Higher Officers.

Figure 6 shows how many Administrative Review cases were received by Border Force each year from 2021 to 2024, the average number of days taken to process cases in each year, and what happened to those cases. The number of cases rose steadily from 89 in 2021 to a peak of 457 in 2023, before declining to 184 in 2024. Average processing times also increased over the period, from 8 days in 2021 to 15 days in 2023, with a slight improvement to 14 days in 2024. Of the 1,010 cases received since 2021, 702 decisions were maintained and 141 overturned (14%).

This pattern, where increased volumes are accompanied by longer processing times, mirrors trends observed in other types of Administrative Review. However, the overall scale of the issue remains limited in the Border Force context, and average processing times have consistently remained well within the intended 28-day target.

Figure 6: Border Force Administrative Review Cases 2021 to 2024: Intake, Average Processing Days, and Case Outcomes

Source: Internal Home Office Administrative Review management data, 2021 to 2024

It is not possible to report individually on income generated from Border Force Administrative Review, as all income is paid into a central account shared with other UKVI Administrative Review workstreams and remitted to HM Treasury daily. However, the same protocol applies: the fee for a valid application is £80, and this fee is refunded if the Administrative Review decision is overturned in the passenger’s favour or if the application is rejected.

Impact on the appeal system

The introduction of the Administrative Review process was intended to provide a remedy for applicants who lost their right of appeal under the Immigration Act 2014. This legislation significantly reduced the number of immigration decisions that carried a right of appeal, and

Administrative Review was introduced as a more accessible and cost-effective alternative to Judicial Review for affected cohorts.

Volume of Appeals and Administrative Review cases

Prior to these reforms, between 2010/11 and 2013/14, an average of nearly 120,000 appeals were lodged annually with the First-tier Tribunal (Tribunals statistics - GOV.UK). The 2013 Impact Assessment, using a 2012/13 baseline, projected that the new system would reduce appeals by approximately 39,500 per year, reflecting the anticipated impact of the legislative changes.

As illustrated in Figure 7, the introduction of Administrative Review corresponded with a notable decline in the number of appeals received by the Immigration and Asylum Tribunals. By 2017/18, appeal volumes had fallen by around 50% compared to 2014/15 and remained approximately 40% lower than in 2015/16.

Figure 7: Volume of appeals receipts lodged between 2012/13 and 2024/25 (blue), against number of Administrative Review cases received (purple)¹

Source: Internal Home Office Administrative Review management data and Tribunals statistics, 2012 to 2024

Notes:

1. Data for 2024/25 is only available for part of the year (April to October 2024).

However, this reduction has not appeared uniformly across all appeal categories. Since the 2014 Act did not remove appeal rights for asylum and protection claims, volumes in these areas remained relatively stable, until a sharp increase from 2022/23 onwards. Appeals based on human rights grounds also saw a modest rise following the 2014 reforms, although their share has gradually declined as the Home Office addressed a backlog of cases.

The volume of appeal receipts now appears to be rising again. This increase is believed to be partly due to the removal of Administrative Review eligibility for EUSS cases, which has led to an increase in cases proceeding directly to appeal. It is plausible that external factors, such as the crises in Ukraine and the Middle East, have also contributed to the recent increase in asylum and human rights-related appeals. Additionally, a behavioural shift among applicants may have played a role: the restriction of appeal rights in some areas may have encouraged individuals to frame their claims under human rights grounds, rather than through managed migration routes previously available.

While these trends suggest a clear shift in the appeal landscape, it remains difficult to attribute changes solely to the changes brought in by the Immigration Act 2014 and the associated introduction of Administrative Review. Broader geopolitical and policy factors have likely influenced the overall trajectory of appeal volumes.

Productivity of tribunals

This section examines trends in tribunal productivity using appeals data from HMCTS, focusing on disposals (cases resolved) and sitting days (days judges are in court). In the absence of more direct metrics, disposals per sitting day are used as a proxy for productivity – where fewer disposals per day suggest lower productivity.

