Guidance

Complexity application routing solution (visits) (CARS(V)) (accessible)

Published 17 May 2023

Version 4.0

(Previously known as Revised Interim Workflow Routing Solution)

About this guidance

This guidance replaces the previous version 3.0 Revised Interim Workflow Routing Solution for visit applications (published 19 November 2021) and is now known as the Complexity Application Routing Solution – Visits (CARS(V)). It sets out the arrangements which all VSI (Visa, Status and Information Services) Visit’s operations must follow from 25 April 2023, when routing and processing applications from customers applying for a Visitor visa under Appendix V.

This guidance does not cover the following application types:

• overseas domestic worker

• direct airside transit visa

• joining ship

• exempt vignettes

• commonwealth and overseas territories

Although these application types are directed to visit’s operations and processed through CARS(V), this is an administrative function, and no attributes or complexity routing outcome is applied. Visit’s operations will allocate these application types in line with existing workflow processes.

CARS(V) must be used in all visit’s operation’s decision making centres (DMCs).

All other visit applications are routed through CARS(V) to determine the likely complexity of the application. There are four possible outcomes of the routing:

• single person centric attribute (PCA) non-complex direct routing (NCXDR)

• multiple PCA non-complex (NCXPCA)

• multiple PCA complex (CXPCA)

• single PCA complex direct routing (CXDR)

All applications routed through CARS(V) can be assessed by Executive Officer decision-makers (EODMs) but only applications routed NCX may be assessed by Administrative Officer Decision-Makers (AODMs).

In this guidance single and multiple PCA NCX applications are referred to as NCX, and single and multiple PCA complex applications are referred to as CX.

Reference to caseworkers can be an ADOM or EODM, reference to a senior caseworker can be an EODM, Entry Clearance Manager or Operations Manager.

Contacts

If you have any questions about the guidance and your line manager cannot help you or you think that the guidance has factual errors, then email VSI Central Services Team (CST).

If you notice any formatting errors in this guidance (broken links, spelling mistakes and so on) or have any comments about the layout or navigability of the guidance then you can email the Guidance Rules and Forms team.

Publication

Below is information on when this version of the guidance was published:

• version 4.0

• published for Home Office staff on 11 May 2023

Changes from last version of this guidance

This guidance updates that previously issued in November 2021 and used by all VSI Visits operation’s decision-making centres in respect of routing applications submitted in visitor routes under the Immigration Rules (rules).

This guidance has been updated to introduce amendments to the routing process used for visit visa applications. These are:

• changed the name of the routing solution from Complexity Application Routing Solution (CARS) to CARS(V) to avoid confusion with the introduction of CARS in other visa routes

• amendments to the complexity outcomes, moving from 2 PCA outcomes, Non- Complex (NCX) and Complex (CX), to 4 PCA outcomes:

  • single PCA NCX Direct Routing (NCXDR)

  • multiple PCA NCX (NCXPCA)

  • multiple PCA CX (CXPCA)

  • single PCA CX Direct Routing (CXDR)

• changes and additions to the multiple PCAs

• additions to the direct routing single PCAs

• changes to the enrichment process

• changes to the decision assurance process

Approach to routing

This guidance is to be used by all VSI visit’s operations. It covers arrangements for dealing with applications made under Appendix V (the visitor route) of the Immigration Rules.

This guidance outlines the way that visit’s operations are required to route and allocate applications for processing. CARS(V) is an automated routing system that differentiates between complex (CX) and non-complex (NCX) applications so that the application can be allocated to an appropriate grade of caseworker - an Administrative Officer decision- maker (AODM) or an Executive Officer decision- maker (EODM) - or for directive enrichment where the application matches a risk profile. This facilitates an efficient and effective decision-making process, but it does not remove the need for individual caseworkers to consider all the relevant information for an application against the Immigration Rules.

Caseworkers at all grades must continue to assess each application on its individual merits against the rules and Visit guidance, and make decisions based on the information provided by the applicant, supporting documents and any other factors relevant to the application at the date of decision.

