🇬🇧 Work & skilled workers

The new provision applies to Skilled Worker visa holders who are formally recognised as victims of modern slavery. Once recognised, they can leave the sponsor connected with their exploitation and take up lawful work with any employer for the remainder of their existing visa permission. The Home Office describes the change as removing the requirement for these workers to remain tied to a specific sponsor during that period. The policy’s practical significance is that the person can seek alternative lawful employment without first having to preserve the abusive employment relationship. This can reduce the leverage an employer may gain from a worker’s fear that leaving will undermine their immigration position. It may also allow a survivor to move to a safer workplace and rebuild an income while remaining within the time limit of their existing permission. The wording of the public announcement should be read carefully. It refers to “lawful work” and to the remainder of the current visa. It does not say that every form of work, regardless of legality or other applicable conditions, is authorised. Nor does it announce an extension of the visa expiry date. Other immigration conditions and legal requirements continue to matter unless the operative rule or guidance expressly disapplies them. The measure is also dependent on recognition as a victim of modern slavery. People who suspect that they have been exploited, have reported abuse, or are awaiting the outcome of a referral should not assume that the exception has already been activated in their case. The government’s announcement does not set out a separate interim permission for all alleged victims pending a decision. The revised sponsor guidance records the provision in paragraphs S8.28 and S8.29, with a consequential change to S8.5. These amendments are the relevant operational reference for sponsors, workers and advisers assessing how the exception interacts with the sponsorship system.

Interim Operational Instruction (IOI) 08/2026 provides guidance on the care, management, placement, and accommodation of transgender individuals within Immigration Removal Centres (IRCs) and Residential Short-Term Holding Facilities (RSTHFs) in the UK. This instruction clarifies that 'sex' is protected on a biological basis, meaning sleeping accommodation and non-ensuite bathing facilities must be separated by biological sex. If facilities cannot accommodate transgender individuals separately while maintaining this separation, they must not be used for them. However, transgender individuals must still have access to the regime in line with the Detention Centre Rules 2001, and must not be excluded solely due to the requirement for separate sleeping accommodation. Supervised access or alternative arrangements, such as solo access or alongside individuals of their biological sex, may be made if accessing the affirmed gender's regime presents too great a risk. Transgender individuals must only be accommodated at operationally suitable locations that can provide appropriate arrangements, specifically facilities that already accommodate both sexes, with Yarl’s Wood IRC and Dungavel House IRC being preferred locations. Larne House RSTHF and Manchester RSTHF can be used in operational emergencies. Priority should be given to facilities with standalone units. All transgender individuals will undergo a standard individual risk assessment, and a Vulnerable Adult Care Plan (VACP) must be opened upon arrival, as per DSO 08/2026 Management of adults at risk in immigration detention. A room sharing risk assessment (RSRA) is required when considering room sharing or sharing any locked area, and cases must be escalated to a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) without delay, within 48 hours, if further information arises or concerns exist.

The Bill would establish a new Independent Immigration Appeals Authority (IIAA) as a statutory body responsible for determining specified immigration and asylum appeals and related matters. Its functions would include appeals concerning protection and human rights claims, certain immigration-bail applications, deprivation-of-citizenship decisions and specified EU-related immigration appeals. The IIAA would be expected to operate independently, fairly and efficiently, with professionally trained and independently appointed adjudicators rather than relying exclusively on judges drawn from the existing tribunal structure. The new authority would introduce a single appeal route for relevant cases. Claimants would generally be expected to put forward all relevant matters at the appropriate stage rather than progressively introducing new grounds. An unsuccessful appeal would leave the claimant able to seek permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on a point of law, rather than creating another general merits appeal. The government says this is intended to reduce repeated litigation and move cases more quickly towards a final outcome where there is no lawful basis to remain. The Bill would also introduce a claim notice mechanism for people liable to removal or deportation. The Secretary of State or an immigration officer could require such a person to provide the reasons they wish to enter or remain in the UK, grounds why they should not be removed, relevant status information and supporting evidence by a specified deadline. The proposed system is designed to make the government aware of relevant claims earlier and to create consequences for information or claims raised late in the process. The IIAA would also have a power to charge a participant in proceedings where it considers that the person, their representative or an employee of their representative has acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently and caused the authority's resources to be wasted. The precise operation of this power would be governed by procedure rules. The Bill would make a substantial change to Article 8 family and private-life claims. It would place greater statutory emphasis on the public interest in effective immigration control and economic prosperity, while also identifying compliance with immigration requirements, financial independence, adequate housing and reduced reliance on long-term public services as relevant public-interest considerations. The proposed legislation would define "family life" more tightly for Article 8 purposes. It would normally cover a person's spouse, civil partner or partner and, where relevant, their children under 18. A parent who does not live with a child would not normally be treated as having Article 8 family life with that child unless there is evidence of a genuine and subsisting parental relationship. Relationships between adults would generally require cohabitation as partners or an additional element of dependency beyond normal emotional ties. The Bill would also specify circumstances in which private or family life established while a person has no valid leave, obtained leave through deception or is in serious breach of immigration conditions should receive no weight. For cases involving children, the legislation would introduce more specific considerations, including whether removal would have a very significant and long-lasting adverse effect on the child and whether the child could reasonably be expected to relocate. For people liable to deportation, the Bill would establish a stronger statutory presumption in favour of the public interest in deportation. The more serious the person's offence, offending circumstances or impact of their offending on society, the greater the public interest in deportation would be. Deportation would nevertheless remain subject to proportionality and specified exceptional circumstances under the proposed Article 8 framework. The Bill would also alter the position of Article 8 claims made from outside the UK by requiring family-life claims to be made through a UK-based sponsor. The government says this would focus decision-making on the person already within the UK's jurisdiction rather than allowing an overseas applicant to construct an independent Article 8 claim without a UK-based sponsor. A major asylum reform would replace the current distinction between refugee status and humanitarian protection with a single core protection status. A person who qualifies for protection because they meet the Refugee Convention criteria or because removal would expose them to serious harm would instead receive the unified protection status. The government says this would mean one protection claim, one assessment and one protection outcome. The reform would also remove the ability to bring an "upgrade appeal" where a person has been granted humanitarian protection but seeks refugee status instead. The government considers these separate outcomes to create unnecessary litigation because both forms of protection prevent removal on the relevant grounds. The Bill would additionally give the government power to vary the entitlements attached to protection in specified circumstances. The Home Office specifically identifies serious criminals who cannot be removed because of other legal obligations as a group for whom more restrictive conditions could potentially be imposed. The proposed model is intended to sit alongside a new Protection Work and Study route. The Home Office describes this as part of the wider core-protection model, allowing protected people who obtain work or begin study to move into a different route with the possibility of a different settlement pathway and associated entitlements. The Bill would also amend the interpretation of the Refugee Convention concerning whether a person is "lawfully staying" in the UK for the purposes of Article 33(2). A person would not be treated as lawfully staying where there are reasonable grounds for regarding them as a danger to UK security or where, following a final conviction for a particularly serious crime, they constitute a danger to the UK community. Another major change concerns asylum-support cost recovery. The Bill would give the Secretary of State power to require certain adults who have received taxpayer-funded asylum accommodation or support to make a contribution towards the cost of that support once they have the financial ability to do so. The proposed recovery mechanism would cover support provided under sections 4 and 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Children would be exempt on the face of the Bill, while victims of modern slavery would also be exempt. Other exemptions could be created through secondary legislation. The amount would not be fixed directly in the Bill. Instead, secondary legislation would establish the relevant thresholds and repayment arrangements. The government says the threshold would be designed so that a person could not be required to contribute if doing so would make them destitute. Importantly, the proposed debt would not simply disappear if a failed asylum seeker left the UK. The government intends the payment obligation to remain relevant if that person subsequently seeks to return to the UK. The Bill also provides for the possibility of HM Revenue and Customs recovering amounts through the taxation system, although the detailed mechanism would have to be established through further regulations. The modern slavery provisions represent another substantial part of the Bill. The legislation would allow National Referral Mechanism decision-making for children to be devolved to local safeguarding authorities, building on an existing pilot. The objective is to place decisions concerning child victims within existing multi-agency safeguarding structures. Independent Child Trafficking Guardians would also receive a stronger statutory basis. The Bill changes the terminology from "independent child trafficking advocates" to "independent child trafficking guardians" and expands their functions to include representing or supporting children who may be victims of slavery or human trafficking. The Bill would introduce statutory rules on credibility in modern slavery decisions. Decision makers would have to take certain factors into account as damaging to credibility, including delays in claiming to be a victim, delays in providing relevant status information, material inaccuracies or inconsistencies, inconsistencies between modern slavery information and information supplied in immigration, human rights or criminal proceedings, and striking similarities between an individual's account and another person's claim. The Bill would also create new grounds for disqualification from modern slavery protection. Protection could be denied where a person poses a risk to UK national security or, subject to specified protections for certain children, is considered a threat to public order. A separate provision would allow an adult's modern slavery claim to be treated as having been made in bad faith. The Bill specifically identifies a claim made when the person is due to be removed and a claim supported by information known to be false or fabricated as circumstances that may indicate bad faith. There are exceptions where a person has already complied with a claim notice or where the Secretary of State considers there were compelling reasons for the late disclosure. Where a person is disqualified on these grounds, the protections preventing removal would cease to apply and the relevant obligation to grant leave would also cease. The Bill would change the existing recovery period for identified potential victims. Instead of an open-ended period linked to the conclusion of the modern slavery process, the Bill provides for a 30-day recovery period following a positive reasonable-grounds decision, with that period ending earlier if a negative conclusive-grounds decision is reached. If no conclusive decision has been made at the end of the period, the recovery period would continue until that decision is made. The legislation would also remove the existing requirement to grant Temporary Permission to Stay for recovery purposes to confirmed victims. This does not mean that every confirmed victim would automatically lose all possible immigration protection. Rather, the specific statutory requirement to grant leave for the purpose of recovery would be removed, with other immigration and protection grounds remaining relevant where applicable. On enforcement, the Bill would strengthen Slavery and Trafficking Prevention Orders and Risk Orders. It would widen the ability of law-enforcement bodies to apply for such orders, introduce electronic-monitoring powers and provide for a statutory code of practice concerning the handling of electronic-monitoring data. The Bill would also expand the modern slavery supply-chain reporting regime. Commercial organisations and public authorities within scope would face stronger obligations concerning their modern slavery statements. Organisations with websites would be required to publish their statements prominently and, under regulations, could also be required to submit statements or links to the Secretary of State electronically. Failure to comply without reasonable excuse could ultimately result in a financial penalty. The proposed legislation allows regulations to impose a penalty of up to the greater of 1% of the relevant turnover or budget, or £1 million, subject to the detailed rules established through secondary legislation. For very large organisations, therefore, the potential penalty could exceed £1 million.

