A judicial review against the Home Office’s electronic visa (eVisa) system will argue that the department’s refusal to issue alternative proof of immigration status in the face of persistent data quality and integrity issues is unlawful.
On 31 December 2024, the immigration documents of millions of people living in the UK expired after being replaced by the Home Office with a real-time, online-only immigration status.
While the department has been issuing eVisas for several years – including to European Union (EU) citizens who applied to the European Union Settlement Scheme (EUSS) after Brexit, those applying for Skilled Worker visas, and people from Hong Kong applying for the British National (Overseas) visa – paper documents have now been completely phased out.
Instead, people are now expected to use a UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) digital account to generate “share codes”, which they must use to prove their immigration status when dealing with a range of third parties, including employers, letting agencies and landlords.
Despite persistent data quality and integrity issues plaguing the system since its inception, current Home Office policy means the eVisa system is the only way people can prove their lawful residence in the UK and evidence their associated rights and entitlements.
Two unnamed individuals affected by the system – a recognised refugee and survivor of trafficking, and a vulnerable adult – were previously granted permission to proceed with a judicial review against the Home Office in October 2025, with the Cardiff Administrative Court noting it is in the public interest for the legality of the Home Office’s policy to be determined.
Legal arguments
Beginning on 3 March 2026, lawyers from Deighton Pierce Glynn (DPG) argued across a two-day hearing in the High Court that the Home Office’s digital, online-only approach to visas is an “unlawful fettering of discretion” and the overall policy of not providing alternative proof of status is “irrational”.
Highlighting how the claimants were either unable to access an eVisa at all or their account displayed inaccurate information that meant it could not be relied on, the lawyers detailed that their situations lasted for nine and six months, respectively, “during which time, the [Home Office] … refused to provide them with any alternative means of proving their legal status”.
They detailed how one claimant was unable to claim the benefits they and their child were entitled to, as when they gave the share code to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), an error meant they were wrongly denied benefits.
This led the individual to mistakenly believe that their eVisa was correct and that they were not entitled to the benefits.
During this time, they were also living in “inadequate asylum support accommodation”, and at one point were notified by the Home Office that they would no longer be able to stay in the accommodation.
While this was eventually resolved, the Home Office did not explain the reason for the error or how long it would take to resolve, and did not provide any response to the request for urgent alternative proof.
The second individual – a recognised refugee and survivor of trafficking – experienced distress after their UKVI account showed the name used by their traffickers on their false passport.
While they approached the Home Office to correct this, it took nine months to resolve the issue, during which time the individual was also unable to prove their status to the DWP.
Lawyers claimed the distress caused to these and other individuals is the result of the Home Office’s “blanket” policy of only issuing visas digitally, noting that while the home secretary “undoubtedly” has the discretion to issue alternative forms of proof, officials have been “fettered” by their own policy decisions.
The lawyers further argued that if the court does not agree that there has been an unlawful fettering of discretion, then it must still see the blanket policy as irrational.
“Having adopted a policy that eVisas are the only operative proof of immigration status, the defendant’s failure to provide alternative proof of immigration status in circumstances where an individual’s UKVI account and/or eVisa is not functioning accurately or at all, is irrational,” they said.
“The claimants’ case is that where issues do arise and persist, as sometimes they do, then a rational policy would permit officials to consider providing an alternative means of proof where not doing so would cause real injustice and possible harm.
“It is not rational to have a policy which provides that however grave the harm and however long it may persist, caused by inability to prove status through the eVisa system, no consideration will be given to providing an alternative proof of status.”
Home Office stance
The Home Office, on the other hand, argued that it has put in place measures and support mechanisms to reduce the risk of issues associated with its eVisa system, and has implemented a 12-month stabilisation plan to improve the functioning of the system (although lawyers did not offer any details on this programme).
Home Office lawyers also argued that the home secretary’s policy has been “considered”, and that in the two particular cases in question, the home secretary has acted lawfully and rationally.
