Mastering Immigration Law Subscription Update – December 2025 & January 2026
As we move from 2025 into January 2026, key immigration reforms have been implemented. Fee waivers for lawful residence, changes to the sponsorship regime, expanded right to work checks, clarification on what does not qualify as persecution for protection claims, and stricter deportation guidelines.
Our MIL Blog covers some of these essential updates that immigration advisers need to understand for effective client representation.
Section 3c Leave and Fee Waivers
Hussain [2025] UKUT 82 (IAC) sets landmark precedence for section 3c leave and fee waivers
The Upper Tribunal’s decision in Hussain [2025] UKUT 82 (IAC) has significant implications for those navigating the intersection of fee waiver requests and section 3C leave, and practitioners would do well to study it carefully.
The central finding is that a properly made, in-time fee waiver request connected to a Human Rights-based leave to remain application can itself engage section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971, thereby preserving a person’s leave while the fee waiver decision remains pending. This mirrors the position set out in the Home Office’s own fee waiver guidance, which makes clear that once a fee waiver application is lodged, all existing rights and entitlements continue as though a full leave to remain application had already been submitted.
The Tribunal was, however, equally clear that this protection is not unconditional. Once the fee waiver outcome is communicated to the applicant, they must go on to make the underlying leave to remain application in the same form and on the same route for which the waiver was sought within the prescribed period of ten working days. The fee waiver request does not stand alone as an application for leave in its own right and failing to meet that deadline will cause section 3C protection to fall away entirely.
The practical consequences of missing the ten-working-day window are serious. A gap in leave will arise, with the usual ramifications for overstay, for the continuity of long residence, and for future immigration applications. Practitioners should also note that submitting a further fee waiver request within that window does not itself preserve section 3C leave the actual leave application must be made.
Hussain therefore serves as an important reminder that whilst the fee waiver route offers genuine protection for those who qualify, that protection is fragile and time critical.
Business Immigration & Points Based System (Pbs) Applications
Changes to the sponsorship regime affecting Sponsor Licence holders
Two notable changes affecting licensed sponsors came into effect on 11 November 2025, when the Home Office published updated versions of its Worker and Temporary Worker sponsor guidance. Together, they mark a significant shift in how the sponsorship system is structured and supported.
The first concerns the Sponsor UK service, which had been introduced as a pilot platform intended eventually to replace the existing Sponsor Management System. The trial was operated with Government Authorised Exchange sponsors and was anticipated to be extended more broadly across other sponsor categories in due course. The updated Part 3 sponsor guidance, effective from 11 November 2025, confirmed the closure of that trial, with all references to the Sponsor UK service and sponsorship submissions deleted from the guidance.
For the time being, the Sponsor Management System therefore remains the operative portal through which licensed sponsors manage their duties, assign Certificates of Sponsorship, and report changes to the Home Office. The Sponsor UK rollout has been shelved, at least in its current form, and sponsors should not expect any imminent transition away from the SMS.
The second change relates to the Premium Customer Service, which had been an optional, paid arrangement available to Worker and Temporary Worker sponsors. The service provided each subscribing organisation with a dedicated UKVI account manager, offering tailored advice and direct support across sponsorship activity including CoS assignments, compliance queries, and visa-related matters. The Premium Customer Service has now been discontinued, and from 11 November 2025 no new applications for the service are being accepted. The Home Office has also confirmed its intention to phase out Level 2 users over time, on the basis that the distinction between Level 1 and Level 2 functions has diminished in practical terms.
The withdrawal of the Premium Customer Service has practical implications for sponsors who had relied upon it to navigate complex or time-sensitive sponsorship matters. All sponsors must now rely solely on standard UKVI channels, including the SMS and published Home Office guidance. This places a greater premium on in-house compliance expertise and on ensuring that key personnel are thoroughly trained in their obligations. For organisations that previously used the dedicated account manager as a buffer against compliance risk, the removal of that resource makes proactive internal governance all the more important.
The coincidence of these two changes the closure of the Sponsor UK pilot and the end of premium support sends a clear signal about the Home Office’s direction of travel. Rather than investing in a bespoke premium tier of service, the focus appears to be on streamlining the existing system whilst holding sponsors to a higher standard of self-managed compliance. Advisers working with sponsor clients should factor both developments into their compliance reviews and training recommendations for 2026.