The new system changes the underlying verification workflow from document-presented verification to biometric verification against information already held within connected government systems. The live photograph taken at the eGate is checked against verified immigration, travel and passport information. The government's announcement describes this as a facial-technology system that establishes identity before the border security checks are fully completed. Where the automated match succeeds and no further intervention is required, the passenger can simply walk through. The distinction is important because the passport photograph is no longer necessarily being accessed by the traveller physically presenting the passport at that moment. Instead, the system uses information that has already been established elsewhere in the border and immigration system. This aligns with the Home Office's broader move towards digital immigration status, electronic travel permission and greater pre-travel information gathering. The legal basis for this development was established in 2025. The Immigration (Biometric Information etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 amended the existing rules so that an authorised person could require an entrant to provide a fingerprint or photograph on arrival and could require or permit that biometric information to be supplied by automated means. The regulations also established that failure by an entrant to provide the required biometric information could result in refusal of leave to enter or cancellation of existing leave in the circumstances set out by the regulations. The 2025 explanatory material expressly stated that the legislation would enable the Home Office to explore and pilot contactless travel at the UK border. The government's regulatory evidence subsequently described the policy as intended to improve identity verification, reduce queues, improve impostor detection and reduce pressure on staffing at passenger ports.

Under version 8.0, nationality must be considered as a material fact throughout the handling of the asylum claim. Caseworkers are expected to remain alert to evidence affecting nationality even where the issue appeared settled earlier in the case, and relevant nationality information can also emerge after a decision has been made. At screening, the Home Office may ask additional questions about nationality where there is a reason for doubt or concern. This can include clarifying earlier answers, examining previous immigration applications and exploring discrepancies revealed by documents or system checks. Where evidence indicates that a claimant has used or is known by more than one nationality, the person must be challenged and given the opportunity to explain the discrepancy. The guidance says that disagreement over nationality should not delay registration of the asylum claim. The Home Office's identity assessment can draw on a range of evidence. The guidance refers to Atlas and IABS biometric records, previous immigration applications, passport and travel-document information, decision letters, appeal determinations, international biometric data-sharing through the Migration 5 process and language analysis. It also says that identity documents must be assessed under the separate UKVI Identity Standards and that doubts about their integrity or genuineness should trigger appropriate checks. For post-28 June 2022 asylum claims, the claimant must establish relevant material facts such as nationality on the balance of probabilities. The Home Office explains that this means the fact must be more likely than not to be true. However, when the Home Office asserts an alternative nationality, the Home Office also carries its own evidential burden and must establish that nationality on the balance of probabilities. That distinction matters because failure to prove one proposition does not automatically establish another. If a claimant fails to establish the nationality they have claimed, the Home Office cannot simply treat its own alternative nationality as established without evidence. Equally, if the Home Office establishes an alternative nationality, that does not automatically prevent the person from establishing their claimed nationality as well where the facts support dual nationality. For humanitarian protection claims made on or after 28 June 2022, the nationality-related material facts are treated differently. The guidance recognises that a claimant could fail to establish nationality to the balance-of-probabilities standard for asylum while still establishing it to the lower reasonable-likelihood standard for humanitarian protection. It says such cases are expected to be rare and should be discussed with a technical specialist or senior caseworker before the decision is finalised. Where nationality remains unknown, the guidance instructs caseworkers to record “XXX (Unspecified Nationality)” as the nationality in Atlas while recording the claimant's asserted nationality as an alias. Where an alternative nationality is established, that nationality is recorded as the true nationality and the claimant's disputed nationality is retained as an alias. The guidance also distinguishes between claimed statelessness for the purposes of an asylum claim and a formal determination of statelessness. It expressly states that a finding concerning statelessness within an asylum claim is made only for deciding that claim and does not amount to a determination that the person is stateless for the purposes of Article 1(1) of the 1954 Statelessness Convention. Formal statelessness determinations are dealt with separately under Appendix Statelessness. Dual nationality has separate implications. Where two or more nationalities are established, caseworkers must consider risk on return to the relevant countries of nationality. The guidance makes clear that a person with a safe country of nationality will generally not qualify for refugee status or humanitarian protection unless they would face persecution or serious harm in both countries.

From 1 October 2026, licensing authorities must apply the revised guidance when carrying out right-to-a-licence checks. The core duty remains that the authority must be satisfied that an individual is not disqualified from holding the licence before issuing, renewing or extending it. An individual may be disqualified if they require permission to enter or stay in the UK but have not been granted it, if their permission is invalid or has ceased to have effect, or if a condition of their permission prevents them from undertaking the work associated with the licence. This can include restrictions that prohibit work or prevent the person from working as a taxi or private hire driver or operator. Authorities must use one of the prescribed checking methods: Manual document-based check: The authority examines the applicant’s original acceptable documents, checks that they are genuine and belong to the applicant, confirms that the relevant permission has not expired and reviews any work restrictions. The authority must make and retain appropriate copies and a secure record of the check date. Where a live video link is used, the authority must still be in physical possession of the original documents. A scanned copy or ordinary video inspection alone is not sufficient. Home Office online check: Where an applicant has an eVisa, the authority must use the Home Office online right-to-work checking service to verify the applicant’s status and eligibility to hold the licence. The applicant generates a share code for the relevant purpose, and the authority uses that code with the applicant’s date of birth to access the official result. The authority must check the photograph and relevant restrictions, and ensure that the correct licensing authority is recorded in the online process. Digital verification service provider: An authority may use a registered RtW DVSP for the prescribed digital verification route where the applicant’s documents and circumstances qualify. The updated guidance requires the use of a provider registered for the relevant service. The provider’s role does not remove the licensing authority’s responsibility to ensure that the prescribed check has been completed correctly. The guide also sets out when SVEC should be used. This may be necessary where an applicant has an outstanding application, appeal or administrative review and their digital profile does not yet demonstrate their continuing right, or where the Home Office must verify the applicant’s status directly. The Employer Checking Service is not a substitute for the licensing authority’s prescribed process. Authorities must complete the required check before making a decision to issue, renew or extend a licence. Where permission is time-limited, the licence must not extend beyond the period of that permission. A further check is required when the individual later applies to renew or extend the licence. The guidance also emphasises fair and consistent treatment. Authorities must not make assumptions about immigration status based on nationality, race, accent, surname or length of residence. They must provide applicants with a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate their eligibility using an available prescribed method.

