Technical errors with the Home Office’s electronic visa (eVisa) system are causing “high levels of stress, fear and exhaustion” for migrants in the UK, who are being left to navigate the digitisation of their immigration status with minimal support, research has found.
The report, Exclusion by design: Digital identification and the hostile environment for migrants, said the error-prone eVisa system represents a precursor of what’s to come with mandatory digital ID, arguing that efforts to digitise the immigration system represent an opportunity to test such systems on a precarious section of the population before extending them out more broadly.
On 31 December 2024, the physical immigration documents of millions of people living in the UK expired after being replaced with a real-time, online-only immigration status by the Home Office.
With paper documents having been completely phased out, people are now expected to use a UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) digital account to generate “share codes”, which they are supposed to use to prove their immigration status when dealing with a range of third parties, including employers and letting agencies.
This means the eVisa system – which trawls more than 90 disparate government databases to generate and determine someone’s immigration status each time they log in – is the only means by which people can prove their lawful residence in the UK, as well as evidence their associated rights and entitlements.
‘Substantial barriers’
However, the research – published on 5 December 2025 by academics Derya Ozkul from the University of Warwick and Marie Godin from the University of Leicester, in collaboration with Migrant Voice and the Open Rights Group – has found that the mandatory eVisa system is deeply impacting the daily lives of migrants, including their ability to work, rent or buy, travel, study, and access vital public services.
“The transition to a fully digital immigration status system marks a significant shift in how migrants interact with the UK’s immigration infrastructure,” it said, noting that while digitisation is being presented as a modernisation effort aimed at improving efficiency and security, the research demonstrates that its current implementation has created substantial barriers for many migrants.
It also found that the “frequent technical problems” are being made worse by a lack of support from the Home Office, and that migrants’ sense of vulnerability is being heightened by the wider hostile environment in which this digitisation is taking place.
“Worries of being unable to prove legal status – within a hostile environment that emphasises enforcement, detention and deportation – were pervasive,” said the report, adding that research participants shared “a deep fear of losing their rights” if they made mistakes.
“Because the system requires migrants to regularly update their information, even minor or inadvertent errors were perceived as potentially jeopardising their status,” it said. “This created a persistent sense of vulnerability. Moreover, the burden of managing these risks and the anxiety associated with them falls entirely on migrants.”
It added that this was creating “a deep sense of mistrust” towards the Home Office among migrants with negative experiences of the system, which were particularly acute for those with limited digital literacy, language barriers, disabilities or caring responsibilities.
The findings echo many of the sentiments previously shared with Computer Weekly by people experiencing technical errors with the eVisa system, who spoke in June 2025 about the “anxiety-inducing” psychological toll of not being able to reliably prove their immigration status in the face of a hostile and unresponsive bureaucracy.
“Our report highlights the experiences of migrants across the UK – of different nationalities, legal statuses and family situations – who were forced to adapt to the new system with little time or support,” said Godin.
“Many described confusion and anxiety as they navigated a complex, glitch-prone platform, fearing that even small mistakes could cost them the right to work, rent or travel. The constant pressure to manage their digital status and fix technical issues left many exhausted, reinforcing migrants’ perceptions that the shift to digitalisation prioritised control over fairness, efficiency and accessibility.”
Ozkul said she hopes the report can serve as a warning about “what can go wrong when systems are made compulsory and digital-only, without offering any alternatives”.
Highlighting how the proposed introduction of digital ID in the UK has been framed around the need to curb illegal immigration, the report said the online-only eVisa has effectively positioned migrants “as a testing ground” for its broader national digital ID ambitions.
“While migrants have served as ‘technological testing grounds’ in other contexts (Molnar 2020), such experiments have typically focused on managing external borders rather than governing populations within state borders,” it said.
“In this respect, the UK represents a distinctive and troubling case: it has piloted a digital identity system on migrants residing within its territory, effectively normalising experimental forms of digital identification on a specific, already precarious group before considering similar digital infrastructures for the general public.”
Policy recommendations
The report goes on to make a number of policy recommendations that can help alleviate the situation for migrants. In the short term, this includes providing non-digital alternatives for migrants, ensuring there is transparency over what data is stored and which government agencies it may be shared with, and creating accessible repeal and redress mechanisms.
In the longer term, it said the Home Office should establish meaningful two-way communication with civil society organisations supporting migrants; introduce clear legal safeguards to prevent individuals or organisations, such as shop staff or political activists, from demanding proof of digital immigration status without lawful authority; and stop the experimental use of technology on migrants.
“The Home Office can take immediate steps to reduce the anxiety that migrants are experiencing by giving them the safety of a physical or digital backup that will allow them to prove their status in any circumstances,” said Sara Alsherif, migrants digital justice programme manager at Open Rights Group, which collaborated with the authors on creating the report.
“However, root and branch reform of this system is also needed and lessons must be learnt, especially as the government intends to roll digital ID out to everyone in the UK.”
The report itself added that implementing the recommendations would significantly reduce the risks and inequities created by the current digital immigration system.
“By prioritising accessibility, transparency and accountability, the Home Office can ensure that the digitalisation of public services does not compromise migrants’ rights,” it said. “Failure to act will perpetuate systemic exclusion, deepen inequalities and erode trust in public authorities.”
Computer Weekly contacted the Home Office about the contents of the report, but received no response.