Right to work checks for the gig economy & zero-hours contracts on the horizon
The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, which received Royal Assent on 2 December 2025, will greatly expand right to work checks. Previously required only for employees, these checks will now also apply to limb (b) workers, individual subcontractors in supply chains, and online platforms that connect service providers with clients. This change is made by adding sections 14A and 15A to the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.
These changes mean that anyone arranging or providing work may be considered the employer, even without a direct contract or knowing the worker’s identity in advance. Main contractors, outsourcers, and platforms cannot avoid responsibility by claiming there is no formal employment relationship, as the law transfers compliance duties up the supply chain to those facilitating the work.
The financial stakes are considerable. Civil penalties for illegal working have recently risen to £45,000 for a first breach and £60,000 for repeat offences per illegal worker, and repeat breaches carry the additional consequence of public naming. For organisations that hold a sponsor licence, non-compliance could trigger suspension or revocation. The only reliable protection remains the statutory excuse, which requires a compliant right to work check to have been carried out before the individual begins work, with clear records retained for the duration of the engagement and for two years thereafter. With the consultation on implementation having closed in January 2026, businesses would be well advised to review their supply chain arrangements and onboarding processes without delay.
International protection
EAV & GMP v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 1677: Economic pressure does not amount to persecution
The Court of Appeal’s decision in EAV & GMP v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 1677 addresses an important and recurring question in trafficking-related asylum claims: whether economic vulnerability, and the risks it generates, can satisfy the causation requirement under the Refugee Convention.
The appellant, EAV, was a former victim of trafficking who argued that she faced a real risk of being re-trafficked if economic necessity drove her to seek work abroad again. The Court accepted that such a risk was not fanciful. However, it found that what would expose her to that risk was not her membership of the asserted particular social group of former victims of trafficking, but rather the economic pressure she faced pressure shared by many others in her society. Her experience of trafficking was not, in the Court’s assessment, the reason she would be targeted if she were to travel abroad for work again.
The resulting legal proposition is a significant one. Economic hardship, however severe, and the compulsion it creates to act in ways that carry serious risk, does not of itself constitute persecution for a Convention reason. For a refugee claim to succeed on the basis of membership of a particular social group, there must be a genuine causal link between the feared ill-treatment and that protected characteristic. It is not sufficient that a person both belongs to a particular social group and faces harm driven by general poverty or economic vulnerability.
The Court upheld the Upper Tribunal’s rejection of EAV’s claim whilst making clear that trafficking victims may still succeed where the evidence shows that the risk of future exploitation arises specifically on account of their status as former victims, rather than from the same economic forces that affect the wider population. In short, the poverty trap, however real, is not persecution.
Human Rights: Breach of restricted leave conditions
Strengthened Human Rights Grounds: Serious Consequences for Breaching Restricted Leave Conditions and Expanded Powers for Electronic Monitoring, Curfews, and Zone Controls
Recent changes to UK immigration law and policy have significantly hardened the consequences of breaching conditions attached to restricted or conditional leave. Where previously such breaches might have been treated as administrative failings, they are now framed explicitly as serious immigration non-compliance, with direct and lasting consequences for a person’s immigration history and future prospects.
Under Part Suitability of the Immigration Rules, a breach of immigration conditions now operates as a core factor that can trigger both mandatory and discretionary refusal of future applications and can extend the periods during which a person is barred from making further applications. This applies even in cases where the underlying protection or Article 8 claim might otherwise have merit. Repeated or deliberate non-compliance whether that involves failing to report, ignoring residence restrictions, or breaching work conditions now weighs heavily against any further grant of leave and can support enforcement decisions in their own right.
Alongside the heightened consequences for breach, the range and intrusiveness of conditions that can be imposed on restricted leave have also expanded considerably. Electronic monitoring, commonly known as tagging, can now be attached as a condition of immigration bail or restricted leave in cases involving deportation, public protection concerns or national security. Tags are used to monitor compliance with curfews, residence requirements and geographical controls, and any failure to comply can form the basis for detention, enforcement action or an adverse suitability finding on future applications.
Curfews are now standard in many tagged cases, particularly those involving foreign national offenders or individuals assessed as a flight risk or public protection concern. Breach of a curfew is treated as serious non-compliance and can lead to recall to detention as well as negative consequences for any subsequent immigration application. In addition, conditions can now require a person to remain within a tightly defined geographical inclusion zone or prohibit them entirely from entering specified exclusion zones for instance, areas associated with particular individuals, communities or infrastructure. Breach of such conditions may simultaneously constitute an immigration offence and, depending on how the condition is drafted, a criminal matter.
