Delays are up, refusals are up, and the stated reasons don’t always make sense
Almost exactly two years ago we looked at a fourth quarter spike in UKVI study visa refusals, accompanied by delays in processing, in what appeared to be a behind-the-scenes exercise in (belatedly) pulling levers to cause a go-slow in international recruitment.
Something similar was evident for applicants of certain nationalities in the Q4 stats for 2025 when they appeared in February – this table shows the number of refused main applicant study visas in a quarter as a proportion of the total application outcomes for that quarter (with the caveat that overall application volumes vary from quarter to quarter):
| 2024 Q1 | 2024 Q2 | 2024 Q3 | 2024 Q4 | 2025 Q1 | 2025 Q2 | 2025 Q3 | 2025 Q4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pakistan | 13.6% | 7.2% | 4.0% | 5.3% | 5.5% | 5.5% | 7.3% | 39.1% |
| Bangladesh | 11.0% | 7.7% | 7.9% | 12.5% | 17.3% | 12.3% | 8.5% | 24.0% |
| Nigeria | 9.3% | 5.6% | 4.6% | 4.9% | 3.3% | 3.5% | 5.2% | 16.9% |
| Ghana | 20.3% | 6.7% | 9.2% | 18.5% | 10.0% | 14.2% | 10.0% | 26.7% |
| Nepal | 1.4% | 1.5% | 2.7% | 4.3% | 15.0% | 5.3% | 3.3% | 6.5% |
The jump in refusal rates compared to previous quarters for applicants from Pakistan and Nigeria is particularly pronounced, and both Bangladesh and Ghana are concerningly high as well.
There are certainly various things going on here, but one issue that is gathering momentum is that of “unreasonable” rejections by UKVI following credibility interviews (that is, the question of whether an applicant is a “genuine” student).
The UK Council of International Student Affairs (UKCISA) has been gathering up examples from admissions teams of “unreasonable or highly subjective reasons for refusal” following a credibility interview, and has posted a summary here.
The current situation is said to include “contradictory standards” on the part of UKVI towards the reasons an applicant gives for choosing an institution or course – “legitimate motivations are dismissed arbitrarily” – with assessors “going beyond a reasonable expectation” in their probing as to why an applicant has chosen the UK versus elsewhere. The level of detail seemingly required by those conducting credibility interviews is described as “in some instances impossible to meet.”
UKCISA has met with UKVI to raise the issues, diplomatically – but from examples that we have heard circulating elsewhere in the sector, some of the reasons for visa refusal in recent months border on the farcical: candidates being criticised for their supposed lack of knowledge of the weather in other potential host countries, or the “genuine student test” being failed over whether an applicant knew the university’s year of founding. Earlier this year I wrote about how previous TNE study might figure in credibility interviews – supposedly there have indeed been cases where UKVI has raised questions about why a TNE student wanting to continue in the UK with the same institution had not, as it were, shopped around.
There’s a sense in all this that decision-making is relying to a worrying degree on what UKCISA politely frames as “subjective impressions”. While UKVI is able to reject candidates following credibility interviews with quite broad scope, it is required to justify this – but when that justification focuses too much on inconsequential details, or begins to stray into educational matters that assessors aren’t expert in, or simply appears to be a cut-and-paste of other responses to candidates who talked about very different things, there’s a problem. Applicants can access the transcripts of their credibility interviews, and compare them to the stated reason for rejection – though UKCISA notes that the process to get hold of it has become “lengthy and complicated”.
Where the reasons given for rejection don’t instil any degree of confidence, the next question then becomes what’s actually driving it. It’s probably a variety of things, including assessor burden and creaking systems (given the state the Home Office is in) – UNHCR’s recent report on the quality of asylum interviews in the UK is perhaps an instructive companion piece.
But given how the spikes in refusals are distributed by nationality, there’s also the depressing possibility that where rejections are being driven by subjective factors, what these assumptions relate to is less about the substance of the interview and more about a candidate’s background, choice of provider, even subject of study, in a way that goes against hopes for individual fairness in the process. Guesswork about how prospective students are going to act isn’t any way to manage the international student system, even if we are seeing it more and more.
