My UK visa application has been refused. What are my options?

The refusal notice will identify which of three routes is open: a statutory appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) under section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (available only for protection, human rights, and EU Settlement Scheme decisions); an administrative review under Appendix AR of the Immigration Rules (for many points-based and entry-clearance decisions where appeal rights do not apply); or judicial review in the Upper Tribunal or the Administrative Court. Time limits are short — 14 days for in-country applications, 28 days for out-of-country, and three months promptly for judicial review — and choosing the correct route is decisive.

What is administrative review and when does it apply?

Administrative review is a paper-based internal review under Appendix AR of the Immigration Rules. It applies where the decision letter says so — typically points-based system refusals, certain entry-clearance refusals, and refusals of leave to remain in some other categories. The applicant must apply within 14 days (in-country) or 28 days (out-of-country). The grounds are limited to caseworking errors — decision-maker errors of fact, missed evidence, or misapplication of the Rules. Administrative review does not consider new evidence or a fresh judgement on the merits.

When is judicial review the right route?

Judicial review challenges the lawfulness of a Home Office decision on grounds of illegality, irrationality, or procedural unfairness. It is the residual route where neither appeal nor administrative review is available — for example, refusals of certified human rights claims, certain certification decisions, or refusals where Appendix AR does not apply. Immigration judicial reviews are predominantly heard by the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) under section 31A of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The Administrative Court retains jurisdiction over particular categories. Claims must be brought promptly and in any event within three months of the decision (CPR rule 54.5).

What is section 3C leave and why does it matter?

Section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 extends a person's existing leave during a pending in-time application, an appeal, or (since the Nationality and Borders Act 2022) a pending administrative review. While section 3C leave is in force, the applicant remains lawfully in the UK on the same conditions as their previous leave. Section 3C does not extend over the period before the application is decided if the application was made out of time. The provision is critical when challenging a refusal because it preserves the applicant's lawful status during the challenge.

What does R (Wang) v SSHD say about visa refusals?

R (Wang) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 21 is a Supreme Court authority on the construction of the Immigration Rules in the context of the now-closed Tier 1 (Investor) route. The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the Secretary of State's appeal and restored the original refusal of leave to remain. The case is authority for the principle that the Immigration Rules are to be construed with an unblinkered, facts-in-the-round approach — a substance-over-form analysis. Although the Tier 1 (Investor) route closed to new applicants on 17 February 2022, Wang is routinely cited in judicial review of refusals on Rules-interpretation grounds.

Can the Home Office refuse a visa for general grounds?

Yes. The general grounds for refusal are now consolidated in Part 9 of the Immigration Rules (in force from 1 December 2020 under HC 813). The grounds include false representations, deception, criminality, exclusion conducive to the public good, and previous breaches of immigration laws. The earlier paragraph 322 framework is largely superseded for applications decided under the post-1 December 2020 Rules. Where a refusal is based on alleged false representations, the procedural fairness obligation in R (Balajigari) v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 673 typically requires a 'minded to refuse' letter giving the applicant a fair opportunity to respond before the adverse decision is taken.

Immigration

UK Visa Refused: A Practical Guide for Chinese Applicants

Q: What is the minimum income requirement for a partner visa?

The current minimum income requirement (MIR) under Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules is £29,000 gross annual income for partner-route applications made on or after 11 April 2024. The previously announced phased increases to £34,500 and then £38,700 have been paused pending review by the Migration Advisory Committee. Applicants who were granted initial leave on the five-year partner route before 11 April 2024 retain the £18,600 transitional MIR threshold on subsequent extension and settlement applications on the same route. Material practical effect: a Chinese applicant who entered the route before 11 April 2024 should not be required to meet the higher figure on extension.

By Leon Chua · Partner · 25 April 2026

A UK visa refusal is not the end of the road. There are three routes by which a refusal can be challenged, and the correct route depends on the type of decision, not on the applicant's preference. Time limits are short. This guide explains the routes, the relevant statutory framework, the recent authorities most likely to come up, and what a Chinese applicant should do on receiving a refusal. Authored by Leon Chua, Partner at Duan & Duan UK LLP.

1. The three routes — a navigation guide

When a UK visa application is refused, the refusal notice will identify which of three routes is open:

A statutory appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) ("FTT(IAC)") under section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
Administrative review under Appendix AR of the Immigration Rules.
Judicial review in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) ("UTIAC") under section 31A of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, or in the Administrative Court.