The practical implications of this tightened regime are considerable. Any non-trivial breach missing a reporting event, disabling a tag, breaking a curfew or entering a prohibited area is likely to be formally recorded and subsequently relied upon as evidence of poor compliance and ongoing risk. Such breaches can extend the period of restricted leave, lengthen mandatory refusal periods and make it substantially harder to progress towards settlement. Where conditions are arguably disproportionate, for example by reference to Article 8, mental health vulnerabilities or practical impossibility, careful representations should be made promptly, and any alleged breach that is factually or legally contestable should be challenged without delay.
Deportation
Routine Deportation Consideration for Suspended Sentences of Six Months or More: Guidance on Deportation on Conducive Grounds
In December 2025, the Home Office updated its guidance on deportation on conducive grounds under the Immigration Act 1971 and the UK Borders Act 2007. The most significant development is the extension of routine deportation consideration to foreign nationals who receive a suspended sentence of six months or more, even though such sentences do not count as custodial sentences for the purposes of the automatic deportation provisions.
The updated guidance confirms automatic deportation for a single custodial sentence of 12 months or more and now instructs caseworkers to consider deportation for suspended sentences of six months or longer. This is based on the view that the length of a suspended sentence reflects the seriousness of the offense and public interest, regardless of whether the sentence was served.
The guidance frames this as a routine trigger for consideration rather than a mandatory outcome. Caseworkers retain the obligation to assess overall proportionality, offending history and pattern, risk of reoffending, and Article 8 factors before any decision to pursue deportation is taken. The suspended nature of the sentence does not of itself determine the outcome, but it brings the case into scope for formal consideration in a way that was not previously standard practice.
Practitioners should note that foreign nationals receiving a suspended sentence of six months or more will routinely be referred to the Foreign National Offender Returns Command. When making representations, it is important to distinguish between suspended and immediate custodial sentences, highlight the lack of imprisonment, the rehabilitative purpose, and any evidence of low reoffending risk, and argue that deportation is not in the public interest under Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and Article 8 ECHR.
Where a case involves a sentence imposed before the guidance change, it is also open to practitioners to argue that the updated policy document is guidance rather than statute, and that it cannot be treated as retrospectively determinative of the public interest in a historic case. The distinction between policy and law remains important in this context, and any attempt to apply the new framing to older sentences should be robustly challenged.
Important Update for IAA Level 3 Practitioners undertaking Judicial Review work
Updates to Judicial Review Case Management Practice Note
The Judicial Review Case Management practice note was reissued under the Immigration Advice Authority after its transition from the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner. The main changes are updates to institutional names, branding, and references from “OISC advisers” to “IAA advisers,” with no change to eligibility for JRCM work, which remains reserved for Level 3 advisers with JRCM authorisation.
Beyond the rebranding, the updated note places considerably stronger emphasis on the duty not to take on or continue judicial review work that is considered completely without merit, or whose purpose is to frustrate or abuse legitimate immigration processes. Earlier versions addressed this obligation, but the 2025 iteration articulates it in more explicit terms and links non-compliance directly to the prospect of regulatory action. The note also reinforces the obligation on advisers to reassess the viability and propriety of a judicial review at every stage of the proceedings, with express cross-reference to R (SN) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKUT 227 (IAC), making clear that proceedings should be withdrawn once they cease to be appropriate rather than continued merely to protect a client’s immigration position.
The updated practice note also signals a marked increase in the IAA’s expectations around record-keeping and audit readiness. Advisers are expected to maintain detailed, contemporaneous records covering the grounds of challenge, merits advice given at each stage, the client’s immigration position and costs, engagement with counsel, and a central case list recording outcomes including any findings of totally without merit. The IAA has indicated that this material will be actively scrutinised during premises audits, with particular attention paid to firms showing a high proportion of totally without merit findings, repeat judicial review applications, or a pattern of frequent injunction applications in non-suspensive appeal cases.
Notably, the updated note makes clear that poor practice may attract regulatory consequences even where the quality of the work is attributable in part to counsel’s advice or drafting. This is a significant signal to regulated advisers that instructing counsel does not transfer or diminish their own professional responsibility for the conduct of JRCM cases.
Overall, the update establishes the IAA’s control over the scheme by unifying the framework under its regulations and clearly specifying expected standards for conduct and record-keeping in specialist work.
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. At only £249, 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.