From 1 October 2026, the expanded framework applies to relevant work or service arrangements that commence on or after that date. It identifies several types of arrangements that can bring an organisation within the right-to-work scheme. These include conventional contracts of employment, certain worker contracts under which an individual personally performs work or services, and individual subcontractors working under arrangements in which another party has contracted to provide the same work or services. The regime also addresses online matching services that connect individuals offering services with potential clients or customers. The distinction between an independent business and a worker engaged under a covered arrangement remains important. A person genuinely operating an independent business and contracting directly with clients or customers is not automatically treated as an employee simply because they provide services. The contractual relationship and the actual working arrangement must be considered. The new extended-liability provisions are particularly significant for organisations involved in subcontracting. Where the relevant conditions are met, a business may be exposed to a civil penalty for illegal working further down a chain of contracts, even if it is not the individual’s direct employer. The framework provides a statutory excuse against this form of liability where the organisation satisfies prescribed requirements. The updated checklist identifies three central areas of compliance for establishing that excuse: Contractual terms and conditions: Organisations must have the prescribed written terms in place before the relevant work or services commence. They must also ensure that the arrangements operate effectively in practice, rather than relying solely on contractual wording. Substitution controls: Where a contractual arrangement permits a worker to provide a substitute, the organisation must have appropriate controls. Any substitute must undergo the required right-to-work check before beginning the work or service, and the organisation must have arrangements that prevent an unauthorised person from carrying out the work. Identity verification: Organisations must have proportionate systems to ensure that the person performing the work is the same individual whose right to work was checked. Where another party’s systems are relied upon, reasonable steps must be taken to establish that those systems are effective. The updated checklist is a practical compliance document. It does not itself create the expanded liability regime; rather, it reflects the legislation and guidance governing the changes.

From 1 October 2026, no new expressions of interest can be submitted under the UK/European Applicant Transfer Scheme. The GOV.UK guidance now identifies the scheme as closed and directs existing applicants to await a decision from the Home Office. The closure does not mean that every application submitted before 1 October has been approved or rejected. Instead, the Home Office has stated that it will continue to notify applicants of decisions in due course. The guidance does not specify a final date by which all outstanding applications must be decided. The published closure notice also does not set out a separate transitional application period, an exception for people who had begun preparing an application but had not submitted it, or a process for reopening the scheme. Consequently, people who had not submitted an expression of interest before closure cannot rely on the previous application procedure to start a new case.

From 1 October 2026, landlords and letting agents in England must follow the revised statutory code when carrying out Right to Rent checks covered by the new version. It applies to residential tenancy agreements beginning on or after 1 October 2026 and to follow-up checks on existing tenants that need to be conducted from that date to maintain a statutory excuse. The central requirement is consistency. Landlords should use the same basic approach to Right to Rent checks for all prospective tenants rather than selecting people for additional scrutiny because they appear foreign or are believed to be migrants. Every prospective tenant should be asked to provide evidence of their right to rent where a check is required. The code specifically addresses different forms of evidence. Some people may use the Home Office online checking service, some may present eligible physical documents and others may use a permitted Right to Rent Digital Verification Service Provider. Having an eVisa, requiring a manual check, or using a different verification route must not result in less favourable treatment. Landlords also cannot insist that someone use digital evidence where the relevant rules allow another checking method. The code also prohibits landlords from making assumptions about a person's immigration status or right to rent based on colour, nationality, ethnic or national origins, accent or how long they have lived in the UK. A landlord should not, for example, check only people who appear to be international tenants while assuming that other applicants are British. The updated code extends this principle to digital and automated processes. Landlords and agents should ensure that technology used for Right to Rent checks does not itself create discriminatory outcomes. Where an individual cannot access a digital service or cannot immediately produce the relevant evidence, the landlord should use the appropriate alternative route, including the Landlord Checking Service where applicable.

Employers have a legal duty to prevent illegal working by ensuring all employees have the requisite right to work in the UK. This DRAFT Code of Practice, issued under section 23(1) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (IANA 2006), provides practical guidance on how employers should avoid unlawful discrimination contrary to the Equality Act 2010 (in Great Britain) and relevant legislation in Northern Ireland (such as the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) 1997 Order, as amended) when complying with this duty, particularly when carrying out 'right to work' checks during recruitment or employment. The code focuses on avoiding race discrimination, which includes colour, nationality, or ethnic or national origins. It applies to all employers in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, including organisations like employment and recruitment agencies. It specifies that employers must not discriminate because of race in recruitment arrangements, employment terms, refusing employment, terms of employment provided, access to training, promotion, transfer, facilities, services or other benefits, or by dismissing or subjecting workers to detriment. Employers must also not subject job applicants or workers to harassment under the relevant Acts. Direct discrimination, such as not interviewing individuals from certain nationalities due to assumptions about their right to work, or carrying out checks for foreign nationals but not UK-born colleagues, is prohibited unless a statutory exception exists. Indirect discrimination, where a policy disadvantages a group sharing a protected characteristic (e.g., requiring five years of UK residency before employment), is unlawful unless objectively justifiable.

From the publication of version 19.0, UKVI caseworkers have specific instructions for assessing children whose birth mother is in a same-sex relationship with a British woman. The guidance does not simply tell caseworkers to treat every child in such a family as British. Instead, it sets out circumstances in which registration should be considered. Where the birth mother's female partner is legally treated as the child's parent under the existing Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act provisions, the child may already be British automatically or may have an existing entitlement to registration. The caseworker must therefore first establish whether the child already has British citizenship before processing a registration application. Where the British female partner is not legally treated as the child's parent, the updated guidance provides separate considerations. If she is the birth mother's spouse or civil partner, UKVI must consider whether the child would have acquired citizenship or been entitled to registration if the British woman had been treated as the child's mother. For older cases involving conception before 6 April 2009, the guidance specifically directs caseworkers to consider these applications where the relevant conditions are met. Where the British woman is the birth mother's partner but not her spouse or civil partner, UKVI must consider whether the relationship is established. Examples include the couple having been together for a period of time, living together and bringing up the child jointly. Biological connection to the child and recognition as a parent in the child's country of birth are also relevant considerations. Importantly, the guidance states that a lack of formal recognition of the British woman as a parent in the country where the child was born should not automatically prevent registration where such recognition cannot be obtained and the other expected criteria are satisfied. The application must still have the required parental consent and meet the other relevant conditions, including the applicable character requirement.

The new Single Protection Interview brings together the functions of the initial screening process and substantive examination into one interview for qualifying cases. Caseworkers are expected to consider whether the claim is appropriate for an SPI rather than automatically applying the process to every asylum claimant. The guidance identifies several circumstances that can make a claim suitable. These include cases where the available information indicates that the claim appears clearly unfounded, a fuller examination is unlikely to be necessary and credibility testing is unlikely to be required. The claimant must also be fit to participate in the interview, and caseworkers must consider whether safeguarding or vulnerability issues make the process unsuitable. The guidance identifies nationals of EU member states, Switzerland, EEA states, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea and the United States among the groups whose claims may be considered for the process. Nationality alone does not make someone eligible for an SPI. The other suitability requirements must also be satisfied. During the SPI, the claimant's protection claim is examined in sufficient detail for the Home Office to determine whether a decision can be made. Where the interview provides the necessary information and no further examination is required, the case can proceed towards a decision without a separate substantive interview. Where the case raises issues that cannot appropriately be dealt with through the SPI, the claimant must instead continue through the standard asylum process. The guidance also preserves procedural safeguards. Claimants must be able to use an interpreter where necessary and receive reasonable adjustments where appropriate. They retain the opportunity to provide evidence and have legal representation. The interview is recorded through the applicable Home Office process and the claimant is provided with the relevant record. Before a decision is made, the claimant must generally have at least five full working days to make further representations, unless they request an earlier decision. The process does not apply to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children or people subject to an active age dispute that may result in them being treated as an unaccompanied child. Children who are part of family groups may potentially be considered where the relevant conditions are met, but their individual circumstances and any protection concerns must still be considered.

