Mastering Immigration Law Update – June, July & August 2026
From fresh Visitor and Erasmus+ opportunities to major developments in Global Talent, Skilled Worker protections and sponsor compliance, 2026 is reshaping the immigration landscape. Our MIL Blog covers some of the latest essential updates that immigration advisers need to understand for effective client representation.
Visitor Visa Updates
Visitor route: new permitted activities from 8 October 2026
At the UK–EU summit in May 2025 the UK committed to rejoining Erasmus+, the EU’s programme for education, training, youth and sport. Agreement on UK association from 2027 was announced on 17 December 2025 and Protocol I to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement was amended on 15 April 2026 to give effect to it (Explanatory Memorandum to HC 584, paras 5.10–5.13). HC 584 amends Appendix V: Visitor, Appendix Visitor: Permitted Activities and the definitions in paragraph 6.2 of the Rules so that Erasmus+ mobilities can take place under the Visitor route without sponsorship.
The Visitor changes (APP V1 to V4 and APP PA1 to PA7) take effect on 8 October 2026. Applications for entry clearance, ETAs, permission to enter or permission to stay made before that date are decided under the Rules in force on 7 October 2026 (HC 584, implementation section).
Changes that apply to all visitors
Several of the amendments are not confined to Erasmus+ participants. Under the amended Appendix Visitor: Permitted Activities, any visitor may now:
-Attend workshops and debates. PA 4(a) is amended so that the list of permitted general business activities now reads “attend meetings, conferences, seminars, interviews, workshops, debates” (APP PA1).
-Participate in skills competitions. A new PA 11.3 provides simply that “A Visitor may participate in Skills competitions” (APP PA4). A “skills competition” is defined in paragraph 6.2(b) as “an event in which individuals compete by demonstrating the skills and competences required in particular occupations or vocational disciplines” (INTRO9).
-Attend rehearsals. PA 14.1(a) is amended so that artists, entertainers and musicians may “give performances or attend rehearsals” (APP PA5). The Explanatory Memorandum explains this is intended to align the route with mobility commitments in the UK’s free trade agreements (para 5.38).
-Receive training without proving it is unavailable at home. The words “and not available in their home country” are deleted from PA 10.2 (APP PA3). This is a welcome simplification for employers running short in-house training for overseas staff.
A substituted PA 14.2 also clarifies the position of entertainment staff, defined for the first time in paragraph 6.2(b) as “an individual employed by an organisation, entertainer, musician, or artist to support in the preparation, setting up and running of an event held within the UK” (INTRO4). Such staff may support the activities in PA 14.1 or V 13.3(e) provided they are attending the same event as the artist and are employed to work for them outside the UK (APP PA6).
The new “Erasmus+ Activities” section (PA 20.1 to PA 20.4)
A new sub-section inserted after PA 19 is reserved for Erasmus+ participants. Subject to the additional eligibility requirements in Appendix V (see below), a visitor may (HC 584, APP PA7):
Under PA 20.1–20.4, Erasmus+ visitors may provide or receive training at a UK organisation or educational institution, undertake a traineeship of up to 30 days if aged 18 or under, carry out job shadowing through participative observation, or complete coaching or training assignments at a UK sports organisation. Training, job shadowing and sports assignments must not fill a permanent role; traineeships must comply with the Working Time Regulations; and training participants must either work with an overseas Erasmus+ organisation or be Youth Workers, while sports assignments are limited to sports staff, coaches and volunteers.
The new definitions in paragraph 6.2(b) matter here. “Job shadowing” means a stay at a UK organisation participating in Erasmus+ “with the aim of receiving training by following practitioners in their daily work in that organisation, exchanging good practices, acquiring skills and knowledge and/or building long-term partnerships through Participative observation” (INTRO6). “Participative observation” means immersing oneself in the work environment, “participating in their daily activities and observing the behaviours, interactions and the day-to-day tasks of the organisation” (INTRO7). A “Traineeship” is “time spent in an enterprise or organisation in the UK which is participating in the Erasmus+ programme to gain work experience, develop and acquire specific competencies needed for future employment” (INTRO10). A “Youth Worker” is a professional or volunteer participating in Erasmus+ who provides learning to young people in social development (community support, personal relationships and social skills) or professional development (mentoring and coaching, workplace skills, awareness and development courses) (INTRO11).
