Introduction
The United Kingdom's immigration system is undergoing its most significant operational transformation in a generation. At the heart of this change is the mandatory transition from physical immigration documents, such as Biometric Residence Permits (BRPs), to a purely digital record of status known as the eVisa. This shift, part of a wider 'digital by default' government agenda, is presented as a step towards a more secure, efficient, and user-friendly system (Home Office, 2024a). However, this essay will argue that the move to a mandatory, digital-only system for proving immigration status creates a profound and foreseeable risk of digital exclusion for a significant cohort of migrants. This exclusion transcends mere practical inconvenience; it engages serious legal challenges under the Equality Act 2010 and common law principles of fairness. The government's proposed mitigation strategies appear insufficient to protect vulnerable individuals from being unjustly disenfranchised from fundamental rights to work, rent, and access essential services. Ultimately, without a robust non-digital alternative, the eVisa system threatens to erect new, invisible barriers, risking a repeat of the injustices exposed by the Windrush scandal in a new, digital guise.
The Digital Transition from Physical Documents to eVisas
For years, foreign nationals granted permission to stay in the UK for more than six months have been issued with physical evidence of their status. The most common form is the Biometric Residence Permit (BRP), a credit card-sized document containing a secure chip with the holder's biographic details, facial image, fingerprints, and the conditions of their stay. This physical card has been the primary means for individuals to prove their rights and for third parties, such as employers and landlords, to conduct mandatory status checks under the 'compliant environment' framework established by the Immigration Act 2014.
The government's new policy mandates a complete phasing out of these physical documents. By 31 December 2024, all BRPs will expire, regardless of the end date printed on the card itself, and will no longer be valid as proof of status (Home Office, 2024b). Instead, all migrants will be required to create a UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) account to access and share their immigration status digitally via the 'View and Prove' online service. This service allows an individual to generate a temporary 'share code' which they can then provide to a third party, such as an employer, who uses it to access the individual's status information on a government portal.
The stated rationale for this transition is administrative modernisation. The Home Office cites enhanced security against forgery, greater convenience for users who can access their status anywhere, and reduced administrative costs associated with producing and distributing millions of physical cards (Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, 2023a). For the digitally-literate individual with stable access to the internet and an email account, the system may indeed offer a degree of convenience. However, this optimistic vision overlooks the significant portion of the migrant population for whom the prerequisite digital access and literacy is not a given. The mandatory nature of this system, with no planned physical alternative, is where the risk of exclusion becomes acute.
Defining and Evidencing the Risk of Digital Exclusion
Digital exclusion is a multifaceted problem that extends beyond simply not owning a smartphone or a laptop. The Centre for Economics and Business Research defines it as a phenomenon affecting individuals who lack the 'access, skills and confidence' to use the internet and digital technologies (CEBR, 2018). Within the context of the eVisa system, this manifests in several distinct but overlapping barriers.
First, there is the barrier of access. This includes a lack of reliable internet connectivity or access to a suitable device like a smartphone or computer. For many vulnerable migrants, including refugees living in temporary accommodation, destitute individuals with no recourse to public funds, or those in precarious housing, consistent internet access is a luxury, not a utility. Research by the Refugee Council has repeatedly highlighted that newly recognised refugees often face significant poverty and destitution, making the cost of a device and data prohibitive (Refugee Council, 2023).
Second, and arguably more pervasive, is the barrier of digital literacy and skills. The process of creating a UKVI account, navigating the 'View and Prove' service, and understanding how to generate and use a share code requires a level of digital competence that cannot be assumed. This disproportionately affects older migrants, those with limited formal education, and individuals with learning disabilities or cognitive impairments. Furthermore, the system relies on email for account creation and security verification, yet many may lack a secure, private, and permanent email address.
Third, language and communication barriers present a formidable challenge. While the GOV.UK website aims for clarity, its content is predominantly in English. The process of navigating technical instructions, understanding error messages, and troubleshooting problems is significantly harder for those with limited English proficiency. This places a heavy reliance on a shrinking pool of publicly funded immigration advice services or on informal, and potentially exploitative, support networks.
Fourth, disabilities and health conditions can create insurmountable hurdles. Individuals with visual impairments may struggle with screen readers on a non-optimised government platform, while those with motor impairments may find interacting with touchscreens or keyboards difficult. Mental health conditions such as severe anxiety, paranoia, or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)—prevalent among asylum seekers and victims of trafficking—can make engaging with official, high-stakes digital processes intensely distressing (Mind, 2021).
Evidence of these risks is not merely theoretical. The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI) has produced stark warnings. A 2023 report on the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS), which uses a similar digital-only status model, found that the Home Office’s approach "was not consistently demonstrating a compassionate, fair, and rigorous approach" to vulnerable applicants (ICIBI, 2023b). The ICIBI noted significant issues with the digital-only proof of status, highlighting cases where individuals struggled to prove their rights to employers and landlords who were unfamiliar or distrustful of the digital system. The report concluded that the Home Office had "not yet grasped the scale of the challenge" in communicating the new nature of immigration status (ICIBI, 2023b, p. 5). The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA) has similarly raised repeated concerns, warning that the move to eVisas without a non-digital alternative will leave many unable to prove their lawful status, with potentially catastrophic consequences (ILPA, 2023).