Version 5.0 retains the central assessment that Pakistan generally provides sufficient state protection against persecution or serious harm from non-state and rogue state actors, while making the distinction that protection is unlikely where the feared harm originates from the state itself. The Home Office continues to place the evidential burden on the claimant to demonstrate that they face persecution or serious harm and requires every case to be considered on its individual facts. The updated note continues to rely on the country guidance decisions AH and AW. AH established that Pakistan has a functioning criminal law system and that criminal acts are prosecuted, although individual difficulties can arise. AW subsequently established that the starting point is whether there is systemic insufficiency of state protection and concluded that general insufficiency had not been established. Importantly, AW also recognised that a claimant may still have a well-founded fear where authorities know or ought to know of circumstances specific to the claimant and are unlikely to provide the additional protection required. The updated evidence presents a more detailed picture of Pakistan's protection system. Federal and provincial police remain the principal law-enforcement bodies, supported by agencies including the Federal Investigation Agency, National Counter Terrorism Authority, Counter Terrorism Departments and paramilitary forces. The estimated national police strength is about 624,390, or approximately 2.6 officers per 1,000 people. Punjab has more than 200,000 police personnel and 720 police stations, while Balochistan integrated 32,942 Levies personnel into its police force in 2026. Women also have access to dedicated police helpdesks, complaint cells, helplines, safe houses and women’s police stations in some areas. At the same time, the updated assessment identifies continuing weaknesses. Police effectiveness varies regionally and is affected by inadequate resources, poor training, low salaries, insufficient equipment, inconsistent responses, political influence and corruption. Pakistan has also developed extensive surveillance capabilities, including online and telecommunications monitoring, but the note records concerns about inadequate safeguards and reported use against activists, journalists and political opponents. The note records allegations of arbitrary arrest and detention, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings and torture or ill-treatment involving state authorities. The Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances had registered nearly 10,600 cases between 2006 and August 2025, with more than 1,800 unresolved at that point. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan recorded 1,696 suspected deaths in police encounters during 2025. Although Pakistan criminalised torture through the Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention and Punishment) Act 2022, the note reports that torture remains widespread and that prosecution remains limited. The judicial system remains functional but is affected by extensive backlogs, delays, low conviction rates, corruption, intimidation of judges and witnesses, limited prosecution resources and shortages of judges. The note records more than 2.4 million cases pending nationwide as of September 2025 and reports concerns about political influence following the 26th and 27th Constitutional Amendments. It also notes that successful prosecutions for politically motivated or sectarian violence are reported to be rare. Witness protection and complaint mechanisms remain available in law but have significant implementation limitations. Pakistan has federal and provincial witness-protection legislation, while legal aid is available through bodies including the Legal Aid and Justice Authority and Sindh Legal Advisory Call Centre. However, sources cited by the Home Office report limited funding, inadequate victim support, weak institutional capacity and witness intimidation. Pakistan also has national and provincial human-rights institutions, police complaint systems, helplines and the federal Ombudsman, although some bodies are described as dormant or less effective, particularly in politically sensitive cases.

From 23 September 2026, Folkestone Reporting Centre is officially included in UKVI's reporting-centre guidance. People whose Bail 201 or other reporting instructions direct them to the Folkestone reporting area can use the Folkestone first reporting event form before their appointment. The form collects information about current circumstances, including family or partner details, children or dependants, medical circumstances, employment and contact information. The current reporting-centre listing gives the Folkestone location as Frontier House, 7 Shorncliffe Road, Folkestone, CT20 2SH, with appointments listed for Tuesdays between 10am and midday. The guidance makes clear that people should not attend a reporting centre unless they have an appointment. The update does not itself impose a new immigration bail condition on everyone in the Folkestone area. A person's reporting obligation continues to depend on their individual immigration bail arrangements and the instructions issued to them. The Home Office's separate immigration bail guidance states that reporting can take place in person at a reporting centre or police station, by telephone or digitally, depending on the conditions imposed in an individual case.

From 9 September 2026, Ghana, India and Nigeria are no longer included among the countries whose teachers can use the direct Apply for QTS in England service. The Department for Education continues to allow teachers trained in a number of other countries and regions to apply, subject to the applicable requirements. These include Australia, Canada, the European Economic Area, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Switzerland, Ukraine and the USA. Teachers trained in Jamaica, Singapore and South Africa may also apply in specified circumstances, including where they are working in a valid teaching role in England. The change does not state that teachers from Ghana, India or Nigeria are prohibited from teaching in England. The Department for Education directs teachers who are no longer eligible for the service to explore alternative routes into teaching.

The new framework extends foreign national conditional cautions to people who have limited leave to enter or remain in the UK. This means that a person does not have to be completely without immigration leave to fall within the scope of the conditional-caution removal mechanism. The underlying purpose remains the same: where the statutory and operational criteria are satisfied, the caution can be used to secure the person's departure from the UK without proceeding through the full criminal prosecution process. The existing eligibility requirements and safeguards continue to apply, so the change expands the pool of potentially eligible foreign national offenders rather than creating an automatic removal process.

The UK will provide increased support to the OSCE Programme Office in Dushanbe and Border Management Staff College and fund a new project specifically aimed at strengthening Tajikistan's border-security capacity. The project will improve operational capability, expand training and institutional capacity, and address gender gaps among frontline border-management personnel. Its wider work will support efforts to counter organised crime, terrorism financing, irregular migration and emerging-technology risks. The UK also intends to work with Tajikistan, its neighbouring countries and OSCE institutions on regional security challenges, including those connected to Afghanistan.

The updated form provides a current interactive route for sponsors without SMS access to appoint a new Level 1 user or surrender their sponsor licence. The form is therefore intended for specific circumstances in which the sponsor cannot complete the relevant action through the SMS. Sponsors should not treat the form as a replacement for the SMS. Where the SMS remains available and the relevant change can be reported through it, the existing SMS process continues to apply. UKVI's sponsor guidance confirms that only limited changes require the separate Sponsor Change of Circumstances Form.

From the updated guidance, UKVI must not cancel permission held by a care worker or senior care worker on the Skilled Worker or Health and Care Worker route where sponsor licence revocation is the sole reason for cancellation. The protection applies specifically to care workers under SOC 6135 or 6145 and senior care workers under SOC 6136 or 6146. It does not remove the worker from the wider cancellation framework. Where another cancellation ground applies, UKVI must assess that ground in the normal way. The arrangement is temporary and will be subject to regular review.

From 1 October 2026, the Right to Work Scheme will cover certain worker's contracts, individual subcontractors and online matching services, alongside traditional employment. The updated framework also introduces extended civil-penalty liability, meaning responsibility for illegal working can, in specified circumstances, extend beyond the worker's direct employer. Extended liability can apply to certain contractual chains, online services that connect clients with service providers, and arrangements where a worker is permitted to substitute another person. It does not automatically make every organisation in a supply chain liable. The Home Office will assess the relevant contractual arrangement and identify the party responsible under the rules. A party seeking a statutory excuse against extended liability must meet three main requirements. First, its contract must contain prescribed safeguards requiring the relevant employer or service provider to conduct right to work checks, restricting further subcontracting without consent, allowing compliance audits and requiring cooperation with Home Office investigations. Second, where substitution is permitted, every substitute must undergo a prescribed right to work check before starting work. The responsible party must also have procedures to prevent unchecked substitutes from working and to deal with illegal working. Third, the responsible party must use proportionate identity-verification measures to establish that the person performing the work is the person whose right to work was checked. The guidance gives examples including workplace identification, biometric or attendance systems and facial recognition. Evidence of compliance must be retained. This can include contracts, right to work records, substitution records, audit evidence and identity-verification records. The extended-liability provisions do not apply simply because a business purchases services from another company. The guidance gives examples of ordinary service arrangements, such as a retailer using a facilities-management company for cleaning, that do not automatically create extended liability. The existing right to work system remains unchanged for direct employers. They must continue to conduct prescribed checks before employment begins and follow up checks where required. The draft guidance was published on 11 September 2026 and will come into force on 1 October 2026. Relevant civil-penalty provisions apply to covered employment beginning from that date, while the prescribed contractual requirements apply to relevant arrangements entered into from 1 October.

