News Update – 7 August 2026
The two themes that dominatingly shaped the week in UK immigration focused on employer compliance and the right-to-work regime, and a renewed round of political and legal dispute over Channel crossings. Amongst other news, case decisions significant to Deportation, Article 8 rights and Judicial review have been released this week.
Right to Work Checks and Home Office Enforcement
A recent investigation found that more than 1,900 small high-street businesses, including mini marts, vape shops and car washes, remain licensed to sponsor overseas workers a year after the skilled worker rules were tightened. The July 2025 reforms were meant to restrict the route largely to graduate-level roles paying at least £41,700, yet the register still lists over 1,500 grocery and convenience stores, around 150 taxi operators and roughly 100 barber shops, with more than 100 of these added after the rules changed. Inclusion on the register does not, however, guarantee that any individual visa application would succeed.
The scale of enforcement underlines why these matters. The Home Office revoked 3,299 sponsor licences in 2025, against just 347 in 2023, and Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has ordered an urgent review into the presence of vape shops, barbers and car washes on the register. Sixty licensed businesses were fined a combined £2.5 million for employing illegal workers between April 2024 and December 2025, and this activity is visible locally: the latest quarterly report records two restaurant businesses and a car wash in the Bath and Keynsham area fined a total of £350,000, with Cinnamon Keynsham Limited alone penalised £180,000 and its director separately fined over hazardous accommodation above the restaurant.
The political temperature also rose as the Reform party pledged that, if elected, it would make the directors of larger companies personally and criminally liable for employing illegal workers, regardless of their knowledge of a worker’s status, and would fine such firms ten per cent of their global revenues.
The Home Office countered that much of this is already in hand, dismissing parts of the announcement as posturing and pointing to its extension of right-to-work checks into the gig economy, alongside existing penalties of up to £60,000 per worker, business closure, licence revocation and imprisonment of up to five years, with illegal working arrests up 83 per cent since Labour took office.
Channel Crossings
Attention on the Channel, meanwhile, intensified as crossings reached their busiest single day of the year so far, with 752 arrivals recorded this week. That brought the provisional total for 2026 to 14,128, around 42 per cent below the figure recorded by the same point last year, continuing a downward trend since the 2022 peak. The Government attributes the fall to expanded action against smuggling gangs, with the number of National Crime Agency officers assigned to the effort rising to almost 800 from 376 at the start of 2025.
The week’s principal controversy was Reform UK’s proposal to intercept crossings using the Royal Navy and return migrants to French ports, even without French agreement. Under the plan, military-crewed inflatable boats launched from ten patrol vessels would come alongside migrant craft, with Border Force officers and police aboard to detain those on board, and a landing ship providing detention capacity at sea for up to 700 people.
France rejected the proposal outright, its interior ministry describing it as a violation of French sovereignty and of the law of the sea and noting that measures already agreed with the UK had reduced crossings this year.
The legal objections were pointed as James Turner KC of Quadrant Chambers explained that while the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea allows a state to guard against breaches of its immigration laws within a contiguous zone extending up to 24 nautical miles, it does not permit a country to gather asylum seekers and return them to the state they departed from. Labour ministers dismissed the idea as gimmicky, while the Conservatives questioned how migrants could be disembarked in France without its cooperation.
Enforcement against those steering the boats continued in parallel. Two men were jailed at Canterbury Crown Court for endangering others during crossings. Both had pleaded guilty to endangerment. Their cases bring to ten the number sentenced under the endangerment offence since it came into force in January, and the Home Office noted that the convicted had put more lives at risk than anyone previously convicted. The proceedings followed the deaths of four migrants off the French coast the day before.
Article 8 and Adult Family Life: Court of Appeal Reaffirms the Dependency Threshold
The Court of Appeal allowed the Entry Clearance Officer’s appeal and reinstated the First-tier Tribunal’s original refusal, holding that six Afghan family members had not established the “family life” with their UK-based relative that Article 8 requires between adults.
The court found that the First-tier Tribunal had carefully weighed the evidence and was entitled to conclude that regular video calls, occasional visits and genuine mutual concern amounted only to the ordinary emotional ties between adult relatives, not the dependency needed to engage Article 8. The Upper Tribunal had therefore been wrong to overturn that decision, particularly as a more recent Court of Appeal ruling (IA) has since confirmed that the real test is one of dependency, which is a higher threshold than the “real, effective or committed support” test both tribunals had actually applied in the family’s favour.
Deportation: Court of Appeal Upholds Bar on “Very Compelling Circumstances”
The Court of Appeal has dismissed the Home Secretary’s appeal against a decision preventing the deportation of a Romanian national. The Home Office had sought to argue that the man’s partner and children could relocate to Romania alongside him, but the court declined to entertain that argument, noting that the point had not featured in the original decision or before the lower tribunals and had in fact been withdrawn earlier in proceedings. The ruling is a reminder that an argument left unraised, or expressly abandoned, will not readily be revived on appeal.
On the substantive question, the court found that the First-tier Tribunal had correctly applied the demanding “very compelling circumstances” test. On the evidence before it, the tribunal was entitled to conclude that the severe effect of deportation on the partner’s mental health, given her traumatic history and her role as sole carer for the children, was sufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in removing a foreign national offender. The decision illustrates how carefully assembled evidence of the impact on family members can meet even the elevated threshold that applies in deportation cases.
