Permission granted for judicial review of the Home Office’s eVisa policy

The High Court has granted permission to our clients, BSC and JS, in a judicial review challenge to the Home Office’s eVisa policy. The claim argues that the Home Secretary is operating an unlawful policy by issuing proof of immigration status only through eVisas and by refusing to provide alternative proof of status outside this system, even where an eVisa has an error or is not working.

Background: eVisas

On 1 January 2025, the government replaced biometric residence permits with eVisas – a digital-only proof of immigration status that replaced physical documents such as biometric residence permits for millions of people. The Home Office described the move as part of its “digital transformation” of the immigration system.

In practice, however, the rollout has been fraught with issues, some of which have been reported by Free Movement and others. In summary, individuals report a myriad of issues from incorrect information regarding their personal and/or immigration status and linked conditions being displayed, to being locked out of their accounts altogether.

These issues may seem basic, but they often cause serious consequences in the current hostile/compliant environment where you are required to prove your lawful status and entitlement to certain services.  Individuals have reported struggling or being prevented from returning to the UK from abroad, lost job offers, being refused housing, support and being denied access to public funds – all because they could not prove their lawful status due to an eVisa issue.

The Home Office says that there are “workarounds” for verifying an individual’s status including the fact that some government department and public authorities such as the Department of Work and Pensions and the NHS are able to check an individual’s immigration status directly with the Home Office without the need for an eVisa. These work arounds rely on third parties to conduct their own checks and do not assist where Home Office records have incorrect information, as was the case for JS as outlined below.

The Home Office has also created several ways for people to report issues with their eVisas including; reporting the issue online, using a webchat function and by calling the Resolution Centre. That said, it is widely reported that these methods are inconsistent and often fail to resolve issues with the urgency required.

The claimants’ experiences

In terms of the factual background of each case:

BSC, a recognised refugee and survivor of trafficking, discovered that her eVisa displayed her trafficking name and date of birth. This was not only retraumatising for her but also put her at risk of losing access to public funds.

JS, a vulnerable adult, whose eVisa wrongly recorded that she had “no recourse to public funds”. As a result of this error, she was denied access to public funds and housing support, forcing her to rely on limited asylum support payments for months longer than necessary. Notably, the local authority used the Status Verification, Enquiries and Checking (SVEC) Service to check JS’ entitlement to housing support and this too incorrectly informed them that she had no access to public funds. 

In both cases, the Home Office only corrected the errors months after the errors were reported and after judicial review proceedings were issued.

The experiences of BSC and JS are not isolated. Evidence gathered by the3million and the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA) from their reporting tool highlights widespread problems with the eVisa system including incorrect personal details, unresponsive helplines, and instances where people cannot access their eVisa at all.

The legal challenge

The claimants argue that the defendant’s policy to provide valid proof of an individual’s lawful immigration status only in the form of an eVisa, accessible only through the creation and use of a UKVI account, is an unlawful fettering of her discretion; and that the defendant’s policy not to provide any alternative proof of lawful immigration status other than an eVisa, including in circumstances where an individual’s eVisa is not functioning accurately or at all, is irrational.

The provision of alternative proof of lawful immigration status (especially when there are documented issues with the eVisa system) is crucial and necessary.

In R (RAMFEL & Adjei) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 1374 (Admin) (Free Movement’s write up is here) – a case which challenges the Home Secretary’s failure to issue documentary evidence for individuals with 3C leave – Cavanagh J held that it was irrational for the defendant not to provide to a person with a lawful immigration status some form of effective and accurate proof of that status. This is both so that the rights which accompany that status are effective and so that the barriers erected by the compliant environment provisions of law and policy do not wrongly prevent the person exercising those rights. In particular, Cavanagh J noted that:

The compliant environment policy is predicated upon the ability to distinguish between those who are lawfully present and documented, and those who are unlawfully present and so who cannot provide documentary proof of their right to be here and to work, rent accommodation etc. The underlying purpose of the legislative framework is that there should be a hostile and unwelcoming environment for those who are unlawfully present and so who are undocumented. The corollary of this is that those who are lawfully here should not face the hostile environment. That can only happen if they are documented (see paragraph 204)

…If an applicant cannot provide such proof, the employer or landlord will have to make their own enquiries, which may take some days. They may decide that this is too much trouble and so may simply refuse to employ or to provide accommodation to the applicant. The Claimants say that this causes real hardship in some cases…In addition, the Claimants say that the absence of such a document can, and does, place an impediment in the way of individuals who seek access to state benefits, free medical treatment, and other benefits, such as student loans, to which they are entitled (see paragraph 5).

… There is also a real danger that employers and landlords will be put off by having to take steps themselves to ascertain the status of the applicants, especially against the background of potential civil and criminal penalties. Again, the SSHD has put in place mitigating measures, such as guidance documentation, but the risk remains. (see paragraph 199)

... I do not consider the other methods that the SSHD has put in place for enabling checks to be made of an applicant’s section 3C status to be sufficient, in circumstances in which, as I will explain, there is a simple and straightforward way of giving them the documentary proof that will enable them to provide instant evidence of their status (see paragraph 204).

Our client’s challenge accepts that the defendant has a discretion under the Immigration (Biometric Registration) Regulations 2008 as to the form in which proof of immigration status is provided. It is our clients’ contention that the defendant must at a minimum operate exceptions and provide alternative proof of status where a person is unable to access their eVisa account.

What the High Court decided

On 9 October 2025, the High Court in Cardiff granted permission for the claim to proceed, despite being factually academic. The judge found that the grounds are arguable and that there is a public interest in testing the legality of the eVisa policy.

This is a significant step forward for those affected by digital status problems. If the challenge succeeds, it could require the Home Office to introduce a process to issue  alternative proof of status in tandem to operating the eVisa system.

For now, permission means the case will proceed to a full hearing, offering the court an opportunity to consider whether the government’s digital-only approach to immigration status is lawful.

The claimants are represented by Ahmed Aydeed, Unkha Banda, Eleanor Hanmer, Natalie Hawes of Deighton Pierce Glynn instructing Tom Hickman KC (Blackstone Chambers), Christopher Knight (11KBW) and Donnchadh Greene (Doughty Street Chambers).