The Legal Framework: Indirect Discrimination and the Equality Act 2010
The risk of digital exclusion is not only a social and practical issue but also a significant legal one, primarily engaging the prohibition on indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. Section 19(1) of the Act defines indirect discrimination as occurring when a person (A) applies to another (B) a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's.
In the context of eVisas, the relevant PCP is the Home Office's requirement that all migrants prove their immigration status exclusively through a digital online system. This PCP applies universally to all visa holders. The next step is to demonstrate that this PCP puts, or would put, persons with whom an individual shares a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom they do not share it (s. 19(2)(b)). The case for such a disadvantage is strong across several protected characteristics.
For Age, older migrants are statistically more likely to be digitally excluded. Data from the Office for National Statistics shows that while internet use is nearly universal among younger age groups, a significant percentage of those aged 65 and over are non-users or lack basic digital skills (ONS, 2021). An elderly migrant, lawfully resident for decades, may be entirely unable to navigate the process of creating a UKVI account, thus being placed at a clear disadvantage compared to a younger, digitally native migrant.
For Disability, the disadvantage is equally apparent. A visually impaired person who cannot use the 'View and Prove' service, or a person with a severe anxiety disorder who is unable to manage the online process, is disadvantaged by the digital-only requirement. The PCP fails to account for the diverse needs of disabled individuals, effectively barring them from a process essential to their daily lives in the UK.
A more complex but compelling argument can also be made in relation to Race, which under the Act includes nationality and ethnic or national origins. Migrants, particularly refugees and asylum seekers, are more likely to come from backgrounds with lower levels of digital infrastructure and education. They are also more likely to suffer from trauma and lack the social or financial capital to overcome digital barriers (Hynes, 2021). Therefore, a PCP of digital-only proof of status disproportionately disadvantages non-UK nationals from specific backgrounds when compared to the general UK population (who do not need to use this system) or even compared to migrants from more developed nations.
Under section 19(2)(d), the Home Office could seek to defend the PCP by showing it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The stated aims of security, administrative efficiency, and cost-saving are likely to be deemed legitimate by a court. However, the crucial question is one of proportionality. The proportionality test requires a balancing exercise between the severity of the discriminatory impact on the affected group and the importance of the legitimate aim. A measure will not be proportionate if the same aim could be achieved by less intrusive means.
The 'digital-only' nature of the eVisa system is its primary vulnerability to a proportionality challenge. While a digital system offers benefits, the complete removal of a physical alternative inflicts a severe detriment on those who are excluded. The inability to prove one’s status is not a minor inconvenience; it directly leads to the loss of employment, housing, and access to healthcare. It is highly arguable that these severe consequences are disproportionate to the administrative gains of a digital-only system. A less intrusive, and therefore more proportionate, approach would be a dual system, where a digital status is the default but a secure physical document remains available upon request for those who need it. The failure to provide such an alternative suggests the policy may fail the proportionality test and thus constitute unlawful indirect discrimination.
Furthermore, the Home Office is bound by the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. This requires public bodies to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations. The persistent warnings from the ICIBI, ILPA, and numerous charities suggest that the Home Office has not given sufficient weight to the negative impacts of its policy on vulnerable groups, potentially indicating a failure to properly discharge its PSED.
Common Law Fairness and the Perils of Digital Dependence
Beyond the Equality Act, the move to eVisas raises concerns under common law principles of administrative fairness. A bedrock principle of public law is that of procedural fairness, or natural justice, which demands that individuals be given a fair opportunity to present their case. In this context, it requires that a person with lawful status must be given a fair and accessible means to prove that status. A system that, through its design, prevents a person from doing so could be challenged as being so unfair as to be unlawful. The principle articulated in R (Anufrijeva) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] UKHL 36, that a legal decision is not effective until communicated to the individual, can be extended by analogy: a legal status is of little practical value if the holder has no effective means of evidencing it to the outside world.
Moreover, the digital-only system creates a total dependence on the integrity and functionality of the Home Office's IT infrastructure. System outages, data glitches, or incorrect records could leave an individual entirely without proof of status, through no fault of their own. Unlike a physical BRP, which provides tangible evidence that can be presented even if a government server is down, a digital status simply vanishes during a system failure. This creates a precariousness that is antithetical to the security of tenure a legal status should provide. The 'computer says no' scenario becomes a tangible threat to one's livelihood. Challenging a data error within a vast and opaque government database is a daunting prospect for any individual, let alone one who is already vulnerable and digitally marginalised.
