Mastering Immigration Law Subscription Update – September – November 2025
Between September and November 2025, major immigration reforms have been introduced that focus on stricter settlement rules, higher sponsorship costs, and increased scrutiny on the asylum regime, setting the stage for broader changes in 2026.
Our MIL Blog covers some of these essential updates that immigration advisers need to understand for effective client representation. Subscribers may also find these in their subscription. Please log in to access.
Settlement
The Farooq Impact: Two Key Shifts
Farooq[2025] UKUT 411 (IAC) formalises “settlement” as equivalent to “permission” under the Rules whilst confirming that general refusal reasons apply to ILR applications. This arrives as the government consults on earned settlement, proposing to double the standard qualifying period from five to ten years.
Farooq UKUT 411 (IAC) confirms that “permission to stay” in the post‑April 2024 Immigration Rules has the same legal meaning as “leave to remain”, and that this includes settlement (ILR) as a form of “permission”.
The Upper Tribunal treats the April 2024 terminology change (“permission” replacing “leave”) as one of language only, not substance, so that “permission to stay” must be read as equivalent to the pre‑existing concept of leave to remain. On that construction, a person who has ILR holds “permission” within the Rules’ definitions; the fact that ILR is not time‑limited does not put it outside “permission”.
As the Rules now define “permission” to cover both limited and indefinite grants, the Tribunal treats “settlement” (ILR) as one species of “permission to stay”, sitting alongside other forms of limited leave. The case decision clarifies that references in newer provisions (e.g. Appendix Long Residence, Appendix Settlement routes) to having “current permission” or to periods of “permission” are to be read as including periods of ILR unless the specific rule clearly excludes ILR.
For long residence and settlement routes, periods spent with ILR count as periods with “permission” in the same way as periods with limited leave; advisers should not argue that ILR falls into a separate, non‑permission category.
Where a rule now requires, for example, 12 months of “current permission” before applying for settlement, the Tribunal’s reasoning is that this can be satisfied either by 12 months of limited leave or 12 months of ILR, because both are “permission” within the unified definition.
The case also set a second important precedence in addressing Earned Settlement. Farooq UKUT 411 (IAC) treats the “Earned Settlement” consultation and the extension of qualifying residence to 10 years as a policy proposal that the Tribunal must apply if and when it is implemented, but it does not itself question the lawfulness of consulting on a longer qualifying period; it then confirms that the existing “general grounds for refusal” in Part 9 apply in full to ILR applications, including under any earned‑settlement model.
The judgment notes the Home Secretary’s Earned settlement consultation, which proposes increasing the standard qualifying residence period for settlement to ten years for most routes, with the possibility of shortening or lengthening that period depending on “positive” and “negative” factors such as high earnings, public funds use, or immigration breaches.
The Tribunal’s position is that this is a matter of political and policy judgment: provided the consultation process and eventual Rules changes remain within the statutory vires, the courts/UT will apply a ten‑year baseline (and any earned reductions or increases) as expressed in the amended Immigration Rules, rather than treating it as irrational simply because it is longer than the present five‑year model.
With regards to general refusal reasons and Indefinite Leave to Remain, Farooq proceeds on the basis that settlement applications are subject to the general grounds for refusal in Part 9 (formerly para 320/322 etc.), so that character, conduct, criminality, deception, immigration breaches and similar issues can justify refusal of ILR, even where the applicant otherwise meets the residence and route‑specific requirements.
In doing so, the Tribunal treats ILR as an application for “permission” to stay that is fully caught by the Part 9 regime; the same generic refusal framework applies across limited leave and ILR, and there is no separate, more lenient standard for settlement applications under the earned‑settlement model.
Business Immigration & Points Based System(PBS) Applications
The Mostafa Framework: PBS Rules Interpretation
Mostafa[2025] EWCA Civ 1398 establishes the definitive approach to interpreting PBS Rules: courts must ask whether the relevant statutory provisions, construed purposively, were intended to apply to the transaction viewed realistically and considered ‘in the round’. This provides critical guidance on how to assess transaction substance against the Rules.
