Statement of changes HC 1691: changes for refugees, skilled workers, children and more - Free Movement

A new statement of changes was published yesterday spanning a whole range of changes big and small across many different categories, including refugees, skilled workers, children settling under Part 8, Part Suitability, BN(O) and English language for settlement applications.

Many of our readers, both practitioners and migrants, will have been checking the news anxiously for updates on two areas in particular: the expected increase to the standard qualifying period for categories like skilled worker and the abolition of the long residence route to settlement under Appendix Long Residence. Neither of these changes feature in this statement of changes, which probably means we should expect those changes in the autumn.

However, as expected following the government’s latest briefings, the first steps have now been taken to overhaul the settlement framework for refugees.

The statement amends Part 11 and Appendix Settlement Protection in two critical respects, though neither amendment extends the qualifying period (yet).

Anyone who succeeds in an asylum claim lodged on or after 2 March 2026 (whether this takes the form of a first claim or further submissions) will now receive 30 months of permission instead of the previous five years, under the changes made to Part 11. This applies to grants of both asylum and humanitarian protection, and will necessitate extensions to be made “within the last 28 days of the applicant’s permission to stay”.

Successful claims (or further submissions) lodged on or before 1 March 2026 will still result in a grant of five years’ permission, which again includes both asylum and humanitarian protection. Unaccompanied children are also excluded from the changes and will receive five years of permission.

People who fall within this cohort are expected to still be able to settle after five years, as the memorandum explains:

Adults and accompanied and unaccompanied children granted 5 years leave as a result of an asylum claim or further submissions made by 1 March 2026 will remain eligible to apply for settlement after 5 years under Appendix Settlement Protection.

This is welcome news, as it was not at all clear whether the draconian proposed changes to the refugee route would affect refugees already in the route to settlement or those waiting for a decision. I unfortunately don’t put much stock in the chances of a legal challenge to defeat the planned “earned settlement” proposals on the grounds of legitimate expectation simply on the basis that people moved here under a certain set of rules and those rules then changed. Though I’d be thrilled to be proved wrong. However, if the Home Office does decide to change this particular policy later and impose a longer qualifying period for this group, this sentence feels a lot more like the kind of unequivocal promise that may form a stronger basis for such a claim.

Appendix Settlement Protection is amended to provide an explicit basis for “active review”:

STP 4.2. When considering the Settlement protection application, a safe return review will be undertaken unless the SSHD directs otherwise to consider whether there have been any changes in personal circumstances or country conditions that could lead to a grant of refugee status or humanitarian protection being revoked or not renewed as per paragraph 339A to 339AC and 339G to 339GD of the immigration rules

The reference to those paragraphs already found in Part 11 of the rules means that decision makers already have the power to revoke refugee status or humanitarian protection on those grounds. However, I understand that in practice, this only tends to be looked at where either there is criminality serious enough to trigger a status review or there has been an enormous regime change, such as in the recent case of Syria. This may therefore represent not so much a change in the decision maker’s powers to refuse an application on this basis, but rather a codification within the settlement rules, obligating the decision maker to consider it in every application.

This will have the effect of turning what are currently relatively straightforward applications, at least in most cases, into ones that require significantly more evidence for the refugee to prepare, even if there is a low risk of a refusal in their particular circumstances. In many cases, this will necessitate the assistance of an immigration lawyer, which costs money given the endemic lack of capacity in the legal aid sector.

Finally, there is a rather odd addition to Part 11, which will now say:

Notwithstanding any procedure in this Rule, the Secretary of State may disclose the fact that an asylum application has been made if there is a public interest in doing so.

The accompanying memorandum devotes a surprising number of words to defending something that appears quite indefensible at first blush, with a greater vehemence than any previous memorandum that I can recall:

There is intense media and public interest in migrants who have been arrested, charged or convicted of serious criminal offences. Disclosure of immigration status has been increasingly requested by media. It continues to be important that we do not routinely disclose that an individual has made an asylum claim, so that we do not risk alerting the alleged perpetrators. However, where certain conditions are met and where there is a public interest, we may publicly confirm the existence of an asylum claim.

