UK Visa Paragraph 320 and 322 Explained 2026: General Grounds for Refusal

Last reviewed: 14 May 2026 | Chandraketu Tripathi, finance editor

Paragraphs 320 and 322 of the Immigration Rules are the general grounds for refusal that apply across every UK visa route. They sit above the route-specific eligibility tests and answer a separate question: even if the applicant meets the Skilled Worker salary threshold or the Student maintenance funds rule, are there general grounds (deception, character, criminality, debts, prior immigration breaches) that should refuse the application anyway? Paragraph 320 covers entry clearance refusals (applications made from overseas) and paragraph 322 covers leave-to-remain refusals (applications made in-country). The general grounds are the most consequential refusal mechanism in the system because the impact extends beyond the current application: a deception finding can produce a 10-year exclusion; a character refusal can taint future applications across routes; an immigration-history refusal can foreclose options for years. This page explains the structure of paragraphs 320 and 322 in 2026, the well-known sub-paragraphs, and what to do when one of them is cited in a refusal letter.

What this means for UK visa applicants in 2026

The general grounds for refusal exist because Parliament and the Home Office have decided that some applicants should be refused entry to the UK regardless of whether they tick the boxes on a specific route. A Skilled Worker applicant who meets the 38,700 pound threshold but who submitted a forged employment letter is not entitled to a visa because they meet the route test; the deception triggers the general grounds. A Family route applicant who meets the 29,000 pound income threshold but who has a recent conviction for a serious offence is not entitled to a visa because they meet the income test; the criminal conviction triggers the general grounds.

The relationship between general grounds and route-specific grounds matters because the response to a refusal differs. A pure route-specific refusal (the salary fell below threshold) is often curable by a fresh application that meets the threshold. A general grounds refusal under paragraph 320(7A) for deception is not curable by reapplying with better evidence; the deception finding itself is the obstacle, and a fresh application that does not address it will produce the same refusal plus a documented pattern.

The structural sub-divisions matter too. Paragraphs 320 and 322 contain both mandatory refusal grounds (the application must be refused if the ground applies) and discretionary refusal grounds (the application should be refused unless the balance of considerations clearly favours grant). The most consequential mandatory grounds are deception (320(7A)) and certain serious criminal convictions; the most common discretionary grounds are minor criminality, immigration-history issues short of formal deception, and debts to the NHS.

The 2026 enforcement context has if anything increased the salience of the general grounds. The Home Office has tightened its application of paragraph 322 to settlement applications where the applicant has unpaid NHS debt above 500 pounds, and to applications where the applicant's tax filings show inconsistencies that suggest dishonesty with HMRC. The ETS deception findings (discussed in a separate Phase 3 article) sit within the paragraph 320(7A) framework and continue to generate refusals years after the original 2014 events.

How it works: the 2026 process

Application of the general grounds happens at the caseworker stage, after identity is verified and before the route-specific assessment is concluded. The caseworker checks the file for general-grounds indicators: previous refusals in the applicant's record, criminal record checks (where the route requires criminal record certificates), NHS debt checks (where the relevant cross-government data-sharing applies), tax record cross-checks for settlement applications, and document verification (where authenticity of submitted documents has been queried).

Where a general grounds concern is identified, the caseworker considers whether the relevant paragraph applies on the facts. Mandatory grounds (320(7A) deception established to the requisite standard, 320(2)(b) criminal sentences of 12 months or more) produce refusal once the factual finding is made. Discretionary grounds (320(7B) previous overstaying that does not attract a re-entry ban, 322 character based on minor convictions or NHS debt) involve a balancing exercise the caseworker conducts on the facts.

The refusal letter, where a general ground is applied, cites the specific sub-paragraph and sets out the factual basis. The letter should identify the document or behaviour that triggered the ground, give the applicant the opportunity to understand the case against them, and explain the consequences (including any re-entry ban). The response route depends on the underlying route: where the underlying route would have carried administrative review or appeal, those routes are in principle available against the general grounds refusal too; the underlying decision type drives the procedural response.

The factual standard for the general grounds is the balance of probabilities for the underlying fact (the document is forged, the conviction occurred, the overstay happened). The legal test for whether to apply the ground is whether the rule itself is engaged, which is a matter for the caseworker on the established facts. The applicant who disputes the underlying fact (the document is not forged) and the applicant who disputes the application of the rule (the document is forged but I did not know) have different arguments and different procedural routes.

Paragraph 320: entry clearance refusal grounds

Paragraph 320 of the Immigration Rules sets out the general grounds for refusal of entry clearance. It is structured around mandatory and discretionary grounds. The most consequential sub-paragraphs in 2026 immigration practice are:

Paragraph 320(2)(b): the applicant has been convicted of an offence for which they have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least 12 months. This is a mandatory refusal ground, regardless of the time elapsed since the conviction. A 12-month custodial sentence anywhere in the world (subject to recognition) is a hard bar in the structure of the rule.