Mostafa endorses a purposive, “in‑the‑round” approach to interpreting Points Based System (PBS) provisions, asking whether the statutory scheme, viewed realistically, was intended to apply to the transaction as it actually occurred. The Court of Appeal emphasises that PBS rules are not to be applied as a rigid checklist divorced from their statutory purpose, but by evaluating the overall transaction against what Parliament meant those rules to regulate.
In the purposive construction of PBS rules the court holds that when construing PBS provisions, the decision‑maker must identify the purpose of the relevant statutory framework (for example, the route’s economic or business aim) and ask whether the applicant’s arrangements fall within that purpose, construed purposively rather than literally.
This necessitates considering the rules within the context of a statutory framework, rather than viewing them as isolated administrative guidelines. The interpretation of individual requirements should be guided by the broader legislative intent underlying the process.
Mostafa stresses that the underlying “transaction” (as in the case facts, the representative‑of‑an‑overseas‑business arrangements) must be assessed on the facts as a whole, viewed realistically, not by isolating individual features (for example, minor interview inconsistencies) and allowing them to dominate the analysis.
The court refers to this process as considering the arrangements “in the round.” This means assessing all aspects of the business, including its purpose, funding, role, and intentions, and then deciding whether the route is genuinely being used as intended or simply as a way to get around the PBS scheme.
The Mostafa Requirement: UK Business Representatives
Mostafa[2025] EWCA Civ 1398 confirms that representatives of an overseas business must have fulfilled a full-time UK role and possess the requisite skills, experience, and knowledge to generate business from the UK branch. This clarifies the substantive competency threshold for this visa category.
Mostafa confirms that a Representative of an Overseas Business is expected, in substance, to be a full‑time senior employee in the UK with the capability to establish and then run the UK branch, including generating business from it.
The Court of Appeal reads Appendix Representative of an Overseas Business as requiring the representative to work full‑time in the UK in that capacity, not treating the role as incidental or part‑time alongside other activities.
In construing “establish” and “supervise” the UK branch, the court holds that “supervise” in this context effectively means “run”: the representative must be responsible, on a day‑to‑day basis, for the operation and development of the UK branch over the initial grant of leave.
The court rejects the narrower view that it is enough simply to have skills and knowledge of the overseas business; instead, the applicant must have the skills, experience and knowledge necessary to establish and supervise (i.e. to run) a trading UK branch that can generate income for the overseas undertaking. This includes the ability to take operational decisions, to develop and maintain UK clients, and to drive genuine trading activity from the UK establishment, consistent with the route’s purpose as a path to settlement for genuine commercial expansion rather than a personal migration route.
Student Self-Employment Route Change
Students with self-employment permission can now switch directly to the innovator founder route when endorsed, removing a previous barrier to entrepreneurial progression for international student founders.
From 25 November 2025, Student visa holders who are switching into the Innovator Founder route and have completed their course are expressly allowed to be self‑employed in order to establish their endorsed business while their Innovator Founder application is pending.
Under the new self‑employment permission, the work conditions for Students are amended so that, in this specific scenario, a student “will be permitted to be self‑employed to establish a business” once they have completed their sponsored studies and are switching to the Innovator Founder route (or have completed 24 months of a PhD).
This reflects the previous exception that allowed transitions to the Start-up route: apart from this Innovator-Founder switch scenario, students are still prohibited from self-employment or participating in business activities, and all standard student work restrictions remain in effect.
Eligible students can now switch in‑country from Student to Innovator Founder without leaving the UK, provided they obtain endorsement for an innovative, viable and scalable business and apply before their student visa permission expires.
During the pendency of that Innovator Founder application, they may lawfully begin operating the endorsed venture on a self‑employed basis, giving a smoother transition from study to entrepreneurship and effectively reviving the old Start‑up‑style flexibility under the new regime.
Prestige Social Care Services: Exceptional Circumstances Defence
Prestige Social Care Services [2025] EWHC 2860 (Admin) establishes that exceptional circumstances can justify not revoking a sponsor licence, even where grounds for revocation would typically apply. This provides a potentially significant safeguard for sponsors facing licence withdrawal.
Prestige Social Care Services EWHC 2860 (Admin) confirms that the statutory scheme for sponsor licensing leaves very limited room for “exceptional circumstances” in which a sponsor licence need not be revoked once mandatory revocation grounds are made out, but it recognises that such a category exists in principle. The judgment emphasises that the threshold is high: mere hardship to the business, staff or service‑users is not enough; the circumstances would need to be truly out of the ordinary and clearly identified and reasoned in the decision‑making process.