As shown in Figure 8, productivity in the First-tier Immigration and Asylum Chamber has declined over the past decade. Disposals fell from 100,122 in 2013/14 to 39,387 in 2023/24, while sitting days remained broadly stable over the period. The number of disposals per sitting day dropped from 4.9 in 2012/13 to 2.6 in 2023/24, with a sharp dip to 1.9 during the pandemic year (2020/21).

This decline in productivity may reflect a shift in the nature of cases reaching the tribunal. One explanation could be that Administrative Reviews have filtered out simpler cases, leaving a higher proportion of complex or sensitive appeals for judicial resolution. However, this interpretation remains tentative. Other factors, such as changes in judicial staffing, case management practices, or the mix of hearing versus non-hearing disposals, could also be contributing to the trend.

Moreover, it is difficult to isolate the impact of the 2014 Immigration Act or the introduction of Administrative Review from broader systemic and geopolitical influences. For example, increases in asylum and human rights appeals, global migration pressures, and operational backlogs may all be affecting tribunal workloads and efficiency. While the data suggest a decline in tribunal productivity, possibly linked to increasing case complexity, the precise drivers of this trend remain unclear and are likely to be multifaceted.

Figure 8: Trends in First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) appeals productivity as measured by average disposals per sitting day¹

Source: Tribunals statistics 2007 to 2024

Notes:

1. Sitting days account for days on appeals/bail (excluding days on Fixed-Term Parliament Act).

Part 2: Value for money

Home Office expenditure and income

The 2013 Impact Assessment anticipated that introducing the Administrative Review process would involve one-off set-up and training costs for the Home Office. Despite these initial investments, the policy was expected to be cost-neutral in the long term. The Administrative Review fee was set at £80, intended to reflect the cost of a paper hearing at the First-tier Tribunal and to fully recover the cost of processing each application.

However, Home Office data suggests that full cost recovery has not been achieved. By 2024/25, the estimated unit cost of processing an Administrative Review case had risen to £246 per application. Several factors may explain this gap, the report has discussed the range of cases, and the increased complexity of some. At the same time, payroll costs have increased. This is partly due to rising case volumes, which required additional staff, and partly due to internal restructuring to ensure that case reviewers are at least the same grade as the original decision-makers. Despite these rising costs, the £80 fee has remained unchanged since 2014.

As previously noted, full cost recovery has not been possible due to refunds and fee-waived applications. Refunds are issued in cases where the original decision is withdrawn or reconsidered, or where the Administrative Review itself is withdrawn or rejected. In addition, the number of fee-waived applications has increased over time. For example, Turkish nationals applying under the Ankara Agreement (prior to EU Exit) contributed to a spike in applications, but these were exempt from fees, reducing revenue and placing pressure on the system’s financial sustainability. The revenue from in-country and EUSS cases over the decade suggests that in practice, the actual average fee received per Administrative Review was £20.10, equating to roughly only 1 in 4 applications being paid in full.

Savings from the appeals system

This analysis attempts to replicate the original methodology used in the Impact Assessment on the assumption that an Administrative Review case raised directly substitutes an appeal, to estimate savings achieved from reduction of appeals.

While Administrative Reviews may not fully recover their costs within the Home Office, they remain a significantly cheaper alternative to appeals, which place additional financial pressure on the Ministry of Justice. With an average net cost of £225.90 per application.

Administrative Reviews are far less expensive than appeals. Internal management information from HMCTS suggests that the average net cost for an appeal is £1,396.33. (Estimated by dividing the 2024/25 unit cost of a First-tier Tribunal sitting day (£4,249) by an average of 3 cases per day. Based on 2023/24 activity levels, adjusted for inflation and judicial pay awards, and includes staff, judicial, and operational costs. Assumes simple cases; excludes costs of onward or related appeals beyond the First-tier Tribunal).

Asylum appeals also create additional costs for the Home Office, including those related to support and accommodation. Although asylum claims are not eligible for Administrative Review, it’s reasonable to assume that, without the 2014 Act, appeal volumes could have been higher – potentially increasing these costs.

A comparison of revenue and cost for Administrative Reviews and appeals is set out in Table 3 below, illustrating the average net cost of each approach.