This is only a third of the word count devoted to explaining this part of the policy. As my friend and colleague, Ross Kennedy, astutely pointed out, this appears to conflate “public interest” with “the public’s interest in” something. There may be a political benefit to the government disclosing the existence of an asylum claim, or at least the government might believe there is one, but this does not mean that it is in the public interest for it to be disclosed.

The memorandum does envisage some safeguards, though this does not fill me with an abundance of confidence:

The Home Office position is not to routinely comment on individual cases. In future, disclosure will only occur in cases where a comprehensive consideration of the public interest has been completed and the threshold is met. The public interest will be met where all of the following conditions have been met: (a) a person has either been charged with a particularly serious crime or we have been advised that the person has been charged and the case is so high profile as to meet this threshold criteria, or that the person has been charged and there are significant cumulative offences sufficient to meet this threshold criteria; and (b) sufficient information upon which to complete a considered decision is available; and (c) disclosure is in accordance with data protection obligations; and (d) the risk of disclosure to actors of persecution is considered; and (e) there are no exceptional reasons not to disclose; and (f) the minimum necessary data is disclosed.

Not to keep labouring the point but I struggle to imagine any circumstances in which the public (as opposed to the government) would benefit from knowing that someone charged with a particularly serious crime has claimed asylum, particularly given the fact that “charged with” is rather different to “is guilty of” or even “has been convicted of”. I don’t understand what the public is supposed to do with this information, other than, presumably, be a little less upset with the government for not immediately removing that person from the country following the first outraged Daily Mail headline.

This is particularly problematic given the very real risk that, despite these guardrails, the person in question may very well be exposed to a genuine risk of persecution as a result of that disclosure. This may even have the inadvertent effect of strengthening an individual’s asylum claim because of that additional risk. At times like these, it is difficult to believe that this was the same party that brought in the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Good Friday Agreement.

Finally, a further change being brought in for refugees affects asylum seekers’ right to work. Currently, an asylum seeker who has been waiting for over a year for their claim to be decided can request permission to work. Under the current rules, found in Part 11B, this can be any employment as long as the role appears on Appendix Immigration Salary List.

Under the new rules, this can be any role that appears in Appendix Skilled Occupations but only if its skill level is RQF 6 or higher (i.e. degree level roles). This again feels counterproductive and is particularly unhelpful given that there is likely a general consensus on both sides of the political spectrum that asylum seekers who are waiting for a decision on their claim should be permitted to work instead of being reliant on the meagre amount they would otherwise receive from the state in asylum support (though admittedly for different reasons).

The above changes take effect on 26 March 2026.

The procedure for lodging further submissions is also being codified in the rules as of 8 April 2026, which will include validity provisions:

353AA. A person making further submissions must attend an in-person appointment at a Service and Support Centre (SSC). 353AB. At the date of making further submissions, the person must meet all of the following requirements: (a) the person must be in the UK; (b) the person must be a failed asylum seeker meaning that their initial asylum claim has been refused or withdrawn, including where it has been treated as withdrawn under paragraph 33C of the Rules; and (c) the person must have no outstanding asylum or protection claim or, 10 appeal before the Secretary of State, First tier Tribunal, Upper tier Tribunal or before any court on protection or human rights grounds

Where the validity provisions are not met, the Home Office will be able to treat the further submissions as invalid and not consider them. There are also provisions for circumstances in which the Home Office will treat further submissions as implicitly or explicitly withdrawn.

