Master prompt
Smart Mode — UK refusal recovery (Administrative Review vs Appeal vs JR vs re-application)
Adaptive intake. The AI branches on review jurisdiction (Administrative Review under Appendix AR vs human-rights / EUSS appeal under section 82 NIAA 2002 at First-tier Tribunal IAC vs Pre-Action Protocol / Judicial Review at Upper Tribunal IAC), refusal date (14 / 28 day windows), and refusal grounds.
UKRefusalAdministrative ReviewAppealJudicial ReviewPAPFirst-tier Tribunal IACUpper Tribunal IACSuitabilitySmart ModeAdaptive
Build a UK refusal-recovery strategy for the applicant under the Immigration Rules + Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 based on the answers I gave you. §1 — REFUSAL DECONSTRUCTION Set out: (a) Refused route (Student / Skilled Worker / Visitor / Appendix FM / Global Talent / EUSS / ILR / Naturalisation) (b) Refusal decision date + date received by applicant + remaining AR / appeal window (14 days in-country / 28 days out-of-country) (c) In-country vs out-of-country lodgement (d) UKVI-recorded grounds, parsed line by line For EACH ground, classify as: (i) Appendix-specific eligibility failure (e.g. Appendix Student ST 10 course-progression, Appendix Skilled Worker SW 18 salary, Appendix Finance FIN.1 28-day rule, Appendix English Language B1) (ii) Part 9 Suitability failure (paragraph 9.7.1 false representation, paragraph 9.8 character / criminality, paragraph 9.14 NHS debt) (iii) Appendix AR case-working error (the AR-eligible category) (iv) Human-rights ground (Article 8 ECHR family-life / private-life) (v) EUSS-specific ground (Appendix EU) (vi) Procedural / administrative error §2 — JURISDICTION CHECK Confirm which forum has jurisdiction: (a) Administrative Review under Appendix AR — case-working errors in Points-Based-System / EUSS / FM refusals (b) Appeal under section 82 NIAA 2002 to First-tier Tribunal IAC — human-rights claim refusals, protection refusals, EUSS appeal rights (c) Judicial Review at Upper Tribunal IAC under section 31A Senior Courts Act 1981 — public-law grounds, no alternative remedy (d) Judicial Review at the Administrative Court (High Court) — Naturalisation refusals, citizenship-related, complex public-law cases (e) Re-application — where AR / appeal not available OR new evidence renders AR / appeal unnecessary State THIS applicant's forum + remaining window. §3 — ROUTE RECOMMENDATION (60-80 words) Pick ONE primary route (AR / appeal / JR / re-application) and one secondary route. Justify based on grounds + window + applicant urgency + downstream consequences (Suitability findings, re-entry bans, 10-year exclusion). §4 — IF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW (a) AR application via Home Office online — within 14 days (in-country) or 28 days (out-of-country) (b) Statement of case-working errors — specific errors only, not re-argument of substantive case (c) Fee (verify current rate — refundable if AR succeeds) (d) Expected outcome — overturn (AR successful, original decision varied), maintain (AR unsuccessful), AR-only-eligible-errors-overturned (partial) (e) Note: section 3C leave continues during in-country AR §5 — IF APPEAL AT FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL IAC (a) Notice of Appeal — form IAFT-1 (in-country) or IAFT-2 (out-of-country) within 14 / 28 days (b) Grounds of appeal under section 82 NIAA 2002 + section 84 grounds (c) Skeleton argument + bundle + witness statements (d) First-tier Tribunal hearing — typically 3-12 months wait (e) Right of onward appeal to Upper Tribunal IAC on error-of-law grounds (with permission) §6 — IF JUDICIAL REVIEW AT UPPER TRIBUNAL IAC (a) Pre-Action Protocol letter to UKVI Government Legal Department — within JR time limit (b) Form T-480 application for permission to apply for judicial review (c) Grounds of claim — public-law: procedural fairness, irrationality, illegality, breach of legitimate expectation, fettering of discretion (d) Statement of facts + skeleton + bundle + claimant witness statement (e) Permission stage + (if granted) substantive hearing (f) Leading cases: R (BAPIO) v SSHD [2008] 1 AC 1003 (fairness); R (Alvi) v SSHD [2012] UKSC 33 (rules); R (Anufrijeva) v SSHD [2003] UKHL 36 (g) Costs risk + filing fee §7 — IF RE-APPLICATION (a) Address each refusal ground specifically in the new covering letter (b) Disclose ALL prior refusals under Part 9 paragraph 9.7.1 (c) Materially different evidence — every UKVI concern in the prior refusal must be answered with fresh evidence (d) Choice of route — same route with fresh evidence, OR different route if the original route is no longer the best fit (e) Fees (verify current rate) + IHS + biometrics §8 — PARALLEL TRACKS (where applicable) (a) Section 3C leave during in-country in-time application + AR / appeal (b) Different route entirely (e.g. partner if eligible, study, employer-sponsored) (c) Voluntary departure + offshore re-application (d) Human-rights claim (Article 8 family-life) if not yet raised §9 — THE 3 HIGHEST-ROI LEVERS BEFORE NEXT STEP Rank for THIS applicant. Examples: file AR immediately to preserve section 3C leave; engage OISC or solicitor for substantive submissions; gather fresh evidence on the contested criterion; prepare procedural-fairness JR challenge if AR / appeal exhausted; pivot to different route entirely if same-route re-application is high-risk. §10 — CITATIONS Anchor each recommendation to: (a) Immigration Rules — Appendix AR (Administrative Review), the relevant route Appendix (Student / Skilled Worker / FM / Global Talent / etc.), Part 9 Suitability (b) Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 — section 82 (right of appeal), section 84 (grounds), section 92 (appeal place), section 94 (clearly unfounded) (c) Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 (d) Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (e) Senior Courts Act 1981 section 31A (JR transfer to Upper Tribunal IAC) (f) Civil Procedure Rules + Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review (g) Leading cases — R (BAPIO) v SSHD [2008] 1 AC 1003 (fairness); R (Alvi) v SSHD [2012] UKSC 33 (rules); R (Anufrijeva) v SSHD [2003] UKHL 36; Patel v SSHD [2013] UKSC 72 (Article 8 family life); MM (Lebanon) v SSHD [2017] UKSC 10 (financial requirement) (h) UKVI Caseworker Guidance — Administrative Review (latest version on gov.uk) (i) OISC Code of Standards 2017 — DRAFT only. For OISC-registered adviser or solicitor review. Time-sensitive — Administrative Review and appeal windows are strict and lapse generally extinguishes review rights (with narrow late-application reasonable-grounds exceptions). Verify all current AR / appeal procedures, fees, and the current Tribunal Procedure Rules against the live gov.uk and Tribunals websites before relying on this draft.
Unlock the vault to see the full prompt