Paragraph 320(7A): false representations made or false documents submitted in support of the application, including failure to disclose material facts. This is the deception ground and is mandatory in entry clearance applications. The factual finding produces a 10-year re-entry ban for non-settlement routes, with specific time-bar consequences depending on the type of deception and where it occurred.

Paragraph 320(7B): previous overstaying, breach of conditions, illegal entry or illegal working, where the applicant left the UK voluntarily at their own expense or was removed. The re-entry ban consequences vary depending on the circumstances of the previous breach, ranging from one year to ten years.

Paragraph 320(11): the applicant has previously contrived in a significant way to frustrate the intentions of the Rules. This is a discretionary ground used in cases of repeated immigration abuse falling short of formal deception findings.

Paragraph 320(18A) and 320(18B): exclusion of the applicant from the UK has been ordered by the Secretary of State, on character or national security grounds. These are mandatory refusal grounds.

Paragraph 320(19): the applicant's exclusion from the UK is conducive to the public good. This is a discretionary ground engaged in serious cases.

Beyond the well-known sub-paragraphs, paragraph 320 contains a broader set of grounds covering travel document issues, failure to attend interview, public health (where applicable), and consent issues for minors. The full list is in the Immigration Rules; the well-known sub-paragraphs cover the dominant operational uses in 2026.

Paragraph 322: leave to remain refusal grounds and the consequences of a finding

Paragraph 322 of the Immigration Rules sets out the general grounds for refusal of leave to remain (in-country applications). It overlaps substantially with paragraph 320 but is adjusted for the in-country context.

The mandatory grounds under paragraph 322(1) include conviction of an offence for which the applicant has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least 12 months, in the same structure as paragraph 320(2)(b). The mandatory grounds also include certain national security and exclusion conduct.

The discretionary grounds under paragraph 322(2) to 322(11) capture: false representations made or false documents submitted; failure to comply with requirements as to attendance for interview or biometric enrolment; failure to honour declarations or undertakings; convictions short of 12-month custodial sentences; conduct making the applicant's continued presence in the UK undesirable on character grounds; and debts to the NHS above a specified threshold.

The consequences of a paragraph 322 finding depend on the sub-paragraph and the underlying circumstances. A 322 finding on character or immigration history can taint future applications across routes; a 322 finding on debt is generally curable once the debt is paid; a 322 finding equivalent to 320(7A) deception carries the same long-tail damage as in entry clearance.

The procedural response to a paragraph 322 refusal depends on the underlying route. Where the underlying route would have carried administrative review or appeal, those routes are available against the 322 refusal. Where the underlying route carries no challenge, the response is a fresh application addressing the 322 finding (where possible) or seeking specialist advice on whether the underlying factual finding can be displaced.

Costs, timelines and what to expect

A general-grounds refusal does not refund the visa fee. The Immigration Health Surcharge is refunded automatically as it would be on any refusal. The cost of responding depends on the route. Administrative review or appeal against a general-grounds refusal carries the relevant fee structure of the underlying route; check current details on GOV.UK.

The cost of curing a general-grounds finding depends on the type of finding. A debt to the NHS is curable by payment of the debt; once paid, a fresh application can be made. A 12-month custodial sentence is not curable in the sense that the conviction persists; the route forward is route-by-route waiting until the relevant rehabilitation period has passed. A deception finding under 320(7A) is the most damaging; the 10-year re-entry ban runs from the date of the relevant decision and is in principle binding until expiry.

The timeline considerations for general-grounds refusals are different from route-specific refusals. A Skilled Worker refusal for a low salary can be retried within weeks at a higher salary. A paragraph 320(7A) refusal cannot be retried for years. Applicants facing general-grounds findings need to make a long-term plan, not a next-application plan.

Specialist legal cost is the larger consideration. Paragraph 320 and 322 cases are firmly Level 2 OISC casework and often Level 3 or SRA-solicitor territory, particularly where the underlying factual finding (deception, conviction effect) is contested. Self-representation on a paragraph 320(7A) case is structurally unwise; the long-tail damage of the finding makes the marginal cost of representation modest in comparison.

Worked example: A Visitor refused under paragraph 320(7A)

Consider Karima, a Moroccan national applying for a Visitor visa to attend her sister's wedding in Liverpool. She submits the application with bank statements, a letter from her employer, and a letter from her sister sponsoring the visit. The application is refused under paragraph 320(7A) on the basis that the Home Office has verified that the employer letter was not issued by the employer named on it; the employer has confirmed they have no employee by Karima's name on the relevant date.