Additional eligibility requirements in Appendix V
Three new Appendix V paragraphs act as safeguards:
-V 9.1A: an applicant coming to study under Erasmus+ must have been accepted onto a course provided by an Accredited Institution participating in the programme and must show they genuinely intend to undertake the activities as a participant on an Erasmus+ mobility project.
-V 11A.1: an applicant seeking to undertake any of the PA 20.1 to PA 20.4 activities must show the same genuine intention.
-V 11A.2: an applicant under 18 undertaking a traineeship or job shadowing must provide written confirmation of permission from their parent or legal guardian and from their home institution.
The Rules also now permit Erasmus+ participants to study at UK state-funded schools and academies on short-term placements of up to six months (Explanatory Memorandum, para 5.16), with a parallel carve-out added to the Student route at ST 27.7(c) for Erasmus+ participants at a sponsor participating in the programme (APP ST14).
Point Based Immigration Updates
Global Talent: UKRI lists updated and a new Design Industry pathway
The UKRI endorsed-funder pathway enables researchers working on an eligible grant from an approved funder at an approved UK institution to obtain fast-track endorsement. Both the endorsed funders list and the employing or hosting institutions list were refreshed several times in 2026.
The funders list was last updated on 4 September 2026 with Barts Charity, following additions and name changes involving a range of medical, research and philanthropic bodies earlier in the year. The institutions list was updated on 15 September after a major July expansion that added more than 100 research-intensive businesses, including AstraZeneca, Jaguar Land Rover, Roslin Technologies and Ffilm Cymru Wales. This widens access for researchers in commercial R&D organisations, but applicants must still satisfy the grant requirements and advisers should check both lists at the application date.
A separate Design Industry Endorsement was inserted into Appendix Global Talent by HC 1691 and took effect on 1 July 2026. Applicants must be recognised as exceptional talent or exceptional promise in design, be professionally engaged in producing outstanding applied, published, distributed or internationally exhibited work, and show regular professional activity during the previous five years. Exceptional-talent applicants need a substantial track record in at least two countries, while exceptional-promise applicants must be at an early career stage with a developing record in one or more countries.
Applications are assessed by the Design Business Association on behalf of Arts Council England. Applicants need a CV, three dated recommendation letters and evidence satisfying at least two criteria: media recognition, international awards, or professional appearances, publications, exhibitions, distribution or sales; nominations and shortlisting may count for exceptional promise. Supporting evidence is limited to ten items from the previous five years. The pathway gives commercial designers, including those in product, graphic, UX and service design—a clearer and more predictable route than the pre-July arts and culture criteria.
Tier 1 (Entrepreneur): entry clearance and extension provisions deleted from 8 October 2026
HC 584 makes 32 amendments to Appendix A: Attributes, all taking effect on 8 October 2026. The changes remove outdated Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) and Tier 1 (Investor) provisions following the closure of those routes to new applicants and the expiry of the Investor entry-clearance and extension deadline on 17 February 2026.
For Tier 1 (Entrepreneur), paragraph 35 is narrowed to settlement applications, which still require 75 points for attributes. The entry-clearance and extension framework, including paragraphs 36–37 and 40–43, Tables 4, 4A and 5, the £200,000 and £50,000 funding routes, and the related job-creation and investment requirements is deleted. Consequential amendments leave only the remaining indefinite-leave-to-remain provisions and Table 6, while equivalent Tier 1 (Investor) provisions are also removed.
Because the Entrepreneur route closed to new entrants in March 2019, the practical effect is limited to the small number of migrants still in the extension pipeline. Anyone who has not already applied for an extension can no longer do so; settlement is now the only Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) application remaining under Appendix A. The amendments contain no transitional protection because APP A1–A32 take effect on 8 October 2026 and are not covered by the arrangements preserving the Rules in force on 7 October for pending applications.