From 8 October 2026, the new Home Office immigration and nationality fee schedule will apply. However, the fees listed in the new table remain the same as the current fees. For example, the short-term visitor visa remains £135, the ETA remains £20, the Skilled Worker visa remains £819 for applications covering three years or less and £1,618 for applications covering more than three years. The Health and Care Visa remains £324 for applications covering three years or less and £628 for applications covering more than three years. Fees for applications made inside the UK are also unchanged. For example, the Graduate Route remains £937, the Skilled Worker fee remains £943 for applications covering three years or less and £1,865 for applications covering more than three years, while indefinite leave to remain remains £3,226. Nationality fees also remain unchanged. Naturalisation as a British citizen remains £1,709, adult registration as a British citizen remains £1,540, and child registration remains £1,000.

Former military sites are being used or are being considered for temporary accommodation for asylum seekers to reduce reliance on hotels. The Crowborough Training Camp, East Sussex, began accommodating single adult male asylum seekers aged 18 to 65 from 22 January 2026, with a phased approach to reach a full capacity of 540. The usage of this site has been extended until January 2030, subject to planning permission. Other sites, including MoD Barnham, Suffolk, MoD Bicester (site A), Oxfordshire, and MoD Linton-on-Ouse, North Yorkshire, are being considered.

UKVI has updated the guidance and technical instructions governing the use of Bulk Data Transfer for CAS. The BDT facility continues to operate as a mechanism through which Student sponsors can transfer information from their internal systems to SMS and retrieve CAS information from SMS. The system supports several functions, including: bulk CAS data upload; bulk CAS data export; bulk data reporting; and bulk updates of fee-related data. Bulk CAS upload uses an XML file that conforms to UKVI's specified data structure. The system validates the information before accepting the transfer. The existing BDT framework also permits sponsors to transfer large batches of CAS information, with the published guidance specifying limits on the number of records that can be included in individual files and batches. The update therefore concerns the administration and technical handling of CAS data by education sponsors, rather than creating a new Student visa category or changing the substantive eligibility requirements for students.

The Home Office's updated assessment states that the humanitarian situation in Sudan remains extremely severe but varies considerably by location. In Darfur, Kordofan and Blue Nile, areas directly affected by active hostilities are assessed as likely to be sufficiently severe to create a general risk of serious harm under paragraphs 339C and 339CA(iii) of the Immigration Rules. By contrast, conditions are generally assessed as less severe in parts of Kassala, Red Sea, Northern, Gedaref, River Nile, White Nile and Sennar, where direct fighting has been lower and some services continue to operate. However, the Home Office stresses that conditions remain volatile and that localised circumstances can still create a real risk of serious harm. The updated guidance also notes that Al Jazirah, Khartoum and Sennar have experienced reduced fighting since mid-2025, which has led to significant returns by internally displaced people. Those returns have nevertheless placed additional pressure on already limited services. The assessment states that internal relocation may be possible in some less-affected areas, but travelling from conflict-affected areas may itself be difficult or unreasonable because of insecurity, road closures, fuel shortages, banditry, criminality and illegal checkpoints. The guidance further states that where a Sudan-related claim is refused, it is unlikely to be certified as clearly unfounded under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

The 4 September 2026 update confirms the government's current plans for the redevelopment and expansion of Haslar Immigration Removal Centre in Gosport, Hampshire. The centre is expected to reopen in 2027 following refurbishment of existing buildings and construction work. Phase 1 will provide around 130 detention places through refurbishment of existing accommodation. Phase 2 would add around 470 further places, increasing the centre's total capacity to around 600, but this expansion remains subject to planning permission and the necessary approvals. The Home Office says the main contractor for Phase 2 has already been appointed and is initially undertaking design and project-development work. Planning permission for Phase 2 is being pursued through the Crown Development process. The Home Office says it has consulted the local planning authority and other stakeholders, including local councillors, Members of Parliament, police, fire and health services, and independent oversight bodies. The redeveloped centre is intended to provide secure accommodation for detained men, including time-served foreign national offenders and immigration offenders. The Home Office says facilities for detained people will be provided on site, while healthcare provision is being procured through NHS England. It also states that there will be no impact on primary healthcare services provided within the local community. The updated factsheet also states that the government considers immigration detention necessary as part of an effective returns system and intends to use investments such as Haslar to support increased removals of people who have no legal right to remain in the UK.

From 8 October 2026, the Immigration Rules will clarify that previous conduct that frustrated immigration controls, including certain failures to report for or absconding from immigration bail or custody, can be considered under the suitability rules Skilled Workers who are confirmed victims of modern slavery through the National Referral Mechanism will be able to undertake other work, including self-employment and voluntary work, for the remainder of their existing permission, except as professional sportspersons or sports coaches Families in the Family Returns Process will be able to raise Article 8 human-rights claims directly with Home Office staff without making a formal application, paying an application fee or using a specified application form The Rules will also clarify how application dates are treated following fee-waiver requests and formalise the requirement for applicants to complete biometric enrolment within a single period even where an application is subsequently varied The Victim of Domestic Abuse route will be expanded to cover qualifying adult dependent children of applicants affected by domestic abuse, including children aged 18 or over, subject to the revised eligibility requirements New immigration provisions will support the UK's participation in Erasmus+ from 2027. Eligible participants will be able to undertake specified study, training, traineeships, job shadowing, sports activities and other Erasmus+ placements through the Visitor, Student and Government Authorised Exchange routes, depending on the activity From 29 October 2026, the rules for T2 Minister of Religion and Temporary Work – Religious Worker will be revised to clarify qualifying religious work and sponsor responsibilities, including maintenance and accommodation arrangements where the worker is not entitled to the National Minimum Wage From 30 November 2026, the Student Route maintenance requirement will increase from £1,529 to £1,570 per month in London and from £1,171 to £1,203 outside London, with the accommodation offset also adjusted The EU Settlement Scheme rules will be amended to provide additional protections for certain pre-settled status holders, revise provisions for joining family members and reflect the Court of Appeal's decision in Ayoola v Secretary of State for the Home Department. A separate amendment to APP EU16 will take effect on 9 December 2026, changing the specified proof of identity and nationality that certain non-EEA applicants can provide The Hong Kong BN(O) settlement rules, Long Residence provisions and Child Relative route will also be amended. These changes address settlement residence requirements, varied applications and eligibility for children joining relatives with protection status HC 584 also contains a number of technical and consequential amendments across the Immigration Rules, including changes affecting administrative review, visitor activities, Student and Child Student routes, Government Authorised Exchange schemes and obsolete provisions

UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) has published an updated version of the country policy and information note on modern slavery in China, dated August 2026. This new note is to be used by officials when making decisions in asylum and human rights applications. The updated assessment states that: -victims of modern slavery from China form a particular social group for Refugee Convention purposes -victims are generally unlikely to face persecution or serious harm from non-state actors solely because they were victims of modern slavery -certain factors can increase vulnerability to re-trafficking, including homelessness, disability, mental illness, age, lack of education and living in a rural area -forced labour is also perpetrated by the Chinese government, particularly against Uyghurs, other Muslim minority groups and Tibetans -state protection is generally considered available against non-state or rogue state actors -internal relocation is generally considered possible in China -each asylum or human-rights claim must nevertheless be assessed on its individual facts.

The caseworker guidance for registering stateless persons now includes updated confirmation on how a person born before 1 January 1983 can register as a British citizen under paragraph 5 of schedule 2 of the British Nationality Act 1981. It details requirements for registration, including for individuals born on or after 1 January 1983 (aged 18 to 22 or 5 to 17) in the UK or a British overseas territory, and those born outside these territories. For individuals aged 5 to 17, the guidance clarifies consideration of whether the child could reasonably acquire another nationality, outlining scenarios for 'reasonable steps' and 'discretionary' acquisition.