A given refusal will ordinarily attract only one of these routes. The decision letter is the starting point: it will state the route available. The most common error in self-represented immigration challenges is filing the wrong route — and missing the deadline for the right one.

2. The statutory appeal route — section 82 NIAA 2002

The statutory appeal route is narrower than many applicants assume. The Immigration Act 2014 reformed the appeal regime so that the right of appeal under section 82 NIAA 2002 is now available only in respect of:

Protection claims (refusals of asylum or humanitarian protection);
Human rights claims (typically Article 3 or Article 8 ECHR claims, including Article 8 family-life claims under Appendix FM); and
EU Settlement Scheme decisions (refusal, revocation, or restriction of pre-settled or settled status).

Other refusals — for example, points-based system work or study visas, or visitor visa refusals — do not attract a section 82 appeal.

The appeal is to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). Time limits are set by the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014: ordinarily 14 days if the appellant is in the UK, and 28 days if outside.

The hearing is an oral re-hearing on the merits. The appellant typically gives evidence; the Home Office is represented by a Presenting Officer; documentary evidence and (where appropriate) country-information material are central. The judge can allow, dismiss, or remit the appeal.

Onward appeal lies to the Upper Tribunal, on a point of law only, with permission. The route from there is to the Court of Appeal, on a second-tier appeals threshold (the appeal must raise an important point of principle or practice, or there must be some other compelling reason).

3. Administrative review — Appendix AR

Administrative review is a paper-based internal review by a separate Home Office unit. It applies where the decision letter says so — typically:

Points-based system refusals (Skilled Worker, Global Talent, Innovator Founder, Student, etc.);
Certain entry-clearance refusals;
Refusals of leave to remain in particular categories.

The grounds are limited to caseworking errors — that is, errors of fact, evidence missed by the decision-maker, or a misapplication of the Immigration Rules. Administrative review does not consider new evidence (subject to limited exceptions for evidence already submitted) and does not make a fresh judgment on the merits.

Time limits. The application for administrative review must be made within 14 days (in-country) or 28 days (out-of-country) of receipt of the decision.

Practical experience. Administrative review succeeds in a relatively low proportion of cases overall, but the success rate on properly-targeted, error-of-record grounds (in particular, missed documentary evidence) is materially higher. The application should be drafted to identify each error precisely, by reference to the specific document or paragraph of the Rules misapplied.

4. Judicial review — when and how

Judicial review is the residual route where neither appeal nor administrative review is available. It is also available after administrative review, where the administrative review itself is challenged on public-law grounds.

Forum. Most immigration judicial reviews are heard by the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) under section 31A TCEA 2007. The Administrative Court retains jurisdiction over certain categories of immigration challenge (for example, challenges to certification decisions where particular gateways apply, or where a specific transfer rule does not bring the matter within UTIAC jurisdiction).

Grounds. The traditional public-law grounds:

Illegality (the decision is unlawful — error of law, ultra vires, breach of statutory duty, breach of the applicant's legitimate expectations).
Irrationality (the decision is Wednesbury unreasonable).
Procedural unfairness (the decision was made in breach of the duty to act fairly — for example, an inadequate "minded to refuse" process).

Time limits. Claims must be brought promptly and in any event within three months of the decision under challenge (CPR rule 54.5). The "promptly" requirement can in immigration matters require materially earlier issue. Some immigration JR claims attract a shorter time limit by statute or rule.

Pre-action protocol. A pre-action letter setting out the intended grounds is ordinarily required. The Home Office's response, or its failure to respond, often shapes the proceedings.

Cart / Eba abolished. "Cart" or "Eba" judicial review — the residual route by which the Administrative Court could review an Upper Tribunal decision refusing permission to appeal from the FTT — was abolished by section 2 of the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 (in force 14 July 2022), which inserted section 11A into the TCEA 2007. As a result, the practical avenues to challenge a refusal of permission to appeal in the Upper Tribunal are now substantially narrower.

Urgent injunctive relief. Where removal directions have been issued, urgent applications can be made to the Upper Tribunal or Administrative Court for interim injunctive relief to prevent removal. Out-of-hours procedures exist where the timing requires.