Skilled Workers recognised as victims of modern slavery: unrestricted permission to work
From 8 October 2026, new paragraph SW 18.3 of Appendix Skilled Worker allows a Skilled Worker who receives a positive Conclusive Grounds decision under the National Referral Mechanism during their most recent grant of permission to have their work conditions varied. Once approved, they may work for any employer, including through self-employment or voluntary work, for the remainder of their existing permission, although work as a professional sportsperson or sports coach remains prohibited.
The change is intended to protect sponsored workers identified as victims of modern slavery from continued exploitation by enabling them to leave a sponsoring employer without immediately losing access to work. However, a referral, positive Reasonable Grounds decision or police report is insufficient: the worker must have a positive Conclusive Grounds decision made during their current permission. The variation is discretionary rather than automatic, so the worker should obtain formal evidence of amended conditions before starting new work, and any new employer must complete a compliant right-to-work check.
SW 18.3 changes work conditions only: it does not extend permission, remove the no-recourse-to-public-funds condition or create a route to settlement, and the exploitation need not have involved the current sponsor. The measure is therefore a valuable but limited concession, particularly for exploited care workers, and should usually form part of a wider strategy that may include an NRM referral, temporary permission to stay as a victim of trafficking, alternative sponsorship or another immigration route, and appropriate employment claims.
Sponsor Licence Revocation
R (Blue Inn Ltd) v SSHD [2026] EWHC 1649 (Admin): the Home Office must act fairly when considering letters from third parties
The significance of R (Blue Inn Ltd) v SSHD is its confirmation that the Home Office cannot reject credible evidence from sponsors, workers or third parties on a basis that amounts in substance to dishonesty without putting that allegation fairly and giving those affected an opportunity to respond. Where such evidence is capable of resolving the central dispute, the decision-maker must either identify the alleged deception clearly or make the focused further enquiries needed before revoking a sponsor licence.
The court applied that principle to Blue Inn’s licence revocation, which rested on allegations that sponsored engineers were being supplied as labour, their roles were not genuine and their pay differed from their certificates of sponsorship. Letters from clients and a worker directly addressed those concerns, yet the Home Office rejected them without squarely alleging dishonesty or requesting readily available contracts, project details and timesheet material. Those compounding procedural failures undermined all three revocation grounds, so the decision was quashed and had to be remade lawfully.
The ruling is narrow but practically important: it does not create a general right to repeated correspondence, dilute the Home Office’s role as primary fact-finder or excuse sponsors from rigorous record-keeping. It does, however, strengthen procedural challenges where decisive evidence is dismissed as false or misleading without the allegation being put, and it highlights the value of submitting detailed client confirmations, underlying agreements and pay records at the suspension-response stage. Representatives should also check whether compliance interviews fairly raised any suspicion of sham arrangements or inaccurate evidence.
Trafficking
R (AYA & Ors) v SSHD [2026] EWHC 1742 (Admin): key principles for trafficking decisions
On 10 July 2026, Sheldon J decided five linked judicial reviews brought by AYA, EXR, HRE, GIP and KAG, who had been removed or faced removal to France under the UK–France “one in, one out” arrangement and claimed to have been trafficked before reaching the UK. The central question was whether paragraph 14.216 of the Modern Slavery Statutory Guidance could lawfully prevent reconsideration of negative trafficking decisions for people facing removal to France and similar countries.
The court held that the statutory identification system must be robust and effective because recognition as a trafficking victim carries important rights. Reasonable grounds decisions are often made quickly, when arrivals may be exhausted, malnourished or affected by language barriers, and significant evidence, such as medico-legal or Rule 35 reports and explanations for inconsistencies may emerge later. A policy excluding that material therefore “institutionalises a disregard for relevant evidence”; judicial review is no substitute for reconsideration by the specialist competent authority.