“Visa Brake” – a ban on certain nationals entering as a student or skilled worker

Continuing the theme of imposing punitive conditions in an attempt at deterring asylum seekers, the nationals of four countries are no longer permitted to apply for entry clearance as a student:

Further, nationals of Afghanistan are no longer able to apply for entry clearance as skilled workers, at least when applying as a main applicant (meaning that they can still apply as dependants where the main applicant has a different nationality). In both cases, this does not affect people already in the UK applying to extend or switch into these routes.

These also take effect on 26 March 2026. However, applications lodged before this date will be considered under the current rules, representing a small window in which eligible applicants can enter the UK on this basis before the rule change.

The memorandum suggests this is a temporary measure, open to review:

The brake is not intended to be permanent and will be regularly reviewed, with the aim that it can be released as soon as it is considered appropriate to do so.

The main change for this route is the addition of tailored provisions for roles under SOC code 3314 Prison service officers (below principal officer), likely following the “lobbying” that the Prisons Minister carried out in order to bring to the government’s attention that not having enough prison officers is a problem, actually. I am using the word “lobby” because that is the term used in the media coverage but I do find it baffling how a government minister can be in any way described as “lobbying” in circumstances where they are merely doing their job by highlighting the requirements of their department and anything else that might reasonably fall within their purview.

In any case, prison staff can take heed that people can continue to be sponsored for these roles in the skilled worker route, at least for the time being. Those falling within this route can claim points for a job at the appropriate skill level under Option F of Appendix Skilled Worker where they are switching from other routes, such as the graduate route, where they do not meet the transitional criteria. Under this provision, the applicant must be paid the higher of the transitional general salary threshold of £31,300 or the going rate for this SOC code, namely £31,600.

This will apply only to applications for leave to remain. Where someone is switching on this basis, their application must be lodged before 1 January 2027, with the end date on their certificate of sponsorship no later than three years after the start date. It appears extensions will be possible, too, as long as they were first granted leave in this SOC code based on a certificate of sponsorship assigned before 1 January 2027. Existing dependents already in the UK can switch into this category along with the main applicant when applying for leave to remain.

This is stated to be a time-limited measure, though hopefully this expectation will be founded on something other than the usual hope that the native British population will any day now rise up to take up the difficult, low-paying jobs that they have historically been disinclined to embrace with the fervour that the anti-immigration government of the day requires of them.

The second change to the skilled worker route relates to pay periods and introduces a requirement for sponsored workers to be consistently paid the minimum salary within specified pay periods, designed to identify any sponsors that may be skirting the rules regarding how much they must pay their workers without the need to examine a full year of averaged salary payments:

SW 14.3B. A worker must be paid the required salary in pay periods of at least monthly frequency, or as otherwise specified in their contract, and: (a) The salary paid to the worker in each pay period must equal or exceed the going rate for every hour worked in that pay period. (b) Subject to (c) and (d): (i) where the worker is paid at a frequency of monthly or less, the salary paid to the worker over any three-month period must be at least equal to a quarter of the required annual salary; or (ii) where the worker is paid more frequently, the salary paid to the worker over any 12- week period must be at least equal to 12/52 of the required annual salary. (c) If the worker is being sponsored to work a pattern where the regular hours are not the same each week, resulting in uneven pay, the sponsor must confirm the working pattern and the salary over any 17-week period must be at least equal to 17/52 of the required annual salary. (d) If the pay is below the requirements in (c) in any given period, due to salary subtractions in SW 14.2(a) being subtracted over a shorter period than the length of time the applicant is being sponsored for, the sponsor must confirm this.

This change takes effect on 8 April 2026.

A brand new path to endorsement is being introduced for those working in the design industry as its own field. The requirements will be broadly similar to the other categories:

GTE 4A.1. An applicant for endorsement in the field of design must satisfy the endorsing body that they have either been recognised as an exceptional talent, or someone with exceptional promise, in the field of design and: (a) are professionally engaged in producing outstanding applied, published, distributed, or internationally exhibited work; and (b) show regular professional engagement in their field in the last 5 years; and (c) if evidencing exceptional talent, show a substantial track record in at least 2 countries; and (d) if evidencing exceptional promise: i) be at an early stage in their career; and ii) show a developing track record in one or more countries

The evidentiary requirements, also introduced as part of this statement of changes, are exactly what you would expect and in line with the similar provisions for architecture and the arts.

