UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI)

3. Captain A complains about the service his wife, Miss E, received from UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI). He complains that his wife’s visa applications were refused based upon legally flawed and procedurally unfair arguments. He explained that UKVI did not take into account their exceptional circumstances.

4. Captain A explained that the refusal to grant his wife a visit visa has had a devastating and prolonged impact on his health. He suffers from paranoid schizophrenic psychosis, which is characterised by social withdrawal, paranoia, hallucinations and disorganised thinking. His wife plays a vital role in helping him to manage his condition, and her care cannot be replaced by clinical services. During the time they have been forced to be apart, his symptoms have worsened and his condition declined.

5. This ongoing separation has prolonged Captain A’s suffering and prevents him from being able to make any meaningful recovery. He says the cumulative impact on his health is supported by clinical evidence, which shows a deterioration in his mental health and an increased risk of relapse.

6. By bringing the complaint to PHSO, Captain A is seeking:

• A formal finding of maladministration in the handling of his wife’s visa application, recognising any procedural errors, failure to properly consider evidence, or inappropriate application of the immigration rules.

• A recommendation for a lawful, fair, and thorough reconsideration of his wife’s case, ensuring that all relevant evidence is fully taken into account, particularly her compassionate and humanitarian grounds.

• Entry clearance as a spouse under exceptional circumstances, taking into account his chronic mental health condition, inability to fully care for himself without his wife’s support, and their family circumstances, including her pregnancy.

• Any alternative immigration route that is consistent with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), recognising the importance of family life, the need for compassionate treatment, and the proportionality of any refusal decision.

• Recognition and integration of all supporting medical, financial, and personal evidence demonstrating the necessity of his wife’s presence in the UK for my well-being and the welfare of their unborn child.

7. As well as this, he is also including recommendations to provided systemic remedy to prevent other applications encountering similar issues: • Enhanced handling of vulnerable applicants, including those with chronic or severe mental health conditions, ensuring their circumstances are understood and appropriately weighted in decision-making.

• Robust and meaningful consideration of medical and supporting evidence, including GP reports, specialist assessments, and other relevant documentation, so that decisions are made on a complete factual basis.

• Greater transparency and clarity in decision-making, including clear explanations when applications are refused, consistent application of the rules, and guidance on possible alternative options for applicants in exceptional circumstances.

8. Captain A’s wife is from Pakistan, and currently still lives there. She has applied three times for a visa, but UKVI has rejected her applications, most recently on 7 February 2025.

Rejected Visa Applications

11. Captain A complains that his wife’s visa applications were refused based on a legally flawed and procedurally unfair argument. He explained that UKVI did not take into account their exceptional circumstances. This includes both spousal and visit visa applications, with the decisions given on the following dates:

• 3 November 2023 (Spousal visa) • 28 August 2024 (First visit visa) • 7 February 2025 (Second visit visa)

12. He explained that UKVI has failed take his chronic mental health conditions into account, and his documented medical dependency on his wife.

13. He told us that the reasons provided are inadequate, inconsistent with policy guidance and legal principles, and do not engage with the evidence he has provided.

14. He explained that UKVI has failed to correctly apply Article 8 of the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights). This article is that protects ‘your right to respect for your private and family life’. Captain A also cites other legal principles and says that there is no evidence that they were applied, resulting in decisions that are disproportionate, procedurally flawed, and legally deficient.

15. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has (or had) the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is (or was) unreasonable in the circumstances. We have discussed this with Captain A to understand his circumstances and the outcomes he wants. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look in to.

16. The correct route of appeal would be by judicial review, and UKVI has informed Captain A of this. Captain A has already consulted with solicitors and sent a pre-action protocol letter to the Home Office. Continuing with this route would be the appropriate method of challenging the decision.

1. We have carefully considered Captain A’s complaint about UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI). We would like to thank him for bringing this complaint to our attention and recognise that this has been an extremely distressing period for both him and his wife.

2. Having considered the evidence, it is our decision that Captain A could take legal action on the matter that he has brought to us, and that the courts would be a more appropriate platform to challenge UKVI’s decisions.