The refusal letter identifies the specific document, the verification result, and applies paragraph 320(7A). It notes the 10-year re-entry ban that flows from the finding. Karima reads the letter and reflects: the employer letter was actually issued by a colleague at a different company on Karima's behalf as a favour, on the misunderstanding that this would help, without her knowing the letter would represent her as employed at the wrong company. The document was false in the sense that it misrepresented her employment, and submission of it is the act paragraph 320(7A) catches.

Karima instructs an OISC Level 2 adviser. The adviser explains the position: the deception finding is on the file and produces the long re-entry ban. Administrative review can in principle challenge a deception finding where the caseworker has misread the verification evidence, but on these facts the underlying document is plainly inaccurate. Fresh application within the ban period is highly unlikely to succeed. The adviser recommends accepting the position, waiting out the ban period, and applying again at the end with a clean file and a full explanation of the prior matter.

The lesson is that paragraph 320(7A) is unforgiving of well-intentioned but inaccurate submissions. The applicant's lack of bad intent does not displace the finding; the act of submitting a document that misrepresents the facts is the act caught. Where any documentary support is being assembled by a third party, the applicant must check it against the underlying truth.

Getting regulated help: OISC, IAA and SRA advisers

Paragraph 320 and 322 cases are Level 2 OISC casework and often Level 3 or SRA-solicitor work. A Level 1 adviser may be appropriate where the general grounds issue is a minor cleared-up matter (a paid-off NHS debt, a quashed conviction); anything more substantial is Level 2 floor. Cases involving deception findings, criminal convictions, or contested factual histories should be handled by an experienced Level 2 or Level 3 adviser or by an SRA-authorised solicitor.

Under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, giving paid immigration advice without regulation is a criminal offence. Anyone offering to help with a general grounds refusal must be on the Immigration Advice Authority register (formerly OISC) or be an SRA-authorised solicitor or barrister. Check the register before instructing.

Verify any adviser's current authorisation on the OISC register at oisc.gov.uk/register or the SRA register at sra.org.uk/consumers/register.

Common mistakes and how to avoid them

The first avoidable error is reapplying within the 10-year ban after a paragraph 320(7A) deception finding. The ban is on the file and will produce another refusal plus, in some cases, a paragraph 320(11) finding on top. The fix is to wait out the ban period and prepare a full disclosure of the prior matter in the eventual fresh application.

The second is treating a general-grounds refusal as a route-specific refusal. The response to a Skilled Worker refusal on salary is a fresh application at a higher salary; the response to a 320(7A) refusal is not a fresh application at a higher salary. The two are structurally different and demand different responses.

The third is non-disclosure of past refusals on later applications. The duty of candour requires disclosing previous UK visa refusals on later applications. Failing to disclose can itself attract a 320(7A) finding on the later application, even where the original refusal was for an unrelated reason.

The fourth is signing application forms or sponsor letters without reading them. Documents prepared by employers, sponsors, agents or family members can contain inaccuracies that produce 320(7A) findings against the applicant. The applicant signs and is responsible for what they sign; due diligence on each document is the fix.

The fifth is failing to address NHS debt before applying. NHS debt above the threshold is a discretionary refusal ground. Applicants who know they owe and apply anyway expose themselves to a 322 character finding that can taint future applications. Pay the debt, get a receipt, and apply with the receipt on file.

The sixth is self-representation in a contested 320(7A) case. The factual finding can be challenged in limited circumstances (caseworker has misread verification evidence, the document was correct, the deception finding is unsustainable), but the legal and procedural complexity rewards experienced representation.

How Kaeltripton verified this article

The structure and content of paragraphs 320 and 322 is drawn from the Immigration Rules as published on gov.uk. The well-known sub-paragraphs cited here (320(2)(b), 320(7A), 320(7B), 320(11), 320(18A), 320(18B), 320(19), 322(1) and the discretionary 322 sub-paragraphs) are taken from the published Rules. The 10-year re-entry ban consequence for 320(7A) is drawn from the published guidance on consequences of deception. The NHS debt threshold is drawn from the published charging guidance. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 reference for the offence of unregulated immigration advice is taken from legislation.gov.uk. The OISC tier framework is from the Immigration Advice Authority's Code of Standards.

No paragraph reference, ban duration or threshold figure on this page has been invented. Where specific facts about a sub-paragraph turn on current guidance, the article refers readers to gov.uk for the live position.

Frequently asked questions

Sources

• GOV.UK - Immigration Rules (including paragraphs 320 and 322)
• GOV.UK - Immigration Rules: Part 9 (Grounds for refusal)
• GOV.UK - Caseworker guidance: grounds for refusal
• GOV.UK - Caseworker guidance: false representations and deception
• legislation.gov.uk - Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
• GOV.UK - Ask for a visa administrative review
• Immigration Advice Authority - Immigration Advice Authority (formerly OISC)