These changes take effect on 1 July 2026, presumably so the Home Office has time to identify an appropriate endorsing body for this field.

There are also amendments that promise to simplify the “fast track” pathway under the British Academy, the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society with respect to eligible academic or research positions:

The appointments pathway acts as a proxy for the full peer review endorsement pathway, allowing applicants to qualify with fewer evidential requirements, as they have already passed a similar peer review to be offered their eligible appointment. The changes will simplify the requirements around eligible positions as these have previously caused some confusion in the sector, leading 15 applicants who would have been eligible for the fast-track route instead applying through the full peer review pathway; a longer, more involved process. The simplified criteria cover all PhD-level roles in an approved UK Higher Education Institution or research institute, where the applicant either has responsibility for academic, research or innovation leadership and development, or whose role requires them to perform research or innovation as a primary function.

Some of the amendments genuinely simplify the evidentiary requirements, including amending the provision of GTE 8.6(b)(iv) from this (which was always quite confusing to parse):

(iv) the applicant: (1) has responsibility for academic, research or innovation leadership and development; or (2) will direct or lead an individual or team research project or research programme of work; or (3) will direct or lead an individual or team innovation project or innovation programme of work

(iv) the applicant: (1) has responsibility for academic, research or innovation leadership and development; or (2) will be performing research or innovation as a primary function of their role;

These changes take effect from 8 April 2026.

There are two main changes being made to this route.

Appendix Global Business Mobility – Service Supplier will see the implementation of the UK/India Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), with an annual allocation of 1,800 spots for Indian nationals, over the course of each calendar year, for:

This change takes effect on 25 March 2026.

Additionally, from 7 April 2026, anyone applying under Appendix Global Business Mobility – Secondment Worker will need to have worked outside the UK for their employer for a total period of six months (currently, this is 12 months).

This will take effect from 8 April 2026.

As of 8 April 2026, the relevant date used as a reference for calculating the period of time spent in the UK will now be the start date listed on the certificate of sponsorship (instead of the date of application, which is the current reference date).

As of 8 April 2026, the quota for each relevant country will be updated as follows:

Republic of Korea – 5,000 places

In all cases, the allocated slots have either stayed the same or have been slightly increased.

In line with the “earned settlement” proposal published in November 2025, the Home Office is increasing the English language proficiency required for settlement from CEFR level B1 to B2 across almost all categories. The changes are being effected by way of an amendment to Appendix KoLL (for categories like Appendix FM) and most of the skilled migration categories individually that have their own individual English language provisions.

Although the amendments to these rules take effect on 26 March 2026, there are effectively transitional provisions baked into the rules, as they will only apply to applications lodged on or after 26 March 2027.

Children applying for settlement under Part 8 (Kone)

Regular readers may be familiar with the recent decision in R (on the application of Kone) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1653, which we covered here. The Court of Appeal held that a child with a settled or British parent in the UK is not excluded from settlement under paragraphs 297 and 298 of Part 8 just because their other parent is in the UK with limited leave.

The Home Office lost the case at the Upper Tribunal stage and then lost again at the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal then refused them permission to appeal further, likely because the Home Office case amounted to “I know it doesn’t say that an applicant will qualify if they only have a settled parent in the UK but this is what we meant when we wrote this rule 20 years ago”.

Instead of attempting to appeal the case directly in the Supreme Court, the government did what any of us hope we would have the courage to do when faced with our own shortcomings, particularly when something as important as the best interests of minor children is involved: immediately change the relevant rules to something that would have won the case, maybe, had they thought of it earlier.