The unpublished “residual discretion” exercised in some litigated cases did not cure the policy’s unlawful fetter. By weakening victim identification to facilitate removals under an unincorporated treaty, the guidance frustrated the purpose of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and directed caseworkers towards unlawful action. The duty to identify applies to trafficking abroad where the putative victim is present in the UK, although Article 4 ECHR is narrower and generally requires a credible risk of trafficking in the country of return.
The claimants did not succeed on every issue: the Tameside inquiry ground was rejected, most individual removal-related decisions were upheld, and the unlawful policy materially affected only some cases. The later costs judgment recorded success for KAG and GIP on their trafficking decisions, HRE’s failure on his individual claims, and AYA’s removal from the cohort after interim relief. In practice, representatives should submit later evidence promptly, rely on the judgment where policies prevent consideration of relevant material, and avoid overstating its narrower Article 4 conclusions.
Family Life Applications
Entry Clearance Officer v BB & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 973: family life after a traumatic rupture
The Court of Appeal handed down a significant decision ruling that a traumatic separation can bring existing family life to an end and that subsequent contact does not automatically re-establish it for the purposes of Article 8. In adult-relative reunion cases, the existence of family life must be assessed at the date of the hearing by reference to real dependency beyond normal emotional ties, rather than affection, frequent contact or a shared aspiration to reunite.
The case concerned a sponsor who fled Afghanistan before his nineteenth birthday after pressure to join the Taliban and attacks by relatives. Following his recognition as a refugee in the UK in 2018, he sought entry clearance for his mother, sisters and two young relatives, who had fled to Turkey. The Entry Clearance Officer refused the applications on the basis that Article 8 family life was not engaged (judgment).
The First-tier Tribunal found that family life had probably existed in Afghanistan but had ended during two and a half years of complete separation, while the sponsor was establishing an independent life in the UK. Although contact later resumed, his mental health difficulties and the family’s hope of reunion did not demonstrate renewed dependency. The Upper Tribunal reversed that assessment and allowed the appeals, prompting the Entry Clearance Officer’s appeal.
Allowing the appeal and reinstating the First-tier Tribunal’s decision, Singh LJ held that whether family life has been re-established after forced separation is a fact-sensitive question. The judgment also reinforces appellate restraint: the Upper Tribunal should not replace a properly reasoned factual evaluation merely because it would have reached a different conclusion. Representatives should therefore provide specific evidence of dependency, address whether family life survived or was later re-established, and distinguish the threshold question of Article 8 engagement from matters such as affection, regular contact or the medical benefit of reunion that may instead bear on proportionality.
Detention
Detention Services Order 02/2022 (Interpretation services): version 2.0, June 2026
DSO 02/2022, updated in June 2026, significantly strengthens language safeguards across immigration detention by making professional interpretation mandatory for vulnerable people at healthcare appointments and when immigration documents are served. More broadly, staff should presume that interpretation is required for healthcare interactions unless a detained person can clearly discuss symptoms, mental health, trauma and emotional distress in English; the decision, any refusal and the reasons must be recorded, with sufficient time allowed for the appointment.
The revised order embeds professional interpretation as an essential procedural safeguard in high-risk settings, including asylum screening, modern-slavery and NRM processes, self-harm procedures, age assessments, inductions, and the service of removal, release and casework decisions. Residents must be asked which language they speak best and communicated with in that language, with oral interpretation offered where literacy is limited. Other detainees or staff may assist only with agreed, non-essential matters and cannot replace qualified interpreters in formal or medical interactions.
Its practical significance lies in limiting reliance on electronic translation devices: these are supplementary only and must give way to professional interpretation where health, trauma, vulnerability, self-harm or legal issues arise, while internet and AI translation search engines are prohibited. Annual compliance audits and reviews of missed needs create an accountability framework. For practitioners, breaches can support challenges to healthcare assessments, NRM processes and the service of removal directions, as well as bail, Adults at Risk, unlawful-detention and trafficking representations; interpreters should therefore be requested in advance for legal visits and advice appointments.
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 preordering for the 2026-2027 edition is now available. Currently on Special Offer £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. SEE HERE offer end 30 October 2026
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 07446466898.
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
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.
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.
