Mastering Immigration Law Subscription Update – Summer 2025
The end of Summer 2025 has brought significant developments across UK immigration law and practice. The Home Office has updated its policies and guidance, whilst the courts have made key decisions that protect applicants’ rights. Together, these developments are reshaping how immigration applications are handled and assessed.
Our MIL Blog covers these essential updates that immigration advisers need to understand for effective client representation.
eVisas regime
Updates to Residence documents: information for financial providers updated for eVisas
The Home Office has completed its transition from physical Biometric Residence Permits and Cards to digital eVisas. Issuance of physical documents ceased on 31 October 2024, with most BRPs expiring on 31 December 2024. Critically, an expired physical document does not affect the holder’s underlying immigration status, only the document itself has expired. Clients must proactively create a UKVI account to access their digital immigration record.
eVisas function as online records of immigration permission, accessible through the UKVI account portal. For identity and immigration status verification purposes, financial institutions can now utilise the online ‘check someone’s immigration status’ service using a share code and the individual’s date of birth. This system draws real-time information directly from Home Office records and displays the individual’s facial image, eliminating the need for physical documents to circulate and providing enhanced verification assurance.
The legal framework supports digital verification. eVisas qualify as identification documents under section 7 of the Identity Documents Act 2010, containing name, date of birth and nationality. Joint Money Laundering Steering Group guidance confirms that firms may use electronic sources to verify customer identity, provided they have verified the customer’s existence and confirmed the applicant is genuinely that person.
Advisors should counsel clients presenting expired BRPs or BRCs to establish whether they hold an eVisa. Most should have access to one and can provide time-limited share codes to third parties. Where clients lack eVisa access, they should be directed to create a UKVI account immediately. This transition reflects the Home Office’s commitment to a digital-by-default immigration system, making eVisa access increasingly essential across UK institutions.
Cancellations of Leave to Remain
Kaur [2025] EWHC 1942 (Admin) : Precedence of the correct use of cancellation of leave with a RED.0001 Notice
The High Court’s decision in Kaur EWHC 1942 (Admin) provides important clarification on the lawful use of RED.0001 notices for cancelling permission to stay. The Court held that such notices should be reserved for serious cases involving deception, fraud, or significant breaches of conditions, as specified in the Home Office’s March 2023 guidance. The judgment rejected the Secretary of State’s contention that the guidance examples were merely illustrative, establishing instead that the policy framework must be strictly observed and that broad application of RED.0001 would render the guidance meaningless.
In Kaur’s case specifically, the Court found that none of the serious grounds justifying immediate cancellation had been established. There was no evidence of deception, fraud, or breach of conditions warranting such action. The Court identified multiple procedural failings, notably that the decision to cancel permission appeared predetermined before any proper inquiry or interview had been conducted. No valid reasons for immediate cancellation were articulated, and the subsequent detention flowing from the unlawful cancellation was similarly declared unlawful. The cumulative effect was a clear breach of public law principles.
For advisors and clients, this judgment confirms that RED.0001 notices must comply strictly with policy guidance. Officers must establish serious grounds, provide clear reasons, and follow proper procedure. Where these requirements are not met, judicial review is a viable remedy. Advisors should examine the reasoning behind any RED.0001 notice and challenge decisions where procedural safeguards have been breached or the policy threshold not satisfied.
Business Immigration
Treal Care (UK) Ltd [2025] EWHC 1797 (Admin): Court’s approach to mandatory revocation criteria and salary reductions
The High Court’s judgment in Treal Care (UK) Ltd EWHC 1797 (Admin) marks a significant refinement of how mandatory sponsor licence revocation criteria are applied. Although the Home Office guidance designates certain breaches as triggering mandatory revocation—such as failure to pay sponsored workers the salary specified in their Certificate of Sponsorship, the Court held that this mandatory characterisation does not negate the requirement for the decision to be reasonable, rational, and adequately reasoned. In essence, the label “mandatory” does not absolve decision-makers from applying their policy fairly and contextually. The revocation decision was quashed on grounds that it was irrational and inadequately reasoned, with the Court rejecting the Home Office’s assertion that it would have reached the same conclusion regardless.
The case specifically addressed salary reduction breaches and clarified that not every deviation from CoS salary rates justifies revocation. The Home Office’s calculation of underpayment was fundamentally flawed because it failed to account for legitimate reasons for reduced pay, particularly unpaid or compassionate leave taken by employees. The Court emphasised that where employees received annualised pay or took justified periods of leave, these circumstances should not be treated as substantive breaches triggering mandatory revocation. The decision was further criticised for its inadequate reasoning, as the Home Office did not fairly acknowledge or assess the employer’s representations explaining the pay variations. Only unexplained, material, or deliberately non-compliant underpayment can properly justify revocation under the mandatory criteria.