5. Section 3C leave — your status while you challenge

Section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 is one of the most important provisions in immigration practice. It extends a person's existing leave automatically:

During the period when an in-time application for variation of leave is pending before the Home Office;
During an appeal to the FTT(IAC) (if appeal rights apply);
During an administrative review; and (since the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 section 75)
During the period in which an administrative review can still be brought, and while one is pending.

The effect is that the applicant remains lawfully present in the UK on the same conditions as their previous leave (work, study, etc.) until the application or review is determined.

Section 3C does NOT extend leave if the original application was made out of time, or if the applicant has been removed and seeks to challenge the decision from abroad. The position can be subtle and is the subject of frequent JR challenges where the Home Office is alleged to have wrongly treated 3C leave as having ended.

6. The minimum income requirement under Appendix FM

The most contested numeric threshold in current immigration practice is the Minimum Income Requirement (MIR) under Appendix FM for partner-route applications.

The figure in force as at April 2026 is £29,000 gross annual income, applicable to applications made on or after 11 April 2024. The further phased increases that had been announced — to £34,500 and then £38,700 — have been paused pending review by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) in the period following the July 2024 general election. No confirmed implementation date for the higher thresholds exists as at the date of publication of this guide.

Transitional protection — £18,600

Applicants who were granted initial leave on the five-year partner route before 11 April 2024 retain the £18,600 MIR threshold on subsequent extension and settlement applications on the same route. This is a material practical point. A Chinese applicant who entered the route before 11 April 2024 — for example, a spouse who applied for entry clearance to join a partner in the UK in 2022 or 2023 — should not be required to meet £29,000 on extension. The transitional protection is preserved under the post-11 April 2024 Rules.

A common source of refusal is the Home Office (or a UKVI decision-maker) wrongly applying £29,000 to a transitional applicant. The correct response is administrative review or — if necessary — judicial review on the basis that the higher figure has been unlawfully applied.

7. Common refusal grounds

The substantive refusal grounds most frequently encountered in our practice are:

Failure to meet the financial requirement (Appendix FM partner route — see §6 above; or specific category requirements such as the Skilled Worker salary threshold).
Doubts as to the genuineness of the relationship (partner route).
Doubts as to the genuineness of intentions (visitor visa, student visa).
Failure to provide a satisfactory English language test at the required CEFR level.
Failure to meet the Continuous Residence Requirement in long-residence and indefinite-leave applications.
General grounds for refusal under Part 9 of the Immigration Rules — false representations, deception, criminality, public-good exclusions, prior breaches of immigration laws.
Suitability concerns in nationality applications under the British Nationality Act 1981 and the "good character" guidance.

Part 9 of the Immigration Rules (in force from 1 December 2020 under HC 813) is now the consolidated framework for general grounds for refusal. The earlier paragraph 322 general-grounds provisions are largely superseded.

8. Procedural fairness — the Balajigari duty

Where a refusal is based on alleged false representations or alleged deception by the applicant, the procedural fairness obligation in R (Balajigari) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 673 typically requires the Home Office to issue a "minded to refuse" letter — a notice setting out the points on which the decision-maker is provisionally minded to refuse, with sufficient detail to enable the applicant to respond — before the adverse decision is taken.

A failure to follow this procedure is itself a ground of judicial review. Balajigari is one of the most frequently-cited authorities in immigration JR claims arising from refusals on alleged dishonesty grounds — including in tax-discrepancy cases, document-irregularity cases, and earnings-discrepancy cases.

9. The leading Supreme Court authority on Rules construction — R (Wang) v SSHD

R (Wang and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 21 (judgment 21 June 2023) is a Supreme Court authority on the construction of the Immigration Rules in the context of the now-closed Tier 1 (Investor) route.

The case concerned a structured investment scheme operated by Maxwell Asset Management through which over 100 investors — many of them Chinese nationals — sought to satisfy the £1 million investment threshold then required under the Tier 1 (Investor) Rules. The central legal question was whether the funds had been "under [her] control" within the meaning of the Rules.

The Court of Appeal had ruled in favour of the investors. On further appeal, the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the Secretary of State's appeal and restored the original refusal. The case is authority for the principle that the Immigration Rules are to be construed with an "unblinkered" approach — a substance-over-form analysis of the underlying facts.

Why it matters in 2026. Although the Tier 1 (Investor) route itself closed to new applicants on 17 February 2022, Wang remains live authority on Rules-interpretation methodology. It is routinely cited in judicial review challenges where the Home Office's reading of the Rules is alleged to be technical, narrow, or formalistic, or where the applicant says the Home Office has elevated form over substance.

