Judicial review succeeds only where the decision was unlawful in one of the ways the law recognises. Strong feelings about the result are not a ground. The grounds below are the ones that arise most in immigration cases.

Illegality

The decision-maker misunderstood or misapplied the law: the wrong Immigration Rule, a requirement that does not exist, or a failure to consider a mandatory factor such as the best interests of a child. This is the most common successful ground.

Failure to follow policy

The Home Office must follow its own published guidance unless there is good reason not to. Applying a policy that has been withdrawn, or ignoring one that applies, for example the adults at risk policy in detention cases or the fee waiver guidance, is unlawful.

Procedural unfairness

The person was not given a fair chance to deal with the point decided against them: for example a refusal on a ground never put to them, or a decision made without the interview or further information the guidance required.

Inadequate reasons

The decision does not explain why the evidence was rejected or how the Rules were applied, so that the person cannot tell whether it is lawful.

Irrationality

A conclusion that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached on the evidence. A high threshold, but it is met where the decision ignores or misreads central evidence.

Breach of human rights

The decision breaches the European Convention on Human Rights, for example a removal that would breach Article 3 or a certification that denies an effective appeal under Article 8.

Delay and failure to decide

Where the Home Office has failed to make a decision within a reasonable time, judicial review can compel one. See Home Office delays.

What we do

We identify the grounds that are actually available on the papers, and tell you if there are none. Where there are, we set them out in the pre-action letter and the claim.