Can You Submit New Evidence in an Administrative Review?

Potentially damaging and wrong advice has been circulated to ECAA applicants, in regards to Administrative review.

• ‘‘You cannot submit new evidence.’’

• ‘‘A fresh application is better’’

I see this on a daily basis. From other advisers, in WhatsApp groups, and from clients who come to us for a second opinion. Based on the simple reading of the rules this advice is wrong!

What is an AR application?

Administrative review is the review of an eligible decision, the purpose of which is to decide whether the decision was wrong due to a case working error, based on the original evidence before the decision maker1. That is where the “no new evidence” insistence comes from.

However, Paragraph AR 3.3 of Appendix Administrative Review sets out a mechanism through which evidence that was not before the original decision maker is admissible on review.

The Upper Tribunal set out:

Gateway AR 3.3 (e) admits additional evidence where there was “a substantive error in the respondent’s decision not to follow the Evidential Flexibility policy”. R (Ganeshamoorthy) v SSHD (Evidential Flexibility; Administrative Review Gateways) [2025] UKUT 229 (IAC),

The ‘mechanism’, in plain terms:

1. ‘Gateways’ (a) to (c): the wrongdoing rebuttal. Where the refusal alleges misconduct (false representations, false documents, failure to disclose material facts, previous breaches), you may submit new evidence to rebut the allegation. Ganeshamoorthy confirms the evidence is admissible through these gateways whether or not the decision was incorrect. You do not have to win the point before the evidence gets in.

2. ‘Gateway’ (d): the 245AA gateway. Where the decision included a decision not to request specified documents under paragraph 245AA (Points-Based System applications), additional evidence is admissible. The Tribunal held there is no additional requirement to show that the decision not to request documents was erroneous.

3. ‘Gateway’ (e): the Evidential Flexibility gateway. The Home Office’s Evidential Flexibility Policy (version 11) applies to all routes except Appendix FM and protection, not just the old Points-Based System. Where the caseworker should have contacted the applicant about missing or ambiguous evidence and did not, that failure is itself a reviewable error, and the corrective evidence comes in with the AR.

➡️ Appendix Administrative Review ➡️ Evidential Flexibility guidance ➡️ Ganeshamoorthy [2025] UKUT 229

In the recent unreported Upper Tribunal judicial review of R (Muzaffer Dag) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (JR-2025-LON-002510), the Tribunal considered an ECAA refusal in which prolonged overstaying was characterised as demonstrating a “clear disregard” for immigration law and adverse character. It held that this amounted to an allegation of reprehensible conduct which fairness required the applicant to have a meaningful opportunity to answer. In reaching that conclusion, the Tribunal drew on Balajigari and discussed Karagul, where similar fairness principles were applied to an ECAA genuineness assessment.

Does this apply to your refusal?

Carefully read the refusal letter. If the letter says you used deception or false documents, or that you hid something that mattered, gateways (a) to (c) are in play and you can submit new evidence to answer the allegation. The letter does not have to use the word “deception” either; a finding that your business or your job offer is “not genuine” can amount to the same accusation.

On the other hand, if the refusal repeatedly says 'you did not provide' or 'there is insufficient evidence of' without ever explaining why nobody contacted you to ask, you are looking at gateway (e), and it is the one we see most often.

When a letter lists everything you supposedly failed to provide but says nothing about why you were never asked for it, is exactly the kind of error an administrative review exists to correct.

Is AR right for your application?

You should start by reading the refusal letter and being honest with yourself. If the evidence you now want to submit is evidence you should have supplied with the original application, the answer is usually a fresh application, not an AR.

But if the letter refuses you for missing or inadequate evidence and never explains why nobody contacted you to ask for it, or if it accuses you of deception, the picture changes. Those are exactly the situations the AR 3.3 gateways were written for, and AR becomes the right challenge.

One more check before you decide: will a fresh application break your 3C leave? For anyone in the UK relying on 3C protection, that question can matter more than the merits of either route. I covered it in detail in my earlier post on ECAA refusals.

For Individuals

• Do not give up on an AR just because your evidence has grown since refusal.

• You have only 14 days to lodge the online application from the day of the refusal

• Get a second opinion if you were told that new evidence is impossible.

For Employers & Advisers

• Check every refusal letter for unexplained missing-evidence findings before recommending reapplication.

"You cannot submit new evidence in an administrative review" is not the rule. It is a summary of the rule, and a bad one. The Rules themselves set out five situations where new evidence must be considered, the Upper Tribunal has confirmed how they work, and the courts are pushing fairness further still. Before you give up on a refusal, make sure the person advising you has read past the summary.

Need tailored advice or timeline modelling? 📩 Reply to this post or book a consultation with Strand Legal Consultancy.

Written by William O’Neill, Immigration Expert & Founder, The Mobility Brief 🔗 Read all posts | 🟢 Join our WhatsApp Channel