The video explaining UK Visas and Immigration's processing times has been updated on 1 September 2026.

The guidance for voluntary and assisted departures has been updated. A full list of changes is available within the guide. There are also new documents for 'Enhanced Voluntary Returns offer pilot: interim guidance', 'Removal of Failed Asylum Seekers to Rwanda', and 'Safety of Rwanda'. Updates have been made to guidance concerning enforced removals notice periods, judicial reviews, injunctions, applications to the European Court of Human Rights, arranging removal, family returns process, initial consideration and assessment of liability to administrative removal, and notification of special arrangements (court letter). References to 'voluntary returns' have been amended to 'voluntary departures' in line with the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Some previous documents, such as 'Administrative removal: notification and implementation – interim guidance' and 'Suspension of enforced removal window', have been removed as they are no longer relevant.

Asylum seekers living in the UK are provided with a guide detailing expected behaviours, UK laws, and cultural norms regarding gender equality, domestic abuse, sex and consent, respect in public, and the legal age of consent. The guide also outlines potential consequences for non-compliance, such as police involvement, loss of asylum support, or impact on asylum claims. It provides contact details for support organisations.

Most visitors to the UK, Jersey, Guernsey, or the Isle of Man will require an Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) or a visa for stays of up to 6 months. An ETA costs £20 and is valid for 2 years or until the associated passport expires, whichever is sooner. It allows for multiple entries within its validity period. Applications are made online or via the UK ETA app, requiring the travel passport, an email address, and payment. A decision is usually issued within one day, but can take up to three working days. An ETA does not guarantee entry.

The Scottish Government has now published a formal migration strategy that sets out its current proposals for attracting and retaining migrants in Scotland. The proposals include a Scottish Visa aimed at supporting Scotland's population and economic needs, a Rural Visa intended to help address workforce and demographic challenges in rural areas, and a Scottish Graduate Visa intended to help Scotland retain international graduates after their studies. The government is also calling for the existing UK immigration system to be made more responsive to Scotland's particular sectoral and regional needs. These routes are not currently available for applications. The Scottish Government is asking the UK Government to consider and implement the necessary immigration changes.

The new guidance introduces three major changes. 1. Level 2 Users are being phased out From 9 September 2026, sponsors will no longer be able to appoint new Level 2 Users. Existing Level 2 Users will not disappear immediately. The guidance states that the Level 2 role will be abolished after 8 March 2027. This means organisations currently relying on Level 2 Users need to reorganise their SMS access before the role disappears. 2. Multi-factor authentication becomes mandatory From 3 September 2026, SMS Users will be required to use multi-factor authentication (MFA). The updated guidance introduces new requirements governing MFA for SMS Users and explains how users must access and maintain their accounts. This is primarily a security change designed to make unauthorised access to sponsorship accounts more difficult. 3. New rules for inactive SMS accounts The Home Office has introduced a process for dealing with inactive SMS User accounts. Users are expected to access their accounts regularly and keep their information up to date. Sponsors must ensure that they maintain active SMS users so that they can continue managing their sponsor licence properly. The guidance warns that failure to maintain appropriate active users can put the sponsor's licence at risk.

The updated guidance introduces changes to how sponsors manage their sponsorship licences and comply with the Home Office's administrative requirements. Sponsors must continue to keep their sponsorship systems active and properly managed, while the Home Office is introducing new requirements around SMS access, inactive accounts and user roles. The Level 2 User role is being phased out as part of the wider changes to the Sponsorship Management System. Sponsors will no longer be able to appoint new Level 2 Users from 9 September 2026, and the role is scheduled to be abolished after 8 March 2027. Sponsors therefore need to make sure that they have appropriate alternative SMS users who can continue carrying out sponsorship responsibilities. The guidance also introduces clearer arrangements for inactive sponsor licences and inactive SMS user accounts. Sponsors that no longer need their licence are encouraged to surrender it rather than retain an unused licence indefinitely. The Home Office has also clarified how inactive SMS users can affect sponsor compliance and enforcement. Sponsors should therefore ensure that their SMS users remain active and that there are enough authorised people able to manage the organisation's sponsorship responsibilities. The updated guidance also reflects the introduction of mandatory multi-factor authentication (MFA) for SMS users. MFA is scheduled to become mandatory from 3 September 2026, meaning sponsor users will need to complete an additional authentication step when accessing the Sponsorship Management System. This is intended to strengthen the security of sponsor accounts and reduce the risk of unauthorised access. The guidance also updates sponsors' right-to-work compliance responsibilities ahead of changes applying to certain employment arrangements beginning on or after 1 October 2026. Employers should therefore review their right-to-work checking procedures before that date to ensure that they are using the correct process for the workers they employ. The existing sponsor duties remain in place. Sponsors must continue reporting relevant changes involving sponsored workers, maintaining required records, monitoring sponsored employment and complying with UK immigration and wider legal requirements. Where a sponsor fails to meet these duties, the Home Office can take enforcement action, including reducing its Certificate of Sponsorship allocation, setting the allocation to zero, downgrading or suspending its licence, or ultimately revoking the licence.

The Home Office guidance sets out four criteria that normally need to be considered when an applicant requests predetermination or biometric excusal. 1. Identity must be established: The applicant must provide sufficient evidence of their identity and nationality. For biometric excusal, the threshold is generally a reasonable degree of certainty about the person's identity. This is higher than the balance-of-probabilities standard used when assessing a request for predetermination. Applicants will normally be expected to provide a valid travel document, such as a passport, together with a facial photograph that meets the relevant requirements. 2. Travelling to the VAC must genuinely be unsafe: The applicant must demonstrate that travelling to a VAC is unsafe because of the circumstances in the country or area where they are located and along the route they would need to take. They must also show that they cannot simply delay the journey or use a safe alternative VAC. The Home Office specifically considers factors such as: conflict; serious security threats; vulnerability; the route that would need to be travelled; the availability of alternative VACs; and whether travelling later would be reasonably possible. 3. There must be compelling circumstances: Being unable to travel to a VAC is not, by itself, enough. The applicant must demonstrate circumstances that are sufficiently compelling to outweigh the wider public interest in maintaining immigration, border and national security. The guidance gives particular weight to situations involving close family members in the UK, especially where the UK-based sponsor has urgent care needs or where children are involved. 4. The applicant must explain why they can travel to the UK: This is an important distinction. Someone asking to be excused from biometric enrolment must explain why they cannot safely reach any VAC but are nevertheless able to travel safely to the UK. UKVI must therefore consider the circumstances surrounding the proposed journey to the UK rather than automatically assuming that an unsafe journey to a VAC justifies excusal.

Immigration Rules Appendix SN details the methods for serving specific notices related to immigration applications and administrative reviews, and establishes presumptions about the date of receipt. Notices can be given by hand, fax, postal service, electronic mail, document exchange, or courier. If no specific correspondence address is provided, notices may be sent to the last-known or usual place of abode, study, or business. If service is not possible via these methods, the notice is deemed given on the day it is placed on file by the decision-maker, with a copy subsequently provided to the person if located. For persons under 18 without a representative, notice may be given to a parent, guardian, or responsible adult. A postal address outside the UK is not considered a correspondence address if the affected person is in the UK. Presumptions for the date of receipt are defined: for postal service within the UK, the second business day after sending (excluding the posting day); for postal service outside the UK, the 28th day after posting; and for fax, email, document exchange, or courier, the day it was sent. These presumptions apply unless proven otherwise.

The current process requires a user to obtain an invitation before creating a Manage Asylum Claim account. -Immigration advisers: An immigration adviser wishing to use the service must: -prepare a letter of authority; -email it to the Home Office at the designated communications address; -use “MAC Portal” as the email subject; and -wait to receive an invitation before creating an account. The Home Office also makes clear that the team responsible for issuing invitations cannot provide information about individual asylum claims. -Paralegals and administrative support staff: Paralegals and administrative support staff do not follow the same direct invitation route described for immigration advisers. Instead, an immigration adviser within their organisation who already has a Manage Asylum Claim account can create an account for them. -Account creation: When creating an account, the user must have: -their own work email address; and -a mobile phone number. -What the service can be used for: Once authorised, immigration advisers can use the service to manage documents relating to asylum claims they are working on, including downloading and uploading files. Paralegals and administrative support staff can also use the service. The service remains optional: advisers can continue to manage asylum claims through email and post.