Expanding on the existence and nature of “exceptional circumstances”, the court accepts that even where the sponsor guidance and the Rules indicate revocation is mandatory, the Secretary of State retains a residual discretion not to revoke in exceptional cases, as recognised in earlier authority such as Prestwick Care.
However, Prestige emphasises that this exception is very limited: it is not a general override based on “fairness,” and any decision not to revoke must be supported by strong, specific reasons showing that revocation would be disproportionate or unreasonable given the facts of the case.
Conversely, in clarifying what does not constitute exceptional circumstances, the claimant’s arguments concerning the effect of revocation on business viability, existing sponsored employees, and continuity of care for vulnerable service. Users were deemed inadequate to satisfy the exceptional threshold; such outcomes are anticipated and intrinsic consequences of losing a sponsor licence within the care sector.
As a result, Prestige makes it clear that issues often faced by many sponsors such as financial loss, staffing challenges, or service interruptions will seldom, if ever, persuade the Secretary of State to consider a case exceptional enough to prevent licence revocation once multiple, systemic breaches of sponsor duties are proven.
Asylum & Family Reunion
DM: Family Reunion Regime and Discrimination Concerns
DM [2025] EWCA Civ 1273 finds that the family reunion regime discriminates against children, though whether such discrimination is justified remains to be determined. The decision highlights ongoing uncertainty around this emerging policy framework.
DM EWCA Civ 1273 held that the pre‑suspension refugee family reunion regime did treat unaccompanied child refugees less favourably than adult refugees, and that this amounted to differential treatment capable of being discriminatory under Article 14 taken with Article 8 ECHR; however, the Court left open whether that discrimination was justified, to be determined following a proper justification exercise by the Secretary of State.
The Court of Appeal holds a differing view from the High Court and affirms that child and adult refugees are similarly situated with respect to family reunion. Accordingly, the more restrictive regulations applied to child refugees constitute differential treatment that may be considered discriminatory. The judgment explicitly states that the family reunion policy for child refugees, as it was implemented, discriminated against them compared to adults by denying access to an equivalent mechanism for reunification with immediate family members.
The Court does not make a final decision on whether the discrimination is justified. Instead, it notes that this issue involves judgment and policy matters, such as the “anchor children” rationale that require thorough evidence and analysis from the Secretary of State. The Court directs the Secretary of State to review the policy under section 55 BCIA 2009 and to explain any ongoing unequal treatment; ultimately, whether the discrimination is justified will be decided after that review and any future legal challenge.
Keeping Pace with UK Immigration Law Changes
At HJT Training, we are committed to ensuring immigration advisers maintain their position at the forefront of legal practice. Through our continuously updated Mastering Immigration Law (MIL) platform, we deliver precise and comprehensive analysis of emerging developments. Our subscribers benefit from authoritative insights and practical guidance, enabling them to provide outstanding representation to their clients.
We take pride in delivering prompt, precise, and perceptive analysis of the ever-shifting immigration landscape. By tapping into our resources, advisers can confidently tackle the intricacies of immigration law, providing expert guidance to those who depend on their knowledge.
For our subscribers’ convenience, we’ve compiled a thorough list of all updates in the Updates & Videos module. It’s our way of ensuring you’re always in the know, ready to face whatever challenges the world of UK immigration might bring.
A comprehensive list of all the updates is listed for our subscriber’s reference under the Updates & Videos module.
Please log in to access.
Not a subscriber yet?
HJT is pleased to also inform that the latest hard copy edition book 2025-2026 edition is now available for preorder. At only £199, the subscription unlocks an instant access to 17 Modules with full updates to every area of UK Immigration, 15% discount on live courses with experts, CPD coverage and much more.
As the year progresses, we anticipate further changes on the horizon and MIL will be your reliable companion throughout these times.
Curious? Request a FREE DEMO by contacting us at enquiries@hjt-training.co.uk or call us 07544164692.
For the latest updates on immigration and live courses covering important developments, sign up to our mailing list at http://eepurl.com/hJxIFn
Written by Shareen Khan – Legal Content Writer, HJT Training
Check out our animation video
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.