Leon Chua acted in Wang in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

10. Specific scenarios — what to expect

Spouse and partner refusals (Appendix FM)

Most commonly: financial requirement (see §6), genuineness of relationship, English language, accommodation. The natural challenge route depends on whether the application engaged a human rights claim — most Appendix FM partner refusals do, attracting a section 82 appeal. The exception is partner-route entry clearance refusals that the Home Office certifies on procedural grounds.

Skilled Worker refusals

Points-based system refusals usually attract administrative review under Appendix AR. JR is the next step where the administrative review is itself flawed.

Student visa refusals

Most student visa refusals attract administrative review. JR is rare in pure points-based refusals but more common where the applicant says the Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) or sponsorship issues arise.

Settlement (indefinite leave to remain) refusals

The challenge route depends on the specific category and the basis for the refusal. Long-residence ILR refusals typically attract administrative review. Refusals on suitability/good-character grounds may attract JR, with Balajigari often relevant where dishonesty is alleged.

Tier 1 (Investor) — legacy applicants

The route closed to new applicants on 17 February 2022, but legacy investor-visa holders may still have live applications for extension or settlement. Wang is the leading authority on Rules-interpretation methodology in this area.

Deportation

Where a person is subject to deportation proceedings on the basis that their continued presence is conducive to the public good (typically following criminal conviction), challenges turn on section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 — the statutory codification of Article 8 ECHR exceptions for foreign criminals. This is a specialist area in which expert evidence (often medical, psychological, or country-information) is critical.

11. What you should do — practical steps

If you have received a UK visa refusal:

Do not panic and do not delay. Time limits are short. Note the date of the decision letter and calendar the deadlines: 14 / 28 days for administrative review or section 82 appeal; three months promptly for JR.
Read the decision letter carefully. Identify the route the Home Office says is available. Note the specific paragraph(s) of the Rules cited and the specific factual findings made.
Preserve all documents. Keep the original decision letter, any covering email, the original application bundle, all supporting documents, and any communications with the Home Office or your previous immigration adviser.
Take specialist legal advice promptly. The route you take is not negotiable — it depends on the type of decision. Choosing the wrong route, or filing late, can be fatal to your prospects.
Consider the impact on section 3C leave. Particularly important if you have employment, study, or other commitments that require lawful status during the challenge period.
If removal is imminent, seek emergency injunctive relief. Out-of-hours applications to the Upper Tribunal are possible.
Where dishonesty is alleged, request the Balajigari "minded to refuse" letter if it has not already been provided. Procedural unfairness is a common JR ground in such cases.

12. What we do

Leon Chua, Partner at Duan & Duan UK LLP, leads the firm's immigration appeals and judicial review practice. Acted in R (Wang) v SSHD [2023] UKSC 21 and in Lee Ling Low v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 4. Services include:

First assessment of the route (appeal / administrative review / JR) and prospects of success.
Drafting and filing of FTT(IAC) appeals, administrative review applications, and JR pre-action letters and claim forms.
Representation in FTT and Upper Tribunal hearings; coordination of expert evidence, country-information material, and witness evidence.
Urgent injunctive relief applications to prevent removal.
Balajigari "minded to refuse" responses and JR challenges to procedural unfairness.
Specific Chinese-applicant scenarios: partner / spouse refusals (Appendix FM), MIR transitional protection issues, Tier 1 (Investor) legacy matters, suitability and good-character challenges in citizenship applications.

Consultations are conducted in English. For Chinese-language matters Leon works with Mandarin and Cantonese-speaking colleagues across the firm.

13. Contact

To instruct the firm or for an initial confidential conversation:

Telephone: +44 20 3036 0264
Email: office@duanduanuk.com
WhatsApp: message us on WhatsApp
WeChat: scan our QR code or search DuanDuanUKLLP
In writing: Duan & Duan UK LLP, 2nd Floor East, Goldsmith Building, Middle Temple, London EC4Y 7BL

Scan to message us on WhatsApp

Scan to add us on WeChat

Initial enquiries are without obligation and treated in strict confidence.

This guide is published for general information only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create a solicitor-client relationship. Each matter must be assessed on its specific facts. Immigration time limits are short and the consequences of inaction are serious. Duan & Duan UK LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (OC427307) and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA number 659252).

← Back to News