The Home Office has now stated that: The policy concerning individuals intended for removal to an ECAT and ECHR signatory country is no longer being applied. The Home Office further states that the application of the sections dealing with: -Reconsideration process, and -Requesting an extension to provide new evidence will now be considered on an individual basis. The department says further consideration is being given to additional guidance amendments. What this means in practice: The previous approach effectively identified a particular group of VTS cases based on the country to which the person was intended to be removed. That specific cohort-based policy is no longer being applied. Instead, relevant reconsideration requests and requests for additional time to provide new evidence are to be assessed case by case. This does not mean that every VTS decision now receives a reconsideration automatically. The ordinary guidance continues to provide that an individual may request one reconsideration within 30 calendar days where, for example: -they believe the Immigration Rules or policies were not followed correctly; -they believe the expiry date or purpose of a successful VTS grant is incorrect; or -they have new evidence relevant to the application that was unavailable when the original decision was made. Where a person requests reconsideration based on new information but cannot yet provide that information, the guidance allows them to contact the Competent Authority and request an extension as early as possible.

The NAAB has updated its guidance to clarify how new information should be considered after an age-assessment decision and to reflect the transition from MOVEit to Portal for file sharing. -New information following an age assessment: Where new evidence comes to the attention of the NAAB after an age assessment, the information must be considered to determine whether it amounts to significant new evidence. If it is determined to be significant new evidence, a further age assessment can be conducted, which includes reviewing the existing assessment. The guidance also provides for consideration of whether the age-disputed person should be invited to submit other new evidence relevant to their age before a decision is made on the new information and any potential reassessment. This is important because a previous NAAB assessment is not necessarily permanently determinative if significant new evidence subsequently emerges. The updated guidance states that a NAAB assessment can cease to be binding where it is overturned through judicial review or where a new assessment decision is made because significant new evidence has come to light. -File-sharing transition: The guidance has also been amended to account for the transition from MOVEit to Portal. This is an operational change affecting how relevant case information and documents are shared between the organisations involved in the NAAB process. -What remains unchanged: The fundamental role of the NAAB remains the same. It remains a Home Office decision-making function that can conduct age assessments following referrals from: local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland; Health and Social Care Trusts in Northern Ireland; or the Home Office. The circumstances in which referrals may occur also remain broadly the same.

The 'Germany-UK school trip travel information form' allows groups of 5 or more pupils aged 19 and under from schools in Germany to visit the UK. For EU, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein nationals, a passport or national identity card is required. For other nationals, a valid national passport or refugee travel document issued by Germany is required. German police continue to recommend carrying an informal declaration of consent to travel and a copy of the parent/guardian's identity document. Adults accompanying the trip still require either a Standard Visitor visa, an Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA), or no visa/ETA, depending on nationality, and must bring their passport. The head teacher of the school must complete the form and send it to the German municipal or competent authority at least 15 days before departure. The municipal or other competent authority will check and validate the documents and send them back to the head teacher. The guidance clarifies that the form should be updated 'to make it clearer what ages of schoolchildren are eligible for the scheme'. It also clarifies that an authorisation to leave the country and a copy of a parent/guardian's identity document are now recommended, rather than a requirement, when submitting the form to the German municipal or competent authority. The form size has increased to 1.2 MB.

An artist, entertainer, or musician visiting the UK to perform at a Permit Free Festival (PFF) may receive payment to do so. The policy provides a specific list of 100 festivals that are designated as 'Permit Free Festivals', allowing such activities for visitors.

Appendix O has been deleted. The current GOV.UK page for Appendix O now states simply: “DELETED.” The English-language rules have instead been consolidated under Appendix English Language. Under the current Appendix English Language, an applicant can meet the English-language requirement through an approved test where they provide: a valid digital reference number; from an approved provider; showing that they passed an approved English-language test; at the required level; and in each required component specified by the relevant immigration route. The test must have been taken within the two years before the date of application. The current rules no longer reproduce the complete list of approved tests within Appendix O. Instead, Appendix English Language directs applicants to the separate Home Office page containing the approved test providers and approved tests. The English-language requirement remains route-specific Appendix English Language continues to apply to numerous immigration routes, including: Student; Skilled Worker; Representative of an Overseas Business; Minister of Religion; International Sportsperson; UK Ancestry; Global Talent; Innovator Founder; High Potential Individual; Scale-up; Private Life; Settlement Family Life; Hong Kong BN(O); Victim of Domestic Abuse; Long Residence; and other specified routes. The level required depends on the relevant route.

A person making further submissions must now attend an in-person appointment at a Service and Support Centre. At the time the submissions are made, the person must be physically present in the UK, must be a failed asylum seeker whose original claim was refused or withdrawn, and must have no outstanding asylum, protection or human-rights claim or appeal before the Home Office, First-tier Tribunal, Upper Tribunal or relevant court. If any of these validity requirements are not met, the submissions can be rejected as invalid and not considered. The rules also distinguish between explicit and implicit withdrawal. Further submissions are explicitly withdrawn when the applicant signs the relevant withdrawal form or otherwise clearly states that they want to withdraw them. They may be implicitly withdrawn if the applicant stops maintaining contact with the Home Office, fails to keep their contact details updated, leaves the UK before a decision is made, fails to attend required reporting events, fails to attend a personal interview, or does not respond to an information request within the required period. Where the failure resulted from circumstances beyond the applicant's control, they can avoid implicit withdrawal by demonstrating this within a reasonable period. The underlying fresh-claim test remains. Further submissions must contain material that has not already been considered and that, together with the previously considered material, creates a realistic prospect of success despite the earlier rejection. The test does not apply to claims made overseas. The rules also continue to require the decision maker to consider exceptional circumstances in certain cases where removal may no longer be appropriate. This assessment can take account of the person's character and conduct, criminal record, compliance with previous immigration conditions or immigration bail, and the length of time they have remained in the UK for reasons outside their control after their claim was submitted or refused.

The current Part 2 page now formally presents all four historical provisions as DELETED: Paragraph 1 — DELETED Paragraph 2 — DELETED Paragraph 3 — DELETED Paragraph 4 — DELETED The page therefore contains no operative transitional visitor provisions. At the same time, the current Immigration Rules continue to contain Appendix V: Visitor, which remains the principal framework for visitor permission. The rules also retain: Appendix Visitor: Permitted Activities Appendix Visitor: Visa National list Appendix Visitor: Permit Free Festival list The separate Visitor: Transit Without Visa Scheme is also listed as deleted, but that is a separate historical provision and should not be confused with the general visitor route.

HC 259 introduces a new provision allowing certain UK-born children of Graduate visa holders to apply for permission as dependants of their Graduate-route parent. The changes also clarify rules for children joining relatives in the UK and introduce care and accommodation requirements for children applying under parts of Appendix FM. In family migration cases involving sponsors with temporary protection, a partner's permission can now be aligned with the sponsor's remaining period of permission. The Statement of Changes also makes several changes to EU-related immigration routes. Fingerprint requirements are removed for relevant EU Settlement Scheme travel permits, while the rules clarify when certain family members of qualifying British citizens can apply for settled status. HC 259 also restores administrative review for eligible refusals under Appendix ECAA Settlement. For Armed Forces families, the rules create a specific route for certain children whose sole parent is a serving HM Armed Forces member who is exempt from immigration control. These children can receive five years' permission to stay, while the settlement rules clarify when certain children can qualify for settlement without completing their own 60-month qualifying period. The rules also clarify that dependants of exempt international armed forces personnel must obtain their own immigration permission rather than automatically sharing the sponsor's exemption. The changes also affect asylum and criminality rules. The asylum provisions introduce the framework for merged registration and expand the circumstances in which an asylum claim can be considered without a separate personal interview. Separately, suspended sentences of 12 months or more are added to relevant criminality provisions for ETA applicants and Child Student carers, while Part 13 is updated to align deportation rules with changes to sentencing legislation. Several work and talent routes are also amended. The Global Talent prestigious-prize list is corrected and updated, while the Scale-up route is amended to recognise neonatal leave when calculating relevant earnings and settlement requirements. The settlement process for stateless people is simplified by directing applicants to use the SET(O) form instead of the previous FLR(S) form. Finally, HC 259 makes a large number of technical and alignment changes across the Immigration Rules, including provisions concerning immigration bail, overstaying, suitability, criminality and application procedures. These amendments affect routes including Skilled Worker, Global Business Mobility, Global Talent, High Potential Individual, UK Ancestry, Student and several temporary-work and family routes. Many of these are corrections or clarifications rather than major changes to eligibility.

