Even with careful preparation, and even when a case appears to be a straightforward one, there are still slight risks, and the process can be prone to errors.

In May 2024, we represented two clients, a mother and her child from India; and assisted them with their entry clearance applications as the dependant partner and child of a Skilled Worker based in the UK. We completed the applications in accordance with the Immigration Rules under Appendix Skilled Worker, our client selected the visa priority service, and submitted all the required supporting documents.

On 13 May, the caseworker emailed us, granting the applicants 10 working days to withdraw their applications before a refusal would be issued. The email stated: “You have applied as a dependant of a Skilled Worker whose application was rejected as it was considered invalid.”

We promptly responded, pointing out a clear error: the primary applicant (the mother’s partner) held a valid Skilled Worker visa and had never had an application deemed invalid. We attached copies of his BRP card and Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS) to support our response.

However, on 16 May, before the 10-day deadline had passed, we received another email with a decision letter attached. The child’s application was refused on the same incorrect basis, and there was no mention of the mother’s application, which we presumed was still under consideration as her passport had not been returned.

We informed our client of the options available to them. The first was to apply for an Administrative Review and wait for the error to be corrected; the second was to submit a fresh application. Although the previously paid Immigration Health Surcharge was refunded, the client was understandably reluctant to pay the application fee twice.

After numerous emails and phone calls requesting an update on the mother’s application, we received a response from the UKVI International Escalation Team on 11 June. They confirmed that her application was nearing completion and a decision would be issued soon.

We filed for an Administrative Review of the child’s refusal decision on 11 June 2024, within the 28-day deadline. As we had not yet received a decision regarding the mother’s visa application, it was not included in the review request. The error in the initial refusal created significant confusion and caused considerable disruption to the applicants’ lives. The mother’s passport remained with the Home Office, preventing her from travelling.    On 21 June, following our persistent efforts we finally received a decision letter regarding the mother’s application and it was approved. Unfortunately, the child could not travel with her mother, as the Administrative Review process was still under consideration and the expected processing time was up to 12 months. We made several attempts to expedite the process by contacting the relevant team. However, we were informed that, due to the high volume of applications and heavy workload, priority was given based on submission dates.

After months of waiting, on 9 April 2025, we received the outcome of the Administrative Review. The Home Office overturned the refusal decision, and the original refusal from May 2024 was formally withdrawn.

To this day, we do not know how the initial error occurred. While the Administrative Review process is a valuable approach for correcting case working errors, its long processing time can have a negative impact on applicants’ lives. The child had to live with her grandparents, separated from both her mother and father, for several months.

Through our client's patience and determination, combined with our hard work and use of all available options, we successfully achieved a positive outcome. We wish our clients the very best in their new life in the UK.