Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law

Appeals provisions of the Immigration Act 2014


Older content is locked

A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more


By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;

  • Single login for personal use
  • FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
  • Access to all Free Movement blog content
  • Access to all our online training materials
  • Access to our busy forums
  • Downloadable CPD certificates

The most devastating aspect of the Immigration Act 2014 (“2014 Act”) is the brutal scything of appeal rights. The Government has triumphantly declared that it has reduced the number of appeal rights from 17 (the number of immigration decisions in s.82 NIAA 2002 as it stands, plus s.83 & 83A appeal rights) to just three.

The headline of the new appellate regime is that there is only going to be a right of appeal against a decision of the Home Office to refuse a protection or human rights claim, or against a decision of the Home Office to revoke a protection status. Every other immigration decision made by the Home Office will not attract a right of appeal, with the remedy in those circumstances being Administrative Review and/or judicial review. As variation decisions are concerned, s.3C of the Immigration Act 1971 will only keep recipients of such decisions lawfully in the UK while they could seek, or are seeking, an Administrative Review.

Relevant articles chosen for you
Picture of Sadat Sayeed

Sadat Sayeed

Sadat is a practitioner specialising in advice, representation and advocacy in all areas of immigration, asylum, nationality, deportation, detention, EU free movement and human rights law. His practice particularly focuses on advice and representation in politically sensitive cases involving high profile and senior figures from the worlds of politics, business and sport. He has acted for such clients from countries including Egypt, the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia and India.


9 Responses

  1. What exactly is a human rights claim? Is it enough just to bolt a sentence onto a covering letter with, say, a Student visa application saying “the applicant also relies on his private and family life”? Or does it have to be an application made on a particular form?

    1. Ok, but which form? I get that extending a student visa won’t work and applying on form FLR(FP) will work, but what about an application on form SET(LR) -10 years lawful residence- or on form FLR(O) to extend a 3 year period of DLR that was originally granted for Article 8 reasons? Does it make a difference (in either case) if said application also includes an “in the alternative please grant LLR under 276ADE” clause?

      No doubt all this is going to get thrashed out in due course in the courts.

  2. As I understand it there is no ROA at all from overseas, except against refusal of a human rights claim made in a “designated” place. Curiouser and curiouser….

    1. Hmm, I had assumed a application for (say) a spouse visa from overseas would count as a human rights claim… but then I guess HO do have a bit of a blind spot about overseas human rights claims- witness the failure to allow entry clearance applicants to rely on EX1…

  3. My reading of the new s.82 can’t be right, does refusal of all Human Rights claims avail a right of appeal now? Does that mean no more chasing removal decisions for people who have submitted as overstayers / arguing over whether an submissions constitute a fresh claim?

    1. Yes, it looks like it does. Those who meet the Immigration Rules but are wrongly refused have no right of appeal in future, but those who overstayed etc do have a right of appeal. Bonkers.

    2. Well, Colin, for years lawyers have been trying to secure appeal rights for overstayers. Overstayers had appeal rights if there was a decision to remove, so lawyers had to argue that their should be a decision to remove their clients. That was bonkers!