The new Version 4.0 substantially updates the country information and assessment rather than introducing a new statutory rule. The updated note states that: compulsory military service applies to all Iranian males aged 18–49; service lasts 14–24 months; conscientious objection is not generally available; exemptions exist on medical and specified non-medical grounds; gay men and transgender people can qualify for exemption because Iranian authorities classify them as having a mental disorder; people who evade service by leaving Iran remain liable to military service on return until age 50, although people over 40 are more commonly subject to a fine; draft evaders can lose certain social benefits and civil rights; and people who remain liable for prosecution can potentially face imprisonment. The new assessment nevertheless concludes that draft evaders and deserters are generally unlikely to face treatment amounting to persecution or serious harm solely because of evasion or desertion. There is, however, an important qualification. The updated CPIN says that an Iranian draft evader or deserter who also belongs to a minority ethnic group, such as a Kurd, may potentially establish a Convention reason where the authorities perceive the evasion or desertion as evidence of disloyalty or political opposition. The new guidance also records evidence from January 2026 concerning the treatment of military personnel who refused orders during nationwide protests. One conscript was reportedly sentenced to death for refusing an order to shoot protesters, while a human-rights organisation reported that dozens of security personnel in Kermanshah Province were arrested for refusing to fire on protesters. Importantly, the Home Office does not conclude from these incidents that ordinary Iranian conscripts generally face such a risk. It says there is otherwise no evidence indicating that conscripts are generally likely to be involved in acts contrary to the basic rules of human conduct.

The guidance has been updated to clarify that HM Passport Office examiners can add the cancellation case note in any available Digital Application Processing (DAP) task, even if the specific 'DAP born abroad' task is not available.

Payment for the TB test is now made at the IOM-designated bank in Belarusian rubles (BYN), based on the United Nations (UN) exchange rate applicable on the date of payment.

Detention Services Order (DSO) 10/2024 sets out instructions on the process for completing a risk assessment and the considerations required before placing an individual in an immigration detention facility. This includes specific guidance for placing Foreign National Offenders (FNOs) detained under immigration powers in prisons, and details the DEPMU Risk Assessment process, which utilises forms IS91RA Part A and IS91RA Part C. The order also clarifies roles of various Home Office teams and contracted service providers within the immigration removal estate, and outlines criteria for determining if a TSFNO should be held in prison or the immigration removal estate.

Version 7.0 updates the process used by the Detention Engagement Team after a nationality document has been seized. The updated policy states that details of seized documents must be provided to the onsite DET immediately. The DET then updates the relevant notes in ATLAS and informs the Home Office caseworker by email and follow-up procedures. Where a passport is found, the DET is instructed to consider whether removal is likely within the next six weeks and follow the relevant property-management procedures. The caseworker then determines whether the document should be retained, returned, or otherwise dealt with and updates the relevant Home Office records.

New funding instructions have been published for local authorities regarding the support and care of unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC) and those leaving care for the financial year 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027. Payments for each eligible UASC are set at a rate of £143 per child per night. Additional incentivised funding is available for transfers under the National Transfer Scheme (NTS): £8,000 for transfers completed within two working days (from 1 June 2026 to 30 September 2026) and £4,000 for transfers completed within five working days (from 1 April 2026 to 30 November 2026). These incentivised payments are in addition to the standard £143 per child per night funding. Exclusions apply to children granted British Citizenship or those receiving asylum support directly from the Home Office. Payments cease the day before a young person turns 18, or if a child is absent/missing for more than 28 consecutive days (unless hospitalised and the local authority remains responsible), or if placed in a Young Offenders Institute (YOI) for more than 28 days.

A decision on a VIP Delegate visa application is provided within 10 working days.

The Country Policy and Information Note: sexual orientation and gender identity, Algeria, July 2026, provides updated information on the treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people, and people of other sexual orientations and gender identities (LGBT+) in Algeria since May 2025.

Individuals on immigration bail should complete a biodata form before attending their appointment at their reporting centre. The form requests information including family details, educational history, and past employment. Immigration officers may also ask individuals to complete the form at the reporting centre.

The list of Country Policy and Information Notes (CPINs) for Albania has been updated to include 'Country bulletin: human trafficking, Albania, August 2026'. Additionally, the 'country policy and information note: human trafficking, Albania, July 2024' has been removed as it is out of date and not being replaced. The published list now includes: 'Country bulletin: human trafficking, Albania, August 2026', 'Country policy and information note: gender-based violence, Albania, April 2026', 'Country policy and information note: sexual orientation and gender identity, Albania, September 2025', 'Country policy and information note: unaccompanied children, Albania, July 2025', 'Country policy and information note: actors of protection, Albania, February 2025', 'Country policy and information note: mental healthcare, Albania, January 2025', 'Country policy and information note: blood feuds, Albania, July 2024', 'Country information note: medical and healthcare provision, Albania, May 2023', 'Report of a fact-finding mission: blood feuds, Albania, January 2023', and 'Report of a fact-finding mission: human trafficking, Albania, December 2022'.

An age dispute raised in detention must be treated as an immediate safeguarding issue. The staff member receiving the claim must notify the contracted service provider's duty manager and ensure the Home Office Compliance Team and Detention Engagement Team are informed within 2 hours. A Detainee Custody Manager must conduct an initial welfare and vulnerability assessment within 3 hours. An Age Dispute Care Plan must be opened without undue delay. The assessment must consider accommodation, observation, healthcare, welfare, interpreter needs, activities and other safeguarding needs. If the assessment cannot be completed within 3 hours in exceptional circumstances, the person should be placed in single occupancy and have supervised access to activities as a precaution. The person must continue to receive appropriate safeguards while their age is unresolved. The care plan must generally be reviewed every 72 hours. In England, access to DDAS appointments must continue while the person's age remains unresolved. If a person previously assessed as over 18 raises a new age dispute or provides new evidence, the case must be reconsidered through the relevant age-dispute process. Where a local authority or National Age Assessment Board has previously assessed the person, new evidence must be referred to them for consideration.

The caseworker guidance for Appendix International Forces and International Civilian Employees has been updated to reflect several changes. Specifically, the name Nauru has been changed to Naoero. Dependants of exempt international armed forces personnel are not automatically eligible to accompany them and must now apply for entry clearance. Civilian employees of the UK Ministry of Defence and the UK Armed Forces are explicitly out of scope for the International Civilian Employee route. The guidance also covers the introduction of exempt digital status to replace physical exempt vignettes and in-country requests for proof of exempt status. Additionally, references to 'Part Suitability' have replaced 'Part 9' in the Immigration Rules throughout the guidance, and the eligibility criteria for international civilian employees have been updated based on changes in HC 836.

The updated CPINs provide the current Home Office assessment. The March 2026 opposition note states that Egyptian authorities heavily restrict meaningful political opposition and can arrest, detain or otherwise target people considered a national-security risk. The military-service guidance states that military service remains compulsory for Egyptian men aged 18–30, while women are not subject to compulsory service.

The First-tier Tribunal will be expected to hear new asylum and immigration appeals within 24 weeks of being received by the tribunal for in-scope cases. This applies to appeals from non-detained foreign national offenders (FNOs) and individuals receiving asylum support and accommodation.

The updated guidance clarifies how officers should use these existing powers. It distinguishes administrative powers, used primarily to locate, arrest and detain people for immigration removal, from criminal powers, which must be used for genuine criminal investigations with an intention to prosecute. It also sets out constraints on entry, searches, use of force and document retention.

The guidance on 'Prove your English language abilities with a secure English language test (SELT)' has been updated to reflect changes to the lists of approved test centres in and outside the UK. This update took effect on 5 October 2026.