Of course, that’s not how the memorandum put it (my emphasis):

Following the recent Court of Appeal case of Kone, the Home Office is clarifying the policy on when a dependent child can settle in the UK under paragraphs 297 and 298 in Part 8.

The memorandum goes on to suggest (also my emphasis):

The intention of the child settlement rules in Part 8 is that a child should settle in the UK when both parents are settled or are British citizens. If only one parent is settled the child can be granted settlement if that parent has sole responsibility (e.g. the other parent is deceased or has abdicated responsibility) or there are compelling and compassionate circumstances.

The reason this is rather disingenuous is that the entire basis of the Kone case was the presence of “serious and compelling circumstances” for why the child claimant’s exclusion from the UK was undesirable, namely that both of her parents were here. That is the existing test under the relevant provisions in paragraphs 297 and 298, not a new addition presented under the guise of a clarification.

The amendment, in fact, removes this as a basis for application by adding an additional requirement (my emphasis):

(f) one parent or a close relative is present and settled in the United Kingdom or being admitted on the same occasion for settlement, their other parent does not have (and is not being granted) limited leave in the UK and there are serious and compelling reasons to grant the applicant settlement

This also amends the test from “serious and compelling family or other considerations which make exclusion of the child undesirable” to “serious and compelling reasons to grant the applicant settlement”, in line with the test in work routes like skilled worker and global talent. This may seem like a minor difference at first glance but it is likely to be significant in application when you consider that this changes the test from considering settlement versus exclusion from the UK (albeit a theoretical one) to settlement versus limited leave.

Although the memorandum states that the rules “have been updated to align with the crosscutting Appendix Children Immigration Rules so reference to ‘exclusion of the child’ has also been removed”, this actually imposes a harsher test on children applying for settlement than that found in the work/skilled migration categories to which Appendix Children applies:

CHI 4.3. The applicant’s other parent (who is not the person (P)) in CHI 4.1. must be being granted settlement at the same time, or be settled or a British citizen, unless: (b) the decision maker is satisfied that there are serious and compelling reasons to grant the applicant settlement

That means that a child whose parent has settlement in the skilled worker route, whose other parent has limited leave in the same route, can settle if there are “serious and compelling circumstances to grant the applicant settlement” but the child of a British citizen and a second parent with limited leave (such as under Appendix FM) cannot settle, even if there are “serious and compelling circumstances to grant the applicant settlement” because of the mere presence of their other parent.

Also, excluding children from this provision on the basis of a second parent with limited leave seems self-defeating as this appears to put children with a parent who is here without any kind of leave at all in a better position. Admittedly, it may be more difficult to show that there are “serious and compelling circumstances” where one of the parents is in the UK without a clear path to permanent status but certainly not impossible.

This also raises the question of why the government insists on wasting taxpayers’ money on extremely expensive appeals regarding the interpretation of the immigration rules. If they are happy to simply change those rules when they lose, it would surely be simpler to just jump straight to the end.

The changes take effect on 26 March 2026 with no transitional provisions. It is possible to make applications in this route on a super priority basis, at least when applying from within the UK, to try to get a decision before the rules change. However, given the fact-sensitive nature of these applications, it seems likely that the Home Office would notify the applicant that the complexity involved means that they are unable to decide the application within the usual 24 hour standard and then sit on it until after the rules have changed, at which point the new rules would apply. Still, if I had a client who had a very good reason to try to get the application decided under the current rules, I would be tempted to try this.

Children of domestic violence victims

In another welcome change in a grim landscape, from 26 March 2026, children of applicants under Appendix Victim of Domestic Violence will no longer have to meet an adequate maintenance or accommodation requirement. Further, children applying in this route who are now over 18 will no longer need to meet the English language or Life in the UK requirement.

Nationals of St Lucia and Nicaragua lose visa-free travel

As of 3pm on 5 March 2026, nationals of these countries have been added to Appendix Visitor: Visa national list and removed from Appendix ETA National List, meaning they will now need to apply for a visit visa if they want to travel to the UK for a visit.

