An administrative review (AR) scrutinises an eligible decision to determine whether the decision was
the result of a case working error, as defined within Appendix AR of the Immigration Rules.3
AR2.11 and AR2.12 provide technical definitions of all case working errors. They include misapplication of
rules, policy or guidance and incorrect calculation of the period or conditions of leave.

Between 1 October and 31 December 2016 the Home Office received a total of 2,393 AR
applications.

The AR process is designed primarily to provide access to redress for those whose application
for leave to enter or remain in the UK has been refused. However, individuals who have been
granted leave in-country may also apply for AR if they consider that the period of their leave, or
the conditions attached to it, have been calculated incorrectly.

Prior to the 2014 Act, a system of AR already existed for refusal of entry clearance applications
made overseas under the Points Based System (PBS). This took the form of reviews by Entry
Clearance Managers (ECMs) of decisions made by Entry Clearance Officers (ECOs). The 2014 Act
widened the scope of AR to include decisions made in-country and ‘at the border’.

The original inspection reported data for AR decisions for the period 1 April to 30 September
2015. This showed that the percentage of successful ARs, those where the refusal or cancellation
decision was ‘overturned’ was 8% for in-country (191 out of 2,369), 22% for ‘at the border’ (21
out of 96), and 21% for overseas (102 out of 487).

The data from Figures 1 and 2 are not directly comparable, but the ‘overturn’ percentages
for in-country (3.4%) and ‘at the border’ (6.8%) are noticeably lower. The original report
drew attention to the fact that at 8% the in-country ‘overturn’ rate was already much lower
than might have been expected “in light of the Home Office’s own assessment in July 2013 of
the extent of caseworking errors in Managed Migration cases that had been lost at appeal.”
However, it found no evidence that the upheld/overturn rates had been questioned.

Findings and conclusions

Recommendation 1

Under Paragraph 34R of the Immigration Rules,7 an applicant who has been refused leave to
enter or leave to remain within an application category that attracts an administrative review
(AR) has, dependent on location, a time limit of 7, 14 or 28 days from the date a decision has
been ‘served’ to submit an AR request. Appendix SN of the Rules sets out when any refusal
decisions are deemed to have been served (that is, received by the applicant).

The original inspection found that decision notices did not sufficiently advise applicants of the
Rules regarding the deemed date of receipt, nor that applicants may be required to prove, when
requested, that their decision notice was received on a later date. Instead decision notices
simply stated: “You must apply for administrative review within x days of receiving the decision.”

This led to Recommendation 1, which the Home Office accepted.

The Home Office should make it clear to applicants in published guidance and on the online
application form that the deadline for applying for an AR is calculated from the deemed date
of receipt of the eligible immigration decision unless the applicant can demonstrate they
received this on a later date.

Re-inspection findings

Inspectors found that the most recent AR guidance (updated in April 2016) provided full details
to applicants to explain the time limits and set out clearly when an application is deemed to
have been received. The guidance also specified that, in instances when the date of receipt is
being challenged, the onus is on the applicant to provide evidence: “If the migrant claims they
received the in-UK or overseas decision on a later date, it is their responsibility to show when it
was actually received.

After examining the sample ARs from all three business areas (applications made in-country, ‘at
the border’ and overseas) and speaking to staff involved receiving and validating applications,
inspectors were satisfied that the original notice of refusal gave sufficient information to
applicants about how to submit an AR request.

Conclusion

The revised guidance published in April 2016 has addressed the concerns raised in
Recommendation 1. Recommendation 1 is now closed.

Recommendation 2

The original inspection identified inconsistencies in how caseworkers assessed and applied
Paragraph 34R of the Immigration Rules in relation to out of time AR applications.

This led to Recommendation 2, which the Home Office accepted.

Ensure caseworkers take all reasonable steps to check the actual date of receipt of the eligible
decision before rejecting applications on the basis that they are out of time.

Re-inspection findings
Applications made in-country and ‘at the border’

Inspectors found that Home Office staff validating applications were aware of the requirement
to ensure that dates were calculated correctly, and routinely used services such as Royal Mail
‘Track and Trace’ to confirm delivery dates. Of the 48 AR applications deemed invalid that
inspectors examined, 21 had been invalidated for being ‘out of time’. Inspectors found that this
was incorrect in one of the 21 cases.

Applications made overseas

Decision notices for overseas entry clearance applications are collected in person from the
relevant overseas Visa Application Centre (VAC). As a result, it was not possible for caseworkers
to use a postal tracking service to monitor when a refusal notice was received by the applicant.

In the 50 overseas ARs examined for this re-inspection, inspectors identified one in which the
applicant submitted the AR application out of time. In this instance, the overseas Decision
Making Centre (DMC) accepted the mitigating circumstances put forward by the applicant.
Despite being out of time, the AR application was validated and processed. Inspectors found no
instances of overseas DMCs rejecting applications incorrectly as out of time.

Conclusion
Clarifications in policy and revised training have led to improvements in dates for receipt of decision
and eligibility to apply for an AR being calculated correctly. Recommendation 2 is now closed

Recommendation 3

At the time of the original inspection, it was found that there was significant scope to improve
record keeping in terms of invalid AR applications, including correspondence with applicants. In
many cases, neither the electronic notes nor the notices of invalidity sent to applicants set out
clearly the reasons for rejection, including failure to record reference to the deemed date of
receipt where this was used to decide that the application was out of time.

This led to Recommendation 3, which the Home Office accepted.

Ensure that CID9 notes and AR invalidity notices state clearly why an AR application was
determined to be invalid.

Re-Inspection Findings

Applications made in-country and ‘at the border’

AR caseworkers of all grades told inspectors that they understood the importance of recording
accurate electronic notes. However, of the 48 AR applications deemed invalid examined by
inspectors, ten in-country applications had inadequate notes recording actions and the rationale
for decisions. Inspectors identified no issues relating to invalid ‘at the border’ applications.

Applications made overseas

Staff were aware of the requirement to record reason(s) for rejecting an AR application as
invalid. In the 50 overseas ARs examined for this re-inspection, inspectors identified five
applications that were invalid. Four of these applications had been rejected and electronic
casework systems and customer correspondence accurately recorded the reasons. One had
been incorrectly validated and considered. As detailed at Figure 2, the Home Office does not
collate centrally the number of AR applications submitted overseas and rejected as invalid.

Conclusion

AR caseworkers understood the importance of making accurate notes on electronic systems when
rejecting AR applications as invalid. However, the file sample indicated that in a significant number
of cases the notes made by staff validating in-country AR applications were inadequate. Therefore,
Recommendation 3 remains open for the in-country AR work area. Recommendation 3 can be
closed for ‘at the border’ and overseas ARs, but neither area should take this as a signal to relax

"WATCH OUT FOR PART TWO"

Please post this in one thread

https://www.nairaland.com/4016277/inspection-administrative-review-processes