Caseworkers at all grades must consider the suitability and eligibility requirements of the rules and must be satisfied that they are met in order to issue a visa. AODMs will only be able to issue visas if they are satisfied the requirements of the rules are met and they are not permitted to refuse applications. Where an AODM has concerns that the requirements of the rules are not met, they must reroute the application to an EODM for further consideration. See the Re-route as Complex (RCX).

The routing includes nationality-based differentiation where this is supported by objective data which evidences a link between a person’s nationality and the likely complexity of an application. For some applicants this may result in more rigorous scrutiny, for example, where they meet a risk profile that has a nationality element. Direct discrimination on the basis of race (nationality) is only permitted where it has been authorised by a ministerial authorisation (“MA”).

More rigorous scrutiny can include any or all of - enrichment (additional checks), referral to a senior caseworker for case consideration or mandating a decision assurance check. The appropriate scrutiny will be defined by a risk profile or determined by caseworkers or enrichment teams in line with guidance.

The CARS(V) system has been considered under the Equality Act 2010 and the Public Sector Equality Duty. Equality impact assessments (EIAs) have been made covering the CARS(V) process, as well as the use of risk profiles, bulk data tables and each person-centric attribute in the routing process. The EIAs consider the impacts on protected characteristics and ensure that the system does not include direct discrimination unless supported by an MA (in relation to race/nationality), or there is objective justification (in relation to age). They also ensure that any indirect impact is justified and is a proportionate means of pursuing the legitimate aim of ensuring the overall integrity of the immigration system.

Visa, Status and Information Services (VSI) staff are required to continually review the impact of policies and processes, and if they identify any equality or discrimination issues, they must raise them without delay with the Central Services Team (CST) for further consideration.

While CARS(V) uses basic algorithms to reach a complexity outcome, it is not automated decision making or machine learning. CARS(V) will identify the complexity level so that the application can be routed to a relevant caseworker grade.

Related content

Re-route as Complex (RCX)

Related external links

Immigration Rules

Visit guidance

Complexity

Visit’s operations have been processing applications using two routing outcomes based on complexity: non-complex (NCX) or complex (CX). CARS(V) introduces 2 sub-categories for each complexity rating so there are 4 possible routing outcomes:

Non-complex (NCX):

• single person centric attribute (PCA) – NCX direct routing (NCXDR): where an application matches a positive attribute which has been identified as a strong indicator that the applicant is likely to be able to easily demonstrate they meet the requirements of the Visitor Rules - for example, where an applicant has a pattern of travel that shows previous compliance with UK immigration law that may indicate the applicant is likely to be a genuine visitor - an application that confirms relevant travel is considered to be appropriate for NCX routing because it is likely that a caseworker will be able to easily verify that information which will be a key factor in determining the application (most straightforward)

• multiple PCAs – NCX (NCXPCA): where an application matches multiple positive attributes which have each been identified as an indicator that the applicant is more likely to be able to demonstrate that they meet the requirements of the Visitor Rules - these PCAs are in 2 tiers - as these attributes are not as strong as the single PCAs an application must match at least 3 (and at least one in Tier A) (straightforward)

Complex (CX)

• single PCA – CX direct routing (CXDR): where an application matches a risk profile, bulk data table entry or a PCA which has been identified as a strong indicator of complexity, such as answering yes to any criminality question, this indicates that the application is likely to require more rigorous scrutiny for a decision maker to determine whether the applicant meets the requirements of the Visitor Rules (least straightforward)

• Multiple PCAs – CX (CXPCA): where the application does not match a strong indicator of non-complexity or a sufficient number of other positive attributes this means that it has not been possible to make a determination about complexity or whether a more detailed assessment will be required - the application should therefore be routed as complex for consideration by an Executive Officer decision-maker (EODM) (less straightforward)

NCX applications would normally be processed by an Administrative Officer decision-maker (AODM), although where a Visit’s operation has no or insufficient AODMs to assess all NCX applications, an EODM should make the decision to avoid processing delays.