For sponsor organisations and their advisors, Treal Care establishes that the Home Office must conduct fair, contextual assessments when applying mandatory revocation criteria to salary breaches. Sponsors facing allegations of salary non-compliance should ensure they provide comprehensive explanations for any variations, including details of leave taken, annualised pay arrangements, or other legitimate reasons for temporary reductions.
Where the Home Office proceeds to revoke without fairly engaging with such representations or without identifying genuinely material breaches, there are strong grounds for judicial review. The judgment reinforces that mechanical application of mandatory criteria is unlawful; rigorous examination of the facts and adequate reasoning remain essential prerequisites to lawful revocation decisions.
Asylum
Pause on refugee family reunion applications
The Home Office has suspended new refugee family reunion applications with effect from 4 September 2025, pending a review and overhaul of the scheme, with revised rules anticipated in Spring 2026. The pause reflects growing pressure on local authorities and public services, driven by increased demand for government accommodation and welfare provision amongst newly arrived refugees. Applications and appeals submitted before the suspension date will continue under the previous, more generous criteria, which did not require financial or English language qualifications for refugees reuniting with partners and dependent children.
Refugees submitting new applications after 4 September 2025 must now use the standard Family Migration route under Appendix FM, which requires sponsors to meet a minimum income threshold of £29,000, satisfy English language requirements, and demonstrate adequate accommodation. This represents a substantial barrier for newly arrived and vulnerable refugees still establishing themselves in the UK, particularly those with limited employment history or incomplete income documentation. The standard route fundamentally alters the accessibility of family reunion for this cohort.
The anticipated 2026 reforms are expected to introduce further restrictions, potentially including a two-year waiting period before refugees may apply for family reunion following the grant of protection. Additional measures under consideration include mandatory English language testing and formal financial thresholds. Parliamentary committees and pressure groups have criticised the suspension’s likely impact on vulnerable populations, particularly women and children. Immigration advisors should identify clients whose applications predate 4 September 2025 and confirm they benefit from the previous, more favourable rules.
For practitioners, the priority is to advise refugee clients with pending applications that cases will continue under previous rules if submitted before suspension. Clients initiating new applications must now satisfy standard Family Migration criteria, substantially raising the eligibility bar.
Advisors should prepare clients for significantly stricter requirements when new rules take effect in 2026 and explore interim options such as sponsoring adult family members who may meet financial criteria or alternative routes where available.
British Citizenship
Guidance Registration as a British citizen updated re proof of paternity
Updated Home Office guidance on British citizenship registration has clarified evidentiary standards for establishing paternity, particularly for applications involving unmarried parents. A full birth certificate naming both parents remains the core documentary evidence. For children born before 10 September 2015, a certificate issued within twelve months of birth naming the father is generally sufficient without further investigation. For births after 10 September 2015, caseworkers will accept the birth certificate unless credible contradictory evidence emerges, such as conflicting DNA evidence or court orders indicating the parents could not have been together at conception.
DNA evidence may be provided voluntarily but cannot be compelled by the Home Office, and applicants cannot face penalties or adverse inferences for declining to undergo testing. Where birth certificates are unavailable or disputed, court orders and other official documentation can establish paternity. Caseworkers retain discretion to request further evidence or conduct interviews if paternity is genuinely unclear, but negative conclusions must be grounded in the balance of probabilities assessment.
The guidance confirms that for children born in the UK after 1 July 2006 to unmarried parents, paternity can be established using birth certificates or supplementary evidence, addressing historic legitimacy barriers. MN1 registration applications now routinely request birth certificates, parental consent documentation for applicants under eighteen, and evidence confirming the father’s citizenship or settled status at the time of the child’s birth.
Immigration advisors should ensure applications are accompanied by robust documentary evidence and should challenge any requests for DNA testing, reminding the Home Office that voluntary provision cannot be compelled. The updated guidance aims to enhance consistency and fairness in casework, particularly for children of unmarried parents navigating the citizenship registration process.
Written by Shareen Khan – Legal Content Writer, HJT Training
STAY TUNED FOR MORE IMMIGRATION NEWS NEXT WEEK!
Disclaimer: This blog post is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration advisors should consult the full decisions and official policy documents when advising clients on specific cases.