Judicial Review: Detention Challenge Adjourned as High Court Directs Home Office to Justify Detention of Vulnerable Brazilian National
The High Court has issued an interim procedural order, rather than a final decision, in a challenge brought by a Brazilian national held in immigration detention. The applicant, who says she is vulnerable following recent therapy for mental health difficulties and sexual trauma, sought her release while she contests the lawfulness of her detention. Given the sensitive personal material involved, the judge granted her anonymity but stopped short of ruling on whether she should be freed.
The court’s attention turned instead to a gap in the papers, namely a missing page setting out the reasons for her detention, and to the fact that her earlier challenges had not succeeded. The judge directed her to supply the absent document and gave the Home Office until the end of the week to justify her continued detention, with the release application to be determined on the papers the following week.
Case Law
Entry Clearance Officer v BB & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 973 (31 July 2026)
The Court of Appeal ruled that six Afghan relatives could not join their UK-based family member because they had not shown the kind of dependency that “family life” requires between adults. Regular calls, visits and genuine mutual concern were treated as ordinary emotional ties, not enough to engage Article 8. The original tribunal’s refusal was reinstated. To read the full decision, visit here
Entry Clearance Officer v FA [2026] EWCA Civ 1014 (30 July 2026)
The Court of Appeal allowed the Entry Clearance Officer’s appeal against a 67-year-old Palestinian woman in Gaza who wanted a UK visitor visa for medical treatment near her daughter. Applying the stricter “additional elements of dependency” test from the recent IA ruling, the court found that their financial support, daily calls and closeness fell short of the dependency needed for “family life” under Article 8, so refusing the visa did not breach her rights and her appeal was dismissed. To read the full decision, visit here
Randhawa v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 1008 (30 July 2026)
The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr R’s appeal for pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme. As the dependent brother of an Italian national, he was only an “extended” family member with no automatic EU right to enter, and he had never applied for the UK document that would have given him one. An immigration officer waving him through Manchester airport with “you can go” was not a decision to grant him residence, so he held no proof the UK had facilitated it and fell outside the Withdrawal Agreement. To read the full decision, visit here
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Hirtie [2026] EWCA Civ 1000 (30 July 2026)
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Home Secretary’s appeal against blocking the deportation of Mr Hirtie, a Romanian national convicted of wounding with intent. The Home Office was not allowed to argue his family could relocate to Romania, having never raised the point earlier and withdrawn it below. The tribunal was entitled to find the severe impact on his partner’s mental health, given her traumatic past and role as sole carer, met the demanding “very compelling circumstances” test and outweighed the public interest in deportation. To read the full decision, visit here
PGN -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department
An interim procedural order has been issued (not a final decision for an ongoing High Court judicial review challenging immigration detention and seeking interim relief has been issued. The High Court has issued an anonymity order for the claimant (“PGN”), citing private life rights and vulnerability following therapy. To read the full order, visit here
The King on the application of the Secretary of State for the Home Department v Special Immigration Appeals Commission
This ruling was handed down by the Court of Appeal (led by the Master of the Rolls). The case scrutinized the power of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) to award costs when applying judicial review principles to set aside immigration decisions under the SIAC Act 1997. To read the full decision, visit here
Useful Immigration News Links
Car washes and vape shops can still sponsor skilled foreign workers despite visa changesReform UK pledges to jail bosses employing illegal workers
Students challenge UK ‘visa brake’ in High Court
More than 1,100 people convicted of illegal arrival in UK since 2022
More than 170 migrants rescued after boat catches fire in Channel
France hits out at Reform UK plan to return migrants using Navy
Two more small boat pilots jailed for Channel crossings
Andy Burnham on Ceuta concerns and UK immigration
Judge orders return of alleged victim of trafficking sent to France under ‘one in one out’ scheme
Is Reform UK’s plan to use the navy to stop small boat crossings feasible?
Online chat groups fuel fears of another migrant surge to Ceuta
Employers in Bath and Keynsham fined £350k over illegal workers
Home Office Guidance and Policy Updates
To view the Home Office Guidance and Policies updated between 31st July 2026 to 6th August 2026, visit here
What’s on: Immigration Training Courses
Judicial review soaring since the start of this year, driven largely by rising immigration and asylum claims linked to rapid policy changes. Key areas generating litigation include nationality “good character” guidance, refugee family reunion, sponsor licence revocations and retrospective ILR changes, while procedural reforms are also underway in the Upper Tribunal.
HJT’s Judicial Review Conference is well timed to bring practitioners fully up to date on these developments and on meeting the litigation challenges they present.
The expert panel includes Adrian Berry KC, Duran Seddon KC, Grace Brown, Mark Symes and David Jones, all of Garden Court Chambers, with further speakers to be confirmed. The conference takes place on Friday 27 November 2026 from 10am to 4pm, available both for a fully catered in-person and remote attendance, offering six hours of CPD coverage at only £119 plus VAT. To book your place, visit HERE
Early booking is recommended; for enquiries, contact enquiries@hjt-training.co.uk or call +44 7446 466898.
Also, do not forget to sign up for FREE course on Immigration Updates led by Mark Symes on 25th August 2026. To book your place, visit HERE
Written by Shareen Khan- Legal Content Writer, HJT Training
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.