When the present system of administrative reviews (AR) was introduced in 2015, replacing a raft of rights to appeal to the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal, the government’s stated intention was to provide “a proportionate and less costly mechanism for resolving caseworking errors.” At that time, the government committed to a service standard of 28 days for the Home Office to complete an AR, which it explained was much faster than the then average of 12 weeks for an appeal to be heard. When this inspection of ARs began in 2025, the system was a long way from operating as intended.
This inspection focused on the resourcing of the two Home Office teams responsible for handling AR applications; workflow and the prioritisation of AR applications; the quality, timeliness, and consistency of AR decision making, including quality assurance; and communication and engagement between Home Office AR teams and applicants and stakeholders.
The inspection concluded that the Home Office’s Administrative Review Unit lacked the resources, systems, and prioritisation processes needed to manage its workload effectively. Applications were generally handled in chronological order, with limited triaging, meaning that urgent cases or those with safeguarding concerns were not always identified and handled promptly. Average processing times were 836 days for EUSS ARs, 207 days for international ARs and 185 days for in-country ARs. The delays in processing undermined the purpose of the administrative review process and caused significant hardship for applicants, including missed job or study opportunities and in some cases significant impacts on physical and mental health.
In contrast, administrative reviews of refusals of entry at the border – handled by the Border Force Administrative Review Hub – were generally completed within the 28-day timeframe. However, inspectors identified concerns with decision quality and data handling, and they noted the absence of a fully established quality assurance framework.
The need to quickly and effectively address the issues set out above is all the more pressing at a time when the government is contemplating substituting the remaining rights of appeal to the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal with an administrative alternative, albeit one that is independent of the department.
This report contains seven recommendations, some of which repeat what was recommended in prior inspections of this area that were carried out in 2016 and 2020. The report was sent to the Home Secretary on 17 October 2025. I am pleased that four of the recommendations have been accepted in full, with the other three accepted in part, and that work to implement these recommendations is under way.
John Tuckett, Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration
25 June 2026