Table 3: Comparison of Administrative Review revenue and cost against appeals

		Administrative Review	Appeal
Revenue	Fee charged	£80.001	£80.002
	Fee received in practice (due to refunds and fee-waived applications)	£20.103
Cost	Unit cost	£246.00	£1,476.33
Net	Average net cost	£225.90	£1,396.33

Notes:

1. Ask for a visa administrative review

2. Get help to pay or reduce your visa or immigration appeal fee - About the fees

3. Estimate of net fee income, accounting for refunds and fee-waived applications, is not available for appeals.

Table 3 indicates that the net cost of an Appeal exceeds that of an admin review by around £1,170. A broad indication of ‘savings’ as a result of introducing the admin review can be made, assuming a like-for-like substitution of appeals to Administrative Review cases. Multiplying the cost difference by the volumes of appeals between 2014 and 2024, a total of £182 million was estimated to be ‘saved’ across the 10-year period.

Beyond direct cost savings, there are likely to have been additional non-monetised benefits. For example, reduction in Upper Tribunal appeal costs for both the Home Office and HMCTS, as well as lower detention costs for non-suspensive cases (for example, foreign national offenders). In such cases, the appellant is returned to their country of origin rather than being detained in the UK during the appeal. However, this benefit has not been monetised due to uncertain case volumes.

Conclusion

The vision for the Administrative Review system, as set out in the 2014 Immigration Act, could not predict the significant policy changes, the need for repeated staff retraining, or the growing number of immigration applications brought under its remit over the subsequent decade. These developments inevitably placed pressure on caseworkers, contributing to delays and operational strain.

Despite these challenges, Administrative Review showed promising signs of functioning as an effective remedy in its first 5 years of operation, particularly in providing a quicker and more cost-efficient alternative to appeals. Evidence suggests that reforms helped streamline simpler disputes and reduce overall costs. While the system continues to face increasing volumes and complexity, there remains potential for further improvement through operational change. With sustained attention, Administrative Review could yet fulfil more of the ambitions originally envisioned.

This report has been finalised around the time of a subsequent ICIBI inspection in 2025, and the response to the recommendations from that inspection will drive future change and improvement for administrative review. The priority aim (which pre-dated the 2025 inspection) is to reduce turnaround times for applicants, which as outlined in the formal response to the ICIBI inspection report, the department will subsequently publish more detail on.

Changes to the front-end of the AR system to manage caseload better, access to systems to implement final stages of international decisions and established formal management information are all changes which, together with increased resource, will drive down turnaround times and return administrative review to providing an effective challenge remedy for applicants as was provided prior to 2019.

The content of this report has highlighted the impact from submitting fresh evidence for consideration at administrative review stage as a significant factor in the overall decline in service times. The change for EU Settlement Scheme AR applicants demonstrated the operational effect of expanding the original intended remit of AR. Such wider caseworker consideration significantly increased the time taken for EUSS AR applications to be concluded, and in turn that resource implication resulted in a deterioration in waiting times for non-EUSS AR applications.

There is no intention to change from the stance of the original policy intention of administrative review on new evidence and credibility assessments. Regarding fresh evidence, the administrative review Statement of Intent stated:

“New evidence cannot be submitted. This mirrors the current appeal process for in country Points Based System appeals. The only exception to this will be where the new evidence is relied upon to demonstrate that a previously submitted document is genuine or meets the requirements of the Immigration Rules.”

Regarding credibility assessments, the Statement of Intent stated:

“The test on review would be only whether the original decision was unreasonable/perverse not a new credibility decision.”

The Home Office provides support to help applicants provide all the necessary evidence at the initial application stage. The online application forms use logic to generate a document checklist based on the answers that the applicant gives in the form. This list of documents will be shown to them at the end of the application. There is also a downloadable version that applicants can download and print off. The online application form checklist has improved the experience for applicants as the checklists are tailored to their answers, so it is easier for them to understand what documents they need to submit to cover their circumstances.

In cases where the decision is based on a finding that deception has been practised, or where evidential flexibility has not been applied in accordance with the policy, the reviewer can accept fresh evidence to cover those points, as outlined in the Statement of Intent.

Continued focus on efficiency and adherence to the original policy principles will be essential to restore Administrative Review as a timely and robust remedy for applicants.