Mastering Immigration Law Subscription Update February 2025
The opening of 2025 continued to bring substantial changes to UK immigration practice that demand immediate attention from legal practitioners.
Significant judicial rulings have dramatically curtailed when foreign nationals must leave the UK to apply for entry clearance, whilst employers in the care sector have secured an important victory against rigid sponsorship requirements.
Meanwhile, company directors now face severe personal sanctions for immigration compliance failures, with disqualification periods of up to seven years becoming the new reality. These developments signal an increasingly complex regulatory landscape requiring careful navigation by immigration professionals.
HJT’s Mastering Immigration Law brings these crucial immigration updates to our valued subscribers, ensuring you stay informed and prepared in this ever-changing regulatory environment. We share a glimpse of some pivotal updates below.
Entry Clearance Applications
Esmail [2025] NICA 4 discretions to waive aspects of mandatory entry clearance validity requirements
The UK Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland has delivered a significant judgment in Esmail v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] NICA 4, clarifying the extent of the Home Secretary’s discretionary powers regarding entry clearance requirements. The ruling establishes that whilst the Secretary of State retains residual discretion to waive certain procedural requirements—such as application form specifics, biometric submissions, application location, and fee payment—this discretion is limited and exercised only in exceptional circumstances. The Court emphasised that applicants must generally adhere to established application processes, with non-compliance typically resulting in rejection without substantive consideration of the case merits.
In addressing the appellant’s claim, the Court rejected assertions that the Secretary of State had unlawfully fettered her discretion by not creating a specialised scheme for Sudanese nationals similar to those established for Ukrainian refugees. Such policy decisions were deemed to be macro-political in nature and firmly within the Secretary of State’s authority. The judgment also referenced the established British Oxygen principle, which prevents decision-makers from ignoring new information, but clarified that this principle is only applicable when specific requests or compelling evidence are presented—elements that were notably absent in the appellant’s case.
The ruling ultimately upheld the Secretary of State’s decision to reject the Leave Outside the Immigration Rules application due to procedural non-compliance, finding no unlawful restriction of discretionary powers.
This case serves as an important reminder that whilst discretionary powers exist within the immigration system, they are not boundless and require exceptional justification for their exercise outside standard procedural frameworks. The judgment confirms that the LOTR route is granted only in rare instances where truly compelling circumstances exist.
Visit Guidance expressly addresses need for supporting financial documents to correlate with figures given in application form
Recent updates to the UK Visit Visa guidance emphasise the critical importance of alignment between financial supporting documents and information provided in visa applications. Applicants must ensure that all financial documents—including bank statements, salary slips and sponsor letters—thoroughly substantiate the income, savings and financial support declared in their application. When specific income levels or significant deposits are mentioned, the supporting documentation must clearly confirm these details and demonstrate the legitimate source of the funds, with consistency being a key factor in establishing credibility.
Decision-makers conduct thorough assessments of financial evidence to verify consistency with the applicant’s declared circumstances. This scrutiny includes confirming that funds are sufficient to cover the entire cost of the visit and that any unusual financial activity, such as large cash deposits, is adequately explained with supporting evidence. This rigorous verification process aims to establish both the credibility of the applicant and the genuineness of their intended visit to the UK.
Although comprehensive financial documentation is not always mandatory for all visa categories, the official guidance strongly recommends including clear and recent financial evidence to support applications. Failing to provide such evidence can significantly weaken an application’s prospects, potentially leading to delays or refusals.
Applicants should carefully review their financial documentation before submission, ensuring it accurately reflects and corroborates the figures stated in their application forms, thereby demonstrating financial stability over a reasonable period and establishing sufficient funds for the intended visit—crucial factors in the decision-making process.
