Proving immigration status to a third party

Proving immigration status to a third party requires the evidence route appropriate to that purpose. An employer check, another status service and a personal account screenshot are not interchangeable merely because each shows immigration information. ^{[1] [2]}

Identify what the receiving organisation must check Ask whether the request concerns employment, renting where the right-to-rent scheme applies, study or another purpose. Use the official status-sharing route appropriate to that purpose. A document that explains an immigration history may not satisfy a prescribed employer check.

Keep the request narrowly focused. Provide the information needed for the check without sharing account credentials or your entire application file. If a share code is rejected, record the message and confirm that the organisation used the correct service before concluding that the underlying permission is invalid.

Separate evidence failure from a status problem A technical inability to show the record needs attention, but the legal position must be assessed from the relevant permission and application history. Conversely, a readable screen should not be used to ignore a later decision or a known condition affecting the proposed activity.

Use Errors in an eVisa account if the digital record is inaccurate and An application pending after existing leave expires where an in-time application is still undecided. Through Immigration refusal review enquiry, explain who needs the evidence, what they are checking and what failed. If employment is involved, ask the employer to consider the applicable official checking process rather than relying on a personal assurance that an application is pending.

Distinguish access to your account from sharing status

Signing into the UKVI account allows the holder to access their record. Sharing proof with an organisation uses a different process. The official eVisa service provides a way to view status and obtain a share code for the relevant purpose. The receiving organisation should use its appropriate checking route rather than asking to operate the holder's account. ^[3]

This distinction matters when an administrator is unfamiliar with digital permission. Offer the information needed for the prescribed check and ask which service they are using. Do not substitute a screenshot merely because it is easier to email. Equally, a request for evidence should not be treated as a reason to disclose the entire history of a confidential immigration dispute.

Diagnose a failed check step by step

Ask the recipient to describe the failure precisely. It may involve an incorrect code, wrong personal detail, unsuitable checking service or a technical error. Compare the details entered with the information used when generating the code. Keep the error wording and date. A vague report that the visa does not work gives little basis for deciding what needs correction.

If the code was generated for a different purpose, obtain the appropriate one through the official service. If the underlying record is wrong, use the eVisa error route and keep its reference. A successful technical retry should still be checked against any known conditions on permission. Solving a code-entry problem does not change restrictions relevant to the activity being proposed.

Understand the employer's separate checking task

For employment, the employer needs to complete the relevant right-to-work process and assess the result. The applicant's assurance that an extension was submitted is not the same as completion of that check. GOV.UK explains the routes available to employers, including situations involving the Employer Checking Service. The appropriate method depends on the person's circumstances. ^[2]

Give the employer the information required for the route it is using, while retaining your own submission and decision records. If a start date or existing employment is affected, explain the practical urgency to the representative. Ask for advice that distinguishes the legal permission to undertake the work from the employer's evidence obligations. Both questions need an answer; one should not be inferred solely from the other.

Keep the evidence proportionate to the recipient

A university, employer and other organisation may ask different questions. Clarify the purpose and legal basis of the request where it is unclear. For instance, proving a permission condition relevant to employment may not require disclosure of a refusal affecting another family member. Separate the requested status evidence from unrelated personal documents before agreeing a transfer.

If someone requests your password or one-time security code, explain that you can provide status through the official sharing process. Where assistance is necessary because of accessibility or language needs, agree a controlled way to help without leaving account access with an unrelated third party. Record who received the evidence and for what purpose, especially where several organisations are involved.

Deal with conflicting records rather than selecting one

If the digital display, an older grant and a later decision appear inconsistent, provide the relevant records to an authorised representative. Do not choose whichever version produces the most convenient answer for the third party. The adviser needs the sequence of events to assess the underlying position and determine whether a technical correction or another response is necessary.

Keep a brief checking log with the request date, purpose, method used and unresolved issue. Once the problem is corrected, ask the organisation whether it needs to perform a fresh check. Retain the confirmation of that step where supplied. A corrected personal record and a completed institutional check are separate events, and a clear log prevents either from being assumed prematurely.

Where a decision arrives while the check is being arranged, tell the representative immediately. Advice based on a pending application may need updating once the application is decided. Keep the new notice with the earlier evidence so the question can be reassessed without reconstructing the history from scattered emails.