They added that while the Home Office accepts there have been glitches and delays for the claimants – which have negatively affected them and could therefore allow a judge to grant relief or order the home secretary to rectify the issues within a certain time frame – there is no basis for the entire eVisa policy to be found unlawful.
The lawyers said there were also a number of alternatives through which immigration status could be proved outside of the eVisa system, which include checking services for employers and landlords, as well as status verification services for visa holders.
They added the home secretary is also obliged to issue a formal notice in writing when status is granted, meaning that while the system is fully digital, applicants always receive a letter setting out their status.
Based on the existence of such alternatives, the lawyers said the home secretary has chosen not to exercise her discretion to issue physical proof, and outlined four further reasons for this.
These include claiming that the reintroduction of physical proof would lead to greater abuse of the immigration system due to outdated information on documents, there would be a substantial cost to taxpayers “at a time when public finances are constrained”, there might be practical difficulties associated with people appealing their status, and the reintroduction of physical proof would also require legislative changes via Parliament.
They also contended that if incorrect information is appearing on eVisas, then the same issues would persist with physical proof because the underlying data is the same. However, when the judge pointed out that eVisas have pulled out incorrect information from the underlying data, Home Office lawyers said they “accept” that, and this is one of many submissions.
Home Office lawyers concluded there was no way of implementing physical proof “without compromising the entire policy framework”, and that under the current circumstances, the secretary of state “would not be issuing physical proof to anyone”
It is the Home Office’s long-standing policy not comment on ongoing legal proceedings.
Serious, long-standing issues
People experiencing technical errors with the system have long reported being unable to travel, losing jobs and being denied housing due to faulty eVisa data.
It should be noted that even if people’s eVisa issues are resolved once, Computer Weekly has heard concerns that, because of how the system is set up to trawl dozens of disparate government databases in real time, every time a status is needed, the same people could once again find themselves without access to a working eVisa.
Not being able to reliably prove their immigration status in the face of a hostile and unresponsive bureaucracy has also taken a psychological toll on many of those affected, causing great anxiety.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, those affected variously told Computer Weekly that the entire experience had been “anxiety-inducing” and described how their lives had been thrust into “uncertainty” by the transition.
Each also described how the “inordinate amount of stress” associated with not being able to reliably prove their immigration status had been made worse by a lack of responsiveness and help from the Home Office, which they accused of essentially leaving them in the lurch.
In one case that was reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), the technical errors with data held by the Home Office were so severe that the regulator found there had been a breach of UK data protection law.
In January 2025, Computer Weekly also reported that despite repeated warnings from civil society and migrant support groups, which started as early as October 2021, people were already having trouble proving their immigration status while travelling back to the country, just two weeks after the UK’s formal transition to the eVisa system.
While groups such as ORG and the3million have directly proposed alternatives to the Home Office, such as the use of QR codes or “stable token” systems, the department’s eVisa policy team insisted as far back as December 2023 that it would not “compromise on the real-time aspect” of the eVisa checks, as “any check of an individual’s immigration status must be done in real time to reflect the current immigration status held” on its systems.
“As we warned, people are having problems using eVisas to travel back to the UK,” said the ORG at the time. “We asked the Home Office to make the simple change of allowing people to have a QR code. This could be saved or printed without having to rely on a flawed online-only system.
“Many refugees are still waiting for their eVisas,” it said. “Without them, they cannot work, set up a bank account, rent somewhere to live or claim benefits. The Home Office needs to sort out this mess urgently.”
The Home Office states in the eVisa terms and conditions that it will take no liability for any problems or disruptions, and direct or indirect losses, when using a UKVI account – including for “any information that is lost or corrupted while data is being transmitted, processed or downloaded from the UKVI account” – which ORG said implies the department “is already aware of the many technical issues with the eVisa scheme and is pre-emptively protecting itself against legitimate legal claims”.
ORG and others have said the use of eVisas should be seen in the context of the UK’s “hostile environment” approach, which is intended to make life in the UK as difficult as possible for people choosing to live there.