An AODM is permitted to assess only single and multiple PCA NCX applications, but an EODM can assess applications of any complexity.

CARS(V) routing process steps

All Visit’s operations must ensure that relevant visit applications are routed using these process steps to determine the complexity outcome.

Step 1: Evidence based risk profiles and bulk data tables

All applications covered by this guidance will be considered under Step 1.

CARS(V) will automatically identify applications which match a risk profile or a bulk data table entry by checking information contained in the visa application against a table listing the profile attributes or known harm data strings.

Where an application matches a risk profile and/or bulk table data, it must be recorded as single person centric attribute (PCA) complex direct routing through the abbreviation CXDR. The complexity case marker is not part of the decision-making process but is used for routing purposes only.

An application marked as CXDR must be routed for more rigorous scrutiny as defined in the section on approach to routing.

Steps 2 and 3 do not apply where an application is routed CXDR in step 1.

Evidence based risk profiles

Risk profiles are combinations of attributes that have been identified as being linked to immigration harm. Visit’s operations can produce their own risk profiles or use those identified by Immigration Intelligence. Either must be cleared through the Central Services team (CST).

Profiles must be supported by objective statistical data. Any profiles which differentiate on nationality may only do so in relation to the countries on a ministerial authorisation (MA) and must demonstrate a rational link to the relevant MA dataset.

All profiles (whether or not they differentiate on nationality) must also be supported by an equality impact assessment (EIA) giving due regard to potential equalities impact. The EIA must be approved by the Visits and International Director. Where there is a potential indirect impact identified based on protected characteristics, the EIA must demonstrate that use of the profile has a legitimate aim and is justified and proportionate. Profiles must not include any element of direct discrimination unless an authorisation exists for that nationality, or there is an objective justification for age.

Each risk profile should also identify what type of more rigorous scrutiny is appropriate. Often this will be referral for enrichment, but it may, for example, be that routing the application to an Executive Officer decision-maker (EODM) will be sufficient.

Profile example:

• an evidence-based risk background document has been provided by Immigration Intelligence stating that first time travel applicants to the UK from an MA nationality, living in their country of nationality and employed by a specific employer have been found to be submitting forged bank statements - applications that match this profile should be routed for more rigorous scrutiny at Step 1, classified as CXDR and assessed by an EODM post enrichment

Risk profiles will be stored in an FCDO SharePoint library, accessible by all EODMs so they understand the routing rationale leading to a CXDR outcome.

Bulk data tables

Bulk data tables are used to identify applications that include data such as email addresses and telephone numbers that have been identified as having been used in previous fraudulent applications.

Visit’s operations can submit entries for inclusion in the bulk data table to CST with an accompanying profile document setting out the evidence and justification for including the entry. CST will consider whether to approve the entry. A centralised bulk table has been created for use by all Visit’s operations.

When CARS(V) identifies a match to bulk data information, the application must be routed to the enrichment team for more rigorous scrutiny who must confirm the match. If CARS(V) incorrectly identifies a match to a bulk data table, the enrichment team must not enrich the application and must route the application to an EODM.

For example, a telephone number can be added to the application form in more than one format. Customers may choose to include (or not) international dialling codes for example:

• a UK telephone number could be presented as 00 44 7999 111 111 or +44 7999 111 111 or 07999 111 111 - where CARS(V) identifies a match to the final 9 digits, in this instance 999 111 111, a caseworker must check that the telephone number matches in full the information in the bulk table data (in this instance dialling code if applicable + 7999 111 111)

Step 2: Single PCA direct routing

CARS(V) uses PCAs that have been identified as strong indicators (“single PCAs”) either that an applicant is likely to be able to easily demonstrate that they meet the Rules or that an application is likely to require more detailed assessment. Where an application matches one of these single PCAs they will be routed as non-complex direct routing (NCXDR) or CXDR, as appropriate, and allocated to either an Administrative Officer decision-maker (AODM) (NCXDR only) or EODM, and multiple PCA Step 3 will not be used.