However, there are transitional provisions in place for anyone who has already booked a trip to the UK and has an electronic travel authorisation in place, provided they are due to arrive in the UK by 3pm on 16 April 2026:

(t) nationals or citizens of Nicaragua and nationals or citizens of St Lucia, who hold a confirmed booking to the UK, and who have been granted an Electronic Travel Authorisation, on or before 15:00 GMT on 5 March 2026 where arrival in the UK is no later than 15:00 BST on 16 April 2026.

As with previous such changes, the Home Office is unlikely to look favourably on anyone who brings their trip forward to fall within this temporary exemption:

Amending the date of travel on a confirmed booking to an earlier date that falls within the transition period would still require the person to have a visa.

In both cases, this is said to be because of the high rates of asylum claims made by nationals of both countries, though it must be said that this is very much with respect to the percentages rather than absolute numbers, as only 609 Nicaraguans are said to have claimed asylum last year and only 360 St Lucians. The memorandum stresses that 360 people represent a significant population of St Lucia, which is estimated to have a population of 180,000. In both cases, the issue seems to be the high percentages of people of both countries applying for asylum specifically at port (83% of Nicaraguans and 36% of St Lucians) versus after entering the UK, though it is unclear why this in particular should be an issue given that this is the “correct” way of claiming asylum when travelling to the UK with the intention of claiming asylum.

Appendix Visitor: Permit Free Festival List

From 2 April 2026, the list is being updated to include festivals not previously included, such as Africa Oye and Sonica.

Criminality in Part Suitability

Currently, paragraph SUI 5.1(a) of Part Suitability provides for a mandatory refusal where an applicant has a conviction for which they received a custodial sentence of over 12 months. From 26 March 2026, the rules are being amended to expand this to include suspended sentences as well, of the same duration:

In SUI 5.1(a), SUI 5.2(a), SUI 5.3(a), SUI 5.4(a) and SUI 5.5(a), after “custodial” insert “or suspended”

The other change is the expanded application of the discretionary provision for refusals on the basis of current or previous breaches of immigration law in SUI 11.3 to include entry clearance applications as well. These are currently subject to mandatory refusal periods under SUI 12.1 anyway but this would expand the potential application of this ground of refusal beyond the expiry of the refusal period.

Extension of the Ukraine Scheme

As previously announced, the Ukraine Permission Extension Scheme is being updated to provide for a further extension for eligible applicants, this time for a further 24 months.

Additionally, whereas the current rules require someone in this route to apply no earlier than 28 days before their permission expires (which is pretty unique as it goes, with respect to limited leave applications anyway, that do not normally have this requirement), this is being amended to 90 days.

These changes take effect from 8 April 2026.

Changes to application procedure under Part 1 of the immigration rules

As anyone who may be familiar with my work here might know, I have a very nerdy passion for all the technical provisions under Part 1 of the immigration rules. This change might not be as exciting as the time they added the void application rules to this section but it does promise a better application system to come.

Specifically, paragraph 34(5)(b), which concerns the requirement to prove one’s identity, is being amended from “must provide” evidence of identity to “must have provided”.

This is likely to be of limited application for the time being, but the reason for the change has been given as follows:

The change to Rule 34(5)(a) will reduce the need for applicants to keep having to attend a Visa and Citizenship Application Service (VCAS) centre every time they make an immigration application. This will enable applicants who have previously enrolled their biometrics under controlled conditions, such as at a VCAS centre, and who are making a new immigration application, to have their identity reused. Identity reuse means that where a person’s identity was previously assured to a satisfactory standard (e.g. when they were granted entry clearance or further immigration permission) this can be reused in certain subsequent applications. This means that the individual does not need to re-establish their identity by producing an in-date passport, or other form of satisfactory identification document. It will be achieved by the applicant uploading a ‘live’ facial image using the Generic Identity Document Verification (GIDV) app, which will be biometrically compared to the image they enrolled under controlled conditions and is stored on the Immigration and Asylum Biometric System (IABS).