Procedural Discrepancies for Leave to Remain Applications
The Court of Appeal’s recent judgment in Butt v Secretary of State for the Home DepartmenT [2025] EWCA Civ 189 represents a significant narrowing of the Chikwamba principle, confining its application to exceptionally rare procedural scenarios. The court has firmly established that Chikwamba considerations are only relevant when a refusal of leave to remain is explicitly and solely based on the procedural requirement for an applicant to leave the UK to apply for entry clearance from abroad.
Lady Justice Laing, in delivering the judgment, categorically rejected attempts to extend Chikwamba to situations where a refusal might “in substance” compel an applicant to depart the UK. This critical distinction means that Chikwamba cannot be invoked unless the refusal is expressly framed as a procedural requirement to apply from abroad, rather than being based on substantive grounds.
The Court reaffirmed that even in the limited circumstances where Chikwamba might theoretically apply, a comprehensive Article 8 proportionality assessment remains paramount. This assessment must weigh factors such as immigration history, the public interest in maintaining effective immigration control, and the likelihood of a successful entry clearance application if made from abroad.
The judgment further restricts Chikwamba considerations in cases involving prolonged unlawful residence, as exemplified by the appellant in Butt who had overstayed for 5,394 days. Similarly, the principle carries little weight where there is uncertainty about whether an entry clearance application would succeed, particularly due to general grounds for refusal under Part 9 of the Immigration Rules.
In the case at hand, the court found no “compelling features” to justify applying Chikwamba, noting the absence of insurmountable obstacles to family life in Pakistan and the appellant’s failure to provide evidence of exceptional hardship.
This judgment emphasises that Chikwamba now applies only in exceptionally rare cases where a refusal is explicitly procedural and not intertwined with substantive grounds for rejection, thereby reinforcing the primacy of immigration control in modern Article 8 assessments.
Lifetime ban on British Citizenship for illegal entry & arriving via dangerous journey
The UK Home Office has introduced a controversial lifetime ban on British citizenship for individuals who entered the country illegally or via “dangerous journeys,” effective from 10 February 2025. This represents a substantial shift in the interpretation of the ‘Good Character’ requirement for naturalisation, with applications submitted after this date normally being refused citizenship regardless of how much time has elapsed since the initial entry.
The Home Office has specifically defined “dangerous journeys” to include small boat crossings and concealment in vehicles, whilst excluding legal travel such as commercial airline passengers, even if documentation was later found to be irregular.
This policy marks a significant departure from previous practice, where illegal entry could be disregarded in citizenship applications if it occurred more than 10 years before application. Limited exceptions exist for recognised victims of human trafficking and refugees granted protection, who may still qualify if they can demonstrate reformed character and have no subsequent adverse issues. Decision-makers retain some discretion in genuinely exceptional cases, though refusals are now firmly established as the default position.
The policy has sparked substantial controversy, with critics arguing it potentially breaches the 1951 Refugee Convention, which prohibits penalties on refugees entering a country illegally when fleeing persecution. Approximately 71,000 refugees who arrived via small boats or clandestine routes could be permanently barred from citizenship, even after years of lawful residency and integration.
Opposition has been vocal, with over 147 signatories from religious leaders, trade unions and civil society organisations condemning the measure as divisive and counterproductive to integration efforts, though proposed legislative amendments seeking to reverse the ban have not yet been enacted as of March 2025.
UKVI Compliance & Right to Work Checks
Qiqing He [2025] CSOH 5 – 7-year disqualification as a company director appropriate for serious failure to conduct right to work checksIn the significant case of Qiqing He [2025] CSOH 5, the Court of Session in Scotland has set a notable precedent regarding director disqualification for immigration law breaches, determining that a 7-year disqualification period was appropriate for serious failures in conducting right-to-work checks. The court applied section 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, focusing on the respondent’s “unfitness” stemming from the employment of illegal workers at Q Q Holburn Limited. Three of the company’s four employees lacked valid immigration status, constituting clear violations of section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.
The court emphasised several aggravating factors that contributed to the severity of the sanction, including the unfair competitive advantage gained through reduced labour costs, the heightened risk of exploitation faced by migrant