You can find full descriptions of these indicators in the Single PCAs table and the Complex PCAs table.

CARS(V) identifies responses made by the applicant in the visa application and routes the application as single PCA non-complex (NCXDR) or single PCA complex (CXDR) based on the responses to the relevant PCA questions.

If the application does not meet a single PCA direct routing, it will proceed to step 3.

Step 3: Multiple person-centric attributes

There are a further 9 multiple PCAs (person-centric attributes) which will be applied to applications by CARS(V) where there is no routing under steps 1 and 2.

These PCAs are positive attributes which have each been identified as an indicator that the applicant is more likely to be able to easily demonstrate that they meet the requirements of the Visitor Rules if other positive attributes are also met.

CARS(V) identifies responses made by the applicant in the visa application and routes the application as multiple PCA complex (CXPCA) or multiple PCA non- complex (NCXPCA) based on the responses to the relevant PCA questions.

Where 3 or more multiple PCAs are met, of which at least 1 must match an attribute in Tier A, the application must be recorded as NCXPCA by the Visits Operation. In all other cases the application must be recorded as CXPCA.

End of process outcomes

At the end of the step process CARS(V) will provide a routing outcome. There is an illustration of the CARS(V) step process.

Visit’s operations must ensure they classify application complexity by using “Change risk rating” in Proviso and selecting the appropriate complexity routing. The user must record the change reason as “outcome of streaming tool”.

The complexity codes are used to route applications to the appropriate caseworker grade. Visit’s operations can generate management information (MI) using the Business Activity Monitoring (BAM) overview or the Proviso ‘Event Note Search’

If a Visit’s operation wishes to introduce any sub codes to be added to the spare code to assist workflow efficiency, they may do so but only after consultation with CST.

Related content

Single PCAs table Complex PCAs table Person-centric attributes

Illustration of the CARS(V) process

Person-centric attribute (PCA) framework

The aim of PCAs is to indicate to Visit’s operations the likely complexity of an application in order to allocate it to the appropriate caseworker for assessment.

CARS(V) outcomes are determined by single or multiple PCAs, as explained earlier. Each outcome is given a complexity rating (see the Complexity section for descriptions of these outcomes):

• single PCA – NCX direct routing (NCXDR)

• multiple PCA – NCX (NCXPCA)

• multiple PCA – CX (CXPCA)

• single PCA – CX direct routing (CXDR)

A key consideration for applications on the Visit Route is whether the applicant is a genuine visitor, and the Visit guidance sets out a number of factors that can be considered by caseworkers that may help in making that assessment. As well as considering all of the Visit rules, caseworkers must also consider whether an applicant should be refused under the General Grounds for Refusal.

Some applicants will be able to demonstrate that they meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules more easily than others. For example, some applicants will be able to point to objective evidence that links to factors which are relevant to the credibility assessment – such as a pattern of previous compliant travel to the UK. Others, however, may have to declare criminality which may be a ground for refusal.

The PCA framework identifies attributes that are relevant to the assessments that caseworkers need to make and that are common either to applications which are considered complex or to applications which are considered non-complex. The visa application includes questions which enable applicants to provide the relevant information and CARS(V) matches those responses to the identified attributes.

Once an application is assigned to a caseworker, based on its complexity outcome, the decision maker must assess it on its individual merits. Caseworkers must not use the complexity routing as a basis for their assessment of an application.

Visit’s operations are encouraged to provide feedback to aid in the ongoing evaluation and development of CARS(V). Fortnightly governance calls are held with the Visits and International network to review performance and possible changes, including identification of other relevant attributes. Any additional attributes must be agreed by the Central Services Team (CST) and will require a full equality impact assessment (EIA).

Applications under this guidance where single PCA direct routings will be used

Single PCAs are strong indicators either that an applicant is likely to be able to easily demonstrate that they meet the rules or that an application is likely to require more rigorous scrutiny. These will be allocated to the appropriate grade of caseworker based on the single PCA direct routings.