This dependency connects to the broader theme of the 'compliant environment'. The scheme's success relies not only on the migrant but also on the willingness and ability of third parties—employers, landlords, and banks—to use the online checking service correctly. Reports on the EUSS have already shown that some employers are either reluctant to use the digital system or use it incorrectly, leading to wrongful refusals of employment (Herring, 2022). This 'better safe than sorry' approach can lead to de facto discrimination against anyone who cannot present a simple physical document. The Windrush scandal stands as a stark testament to the devastating human cost of a system where individuals, despite decades of lawful residence, were unable to produce the specific documentation demanded by the compliant environment. The eVisa system risks creating a new generation of victims—the 'digital Windrush'—penalised not for their lack of status, but for their inability to navigate the mandatory digital gateway to proving it.
The Inadequacy of Government Mitigation
The Home Office is not entirely oblivious to these risks and has outlined measures intended to provide 'assisted digital' support. This includes a telephone support line and potential for face-to-face assistance for those unable to use the online service independently (Home Office, 2024a). However, these mitigation strategies appear to be reactive and insufficient to address the scale of the problem.
Telephone support is of limited use to those with language barriers, hearing impairments, or conditions like anxiety which make telephone communication difficult. Furthermore, such helplines are often oversubscribed and under-resourced. The promise of face-to-face support is welcome in principle, but its practical implementation is key. If such services are only available in a few city centres during limited hours, they will be inaccessible to many who live in rural areas or have mobility issues.
Critically, these support measures frame digital exclusion as an individual deficit to be corrected, rather than as a systemic flaw in the policy's design. They treat the lack of a physical alternative not as a policy choice, but as an inevitability. Instead of designing an inclusive system from the outset, the government has created a one-size-fits-all model and is patching its most obvious failings with support services whose funding and long-term viability are uncertain. This approach fails to address the core legal problem: the mandatory nature of the digital-only PCP is what creates the discriminatory impact, and this is not necessarily cured by offering discretionary assistance.
Conclusion
The transition to a digital-only eVisa system, while aligned with a broader pursuit of government modernisation, introduces a significant and legally problematic risk of digital exclusion. The policy, in its current mandatory form, creates a discriminatory provision, criterion, or practice that places vulnerable migrants with protected characteristics of age, disability, and race at a particular and severe disadvantage. It is highly questionable whether this rigid approach can be justified as a proportionate means of achieving the government's administrative aims, exposing the policy to a credible challenge under the Equality Act 2010.
Beyond the statutory framework, the system offends common law principles of fairness by creating a precarious dependency on fallible technology and failing to provide an accessible means for individuals to prove their lawful status. The resulting disenfranchisement from work, housing, and healthcare is not a hypothetical risk but a foreseeable consequence, echoing the very injustices the Windrush Lessons Learned Review warned against (Williams, 2020). The current 'assisted digital' provisions are insufficient palliatives for a policy with a fundamental design flaw. Therefore, the answer to the question is a decisive yes: the move to eVisas, in its mandatory and exclusive form, inherently creates a risk of digital exclusion. To avoid this outcome and comply with its legal duties, the government must incorporate a robust, legally recognised, and accessible non-digital alternative for all who need it. Without this, the eVisa system threatens to become a vehicle not of efficiency, but of injustice.
References
CEBR (Centre for Economics and Business Research). (2018) The economic impact of digital inclusion in the UK. Available at: [URL not verified].
Herring, C. (2022) 'Digital-only proof of immigration status could create 'new Windrush-style scandal', MPs and peers warn', PoliticsHome.
Home Office. (2024a) Online immigration status (eVisa). GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/online-immigration-status-evisa (Accessed: [Date of access]).
Home Office. (2024b) View and prove your immigration status: update your UK Visas and Immigration account details. GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/view-and-prove-your-immigration-status-update-your-uk-visas-and-immigration-account-details (Accessed: [Date of access]).
Hynes, J. (2021) Digital Elisions: The Right to be Human in a Digital Age. Public Law, pp. 270-288.
Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA). (2023) Briefing for the House of Lords on the Electronic Travel Authorisation and a Fully Digital Immigration System. ILPA. Available at: [URL not verified, but exists on ILPA website].
Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. (2023a) An inspection of the EU Settlement Scheme (November 2022 – April 2023). GOV.UK.
Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. (2023b) An inspection of the Home Office’s approach to managing the transition to eVisas. GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/an-inspection-of-the-home-offices-approach-to-managing-the-transition-to-evisas (Accessed: [Date of access]).
Mind. (2021) The mental health emergency: How the pandemic has impacted our mental health. Mind.
Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2021) Internet users, UK: 2020. ONS. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/itandinternetindustry/bulletins/internetusers/2020 (Accessed: [Date of access]).
R (Anufrijeva) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] UKHL 36.
Refugee Council. (2023) The long road to safety: The challenges facing newly recognised refugees. Refugee Council.
Williams, W. (2020) Windrush Lessons Learned Review. GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/windrush-lessons-learned-review (Accessed: [Date of access]).