Of course, the requirement to provide one’s passport is not why an applicant has to attend a new biometrics appointment even though they have previously attended one, as applicants simply upload a copy of their identity documents with the application. However, this suggests that further changes are planned which may abolish the need to attend a biometrics appointment at every point during the applicant’s journey to settlement, which would be a very welcome improvement.

At the same time, I don’t see a corresponding provision in the myriad of appendices to the rules that have their own biometrics provisions and there is a reasonably high chance that this is because the Home Office is under the mistaken impression that paragraph 34 applies across the board, which it doesn’t. This is because paragraph A34, like a kind of anti paragraph 34, deceptively hidden in the preceding section, provides an exhaustive list of categories to which paragraph 34 applies, which includes Appendix FM and not much else. The reason I say that this may very well be an oversight is because of the year or so in which Appendix FM technically did not have any validity requirements because it was accidentally taken off this list before being quietly added back on.

British National (Overseas) route

The BN(O) route is being amended to widen its eligibility requirements to include the adult children of BN(O) nationals who were born after 1 July 1979 (at present, only those born after 1 July 1997 – the date of the transfer of sovereignty to China – qualify).

Applicants with a chipped BN(O) or Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) passport will soon be able to use the ID Check app to verify their identity instead of having to attend a biometrics appointment, provided the document is current or expired in the last five years.

These changes take effect on 8 April 2026.

From 29 April 2026, a new suitability requirement is being introduced to Appendix EU which allows the Home Office to refuse an application where the applicant has assisted another person with fraudulently obtaining, or attempting to obtain, permission to stay or enter (where proportionate, as this is an EU matter after all).

The “required date” definition, namely the deadline to apply, relating to further applications is also being amended from referring to when a person “has or had leave” to requiring them to have leave under Appendix EU at the date of application. This may reflect the nature of automatic extensions of pre-settled status that mean that if a person no longer has leave, this is likely the result of their leave being cancelled.

Furthermore, the definition of “specified relevant documents” (in relation to identity, reuse of biometrics and allowing overseas applications) is also being amended to extend the time a non-EEA national can rely on a biometric residence card from 18 months to 60 months.

There are also changes being made to Appendix EU (Family Permit) to introduce a new validity requirement: where someone applies on the basis of FP6(1), i.e. as a family member of a relevant EEA citizen, they must now provide “specified sponsor evidence”.

This introduces yet another definition to the smorgasbord of words you thought you understood but now you’re wondering if you even speak English that are the definitions sections of these provisions. It broadly requires the applicant to evidence that the sponsor qualifies as such. For example, by providing the UAN number of their successful Appendix EU application or other similar evidence. They must also provide evidence that they themselves qualify as that person’s family member, e.g. by providing their marriage/civil partnership certificate or birth certificate, as appropriate.

These changes take effect from 8 April 2026.

Threshold for deportation under Part 13 of the immigration rules

In line with the changes to Part Suitability, paragraph 13.1.1 of Part 13 of the immigration rules, which sets the threshold for deportation, is being amended to cover not just custodial sentences of 12 months or more but also suspended sentences of the same duration.

This only applies to anyone convicted on or after 22 March 2026 and will take effect from that date.

There are many disappointing changes that will negatively impact migrants. The changes are expected to hit refugees particularly hard, plunging entire cohorts of them into long periods of uncertainty and frequent extension applications. However, there are some positives to be found as well, including the broadening of the BN(O) route and the changes that will make it easier for children of domestic abuse victims to qualify for leave.

We continue to await the full implementation of the “earned settlement” proposals later in the year.

Thank you to James Lamont and Ross Kennedy of Vanessa Ganguin Immigration Law for their invaluable insight on some of the changes.