Allocation directly as complex (CXDR)

Single PCA CX direct routing applications must be assessed by an Executive Officer decision-maker (EODM).

These applications are considered to be the least straightforward to assess. Applications directly routed as CX include an attribute that indicates that the application is likely to require more rigorous scrutiny for a caseworker to determine whether the applicant meets the requirements of the rules.

The single PCAs that route as CX are listed in the table below.

These applications are assessed in accordance with the rules and Visitor guidance, and the decision maker must conduct a full subjective assessment in order to be satisfied whether, on the balance of probabilities, the requirements of the rules are met.

Official – sensitive: start of section

The information in this section has been removed as it is restricted for internal Home Office use.

Official – sensitive: end of section

Allocation directly as non-complex (NCXDR)

This routing – NCXDR - can only apply to applications that are not routed as CXDR. These applications are considered to be the most straightforward to assess.

Applications directly routed as NCX include at least one single PCA attribute that is a strong indicator that the applicant is likely to be able to easily demonstrate they meet the requirements of the Visitor Rules, and in particular the genuine visitor and intention to leave requirements.

See the Single person-centric attributes table below.

These applications must still be assessed in accordance with the rules and Visit guidance, however, a caseworker may be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the requirements of the rules are met by verifying the statements made in the application against the supporting evidence and any other information provided. It may not be necessary to verify all the information given.

Official – sensitive: start of section

The information in this section has been removed as it is restricted for internal Home Office use.

Official – sensitive: end of section

Applications under this guidance where multiple PCA outcomes will be used

As set out above, single PCAs are strong indicators that an applicant is likely to be able to easily demonstrate that they meet the Rules or that an application is likely to require more detailed assessment. These will be allocated to the appropriate grade of decision maker based on the single PCA direct routings.

Applications that have not been directly routed as CX or NCX through a single PCA will be considered against a further set of PCAs to determine likely complexity.

CARS(V) uses 9 attributes for the multiple PCA outcomes. These are positive attributes that indicate that an application is less likely to be complex, but as they are not as strong as the single identifiers described above an applicant must have a combination of these attributes to be considered appropriate for routing as NCX to an AODM.

The 9 multiple PCAs are in 2 tiers based on the steps the potential complexity of any verification process. These are set out in the tables below.

• Tier A – these attributes can be verified by objective evidence or checking existing Home Office data and official systems - the verification process is therefore likely to be non-complex, and suitable for an AODM

• Tier B – these attributes are more likely to be reliant on evidence provided by the applicant or a third party that is harder to verify - in combination with other evidence and other positive attributes the application may still be non-complex overall

In order to meet the threshold for routing to NCXPCA, at least 3 PCAs must be met of which 1 must be from Tier A. For example, all 3 matches can be from Tier A, or 2 matches from Tier A and 1 from Tier B, or 1 match can from Tier 1 and 2 from Tier 2. Without at least 1 match from Tier A the application will be routed CXPCA.

Meeting the multiple PCAs threshold means that an applicant has at least 3 positive attributes, of which at least one is likely to be objectively verified. In combination this is likely to mean that the applicant can readily demonstrate they meet the requirements of the visit rules, and the case-working will be NCX.

If the multiple PCA threshold is not met it means that the applicant does not have sufficient indicators of non-complexity and it is not possible through the routing process to determine the complexity of the application. It is therefore appropriate to give these applications a CX outcome and refer them to senior caseworkers.

Applications meeting the threshold for routing to NCXPCA must still be assessed in accordance with the rules and Visitor guidance, however, a caseworker may be satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities the requirements of the rules are met by verifying the statements made in the application against the supporting evidence and any other information provided. It may not be necessary to verify all statements made.

Where an application meets less than 3 multiple PCAs, the application will route to multiple PCA CX (CXPCA). Multiple PCA NCX (NCXPCA) outcomes can be assessed by an AODM, but multiple PCA CX (CXPCA) outcomes must be assessed by an EODM.

Official – sensitive: start of section

The information in this section has been removed as it is restricted for internal Home Office use.

Official – sensitive: end of section

Minor children

In the case of minor children (under the age of 18) travelling in a family group, we should reasonably accept the outcome of the parent’s or lead applicant’s attributes as being relevant to the child. In these cases, minor children should be recorded as having the same complexity outcome as their parent or lead applicant.

In the case of an accompanying adult who is not a direct relative of the main applicant the applicant’s complexity will be determined by CARS(V). Visit’s operations may wish to link the applicant within proviso to aid in allocation and preventing the applicant being assessed separately from the main group.

Official – sensitive: start of section

The information in this section has been removed as it is restricted for internal Home Office use.

Official – sensitive: end of section

Related content

Complexity section

Step 1

Decision making

Visit’s operations must maintain a clear distinction between CARS(V) routing and caseworking and ensure that the routing of a case does not influence the decision on an application. The routing based on the outcome of CARS(V) must be used only to indicate the likely complexity and subsequent handling.

All decision making in CARS(V) routed applications must be made in accordance with the rules and Visit guidance.

Caseworkers will be required to conduct operating mandate checks on all applications.

Re-route as complex (RCX)

As set out in the Visit guidance, Administrative Officer decision-makers (AODMs) must re-route a non-complex (NCX) application to complex (RCX) if:

• the purpose or duration of the visit is not permitted by the rules

• an application is subject to an adverse UKVI Operating Mandate match

• no evidence, other than the application form, is presented with the application

• they are unable to assess the application in full because, while some evidence has been submitted to enable a consideration to take place, some information is missing

• the application includes evidence which, following consideration, indicates irregularities, and the caseworker considers that further analysis or checks are required to confirm the veracity

• a previous application has been refused on suitability grounds (Suitability grounds means a refusal under paragraph 9.7.1 or 9.7.2 of the Immigration Rules, or, prior to 1 December 2020 a refusal under paragraph V3.6 or paragraph 320(7)(a) of the Immigration Rules then in force)

• they have any concerns about modern slavery or safeguarding

• they have any other doubts about the evidence presented

• they have any other concerns that the Rules might not be met

Complex and non-complex decision making

AODMs are primarily trained to make administrative decisions, where the statements in the application can normally be verified by checking against the supporting evidence and any other information provided. AODMs must not refuse applications, or draft refusal notices for Executive Officer decision-makers (EODMs). These are skills for EODMs, who receive additional training and guidance on considering refusals and drafting refusal notices.

When an AODM ‘re-routes as complex’ (RCX) an application to an EODM, they must complete a full case note in Proviso explaining the reasons and defer the application in the Proviso system. The deferral event note will vary depending on local Visit’s operations practices, but this would normally be done using the ‘Defer – Other’ event note and change the complexity rating in Proviso changed from NCXDR or NCXPCA to RCX to aid workflow routing and management information (MI) counting for the number of cases which are being re-routed.

EODMs must assess each application against the Immigration Rules and each application will be decided based on the information provided by the customer and any other relevant factors at the date of decision. There must be no presumption that an application will result in a particular outcome based on it being routed to or re-routed to an EODM.

AODMs may only assess single and multiple PCA NCX applications, and EODMs may assess all applications regardless of their category or routing.

Training

Modular training packages for both Administrative Officer decision-makers (AODMs) and Executive Officer decision-makers (EODMs) have been created by the Visits Training Team and cascaded to Visit’s operations for delivery to caseworkers, these include:

• confirmation bias and equality act training to refresh awareness of equality discrimination legislation

• fraud awareness training to aid the identification of fraudulent documents and harm indicators as well as cases routed as non-complex which may be fraudulent

The AODM Foundation Training Course is updated regularly as the rules and Visit guidance changes. Changes in this guidance will also be reflected in the course.

New AODMs should not be used to assess non-complex (NCX) applications until they have received the latest AODM Foundation Training and met the required standard, confirmation bias, equality act and fraud awareness course.

Existing operational AODMs, who have previously been trained and met the required standard, must read this guidance before continuing to assess NCX applications.

Enrichment

Enrichment is one of the types of more rigorous scrutiny that can be applied to an application. Examples of enrichment include, document verification, requests for further evidence and interview of the applicant or of a sponsor.

The framework will have 3 levels of checks:

• UKVI Operating Mandate checks

• profile directed checks – where an application has matched a risk profile or an entry in a bulk data table, the profile/table will direct recommended checks

• caseworker directed checks – where a caseworker identifies any irregularity in the information or evidence provided the application may be referred for enrichment on a case-by-case basis

Operating Mandate checks must be conducted on all applications.

Profile directed checks - where a profile match is found, the application must be deferred to the DMC Enrichment or Checks Team. The ultimate decision to conduct the defined check will be determined by the Enrichment or Checks Team. In some cases, experience might inform that checks cannot be successfully completed or a more appropriate check in place of the profile defined check is now available.

Where enrichment is directed by a profile, the application must be recorded as complex (CX) and thereafter assessed by an Executive Officer decision-maker (EODM) following the outcome of any the checks completed.

Nationality based enrichment is not permitted unless there is an approved risk profile supported by the ministerial authority (MA).

When an application matches a defined profile the relevant scrutiny to be carried out will be defined in the CARS(V) outcome.

Caseworker directed checks – EODMs can refer any application for enrichment on a case-by-case basis.

Administrative Officer decision-makers (AODMs) would not normally commission any enrichment checks as the type of activity requiring a check for an non-complex (NCX) application is likely to require to be re-routed to complex RCX) in line with the Visit guidance. Any referral for enrichment should be agreed with a senior caseworker officer unless a standing instruction has been issued by the relevant Visit’s operation.

In some circumstances a senior caseworker may enable an AODM to conclude an NCX application, that the AODM has raised a concern about, without it being re- routed or additional checks being completed. The senior caseworker must have considered the wider evidence and must be satisfied that a decision can be reached on the basis of that information. In these circumstances, the senior caseworker must justify their decision in an event note before enabling the AODM to proceed.

Official – sensitive: start of section

The information in this section has been removed as it is restricted for internal Home Office use.

Official – sensitive: end of section

The type of checks which might be undertaken by to deliver effective enrichment are below. This list is not exhaustive.

Types of checks include:

• business registration

• management information and data analytics (MIDA) / Exit checks

• hotel reservations

• forgery examinations

• 5CC / other missions

• bank / financial institution

• local tax

• open source

• Companies House

• telephone interview

• multiple sponsor check

• verification + (including DWP)

• UK – birth / marriage / death certificates

• employment checks

• i-Search / CRS / CID

• GB accelerator

• sponsor interview

• His Majesty’s Passport Office (HMPO) / nationality

• other immigration authority

Visit’s operations decision making centres (DMCs) should continue to work closely with Immigration Intelligence colleagues to produce awareness briefings for decision- makers. These may inform other potential scenarios for enrichment checks.

The outcomes of all enrichment activity, positive and negative, should be considered at the monthly Operational Review Meeting (ORM) with Immigration Intelligence teams and used to inform profiles and direct future enrichment. Details of the consideration should be recorded in a DMC decision log.

Visit’s operations should conduct a minimum of 10% compliance checks of individuals issued a visa, using random objective sampling. Where DMCs have scope to increase these checks they are encouraged to do so. Exit checks or Management Information and Data Analytics (MIDA) are the most effective and quickest way of determining whether someone has complied with the terms of their visa entry, although other checks should also be considered. The sampling should be conducted monthly, covering the previous month to ensuring early awareness of non-compliance and potential harm.

Related content

Re-routed as CX

Decision assurance

Decision assurance requirements are set out in OPI 1342, published on 16 March 2023.

Illustration of the CARS(V) process

Official – sensitive: start of section

The information in this section has been removed as it is restricted for internal Home Office use.

Official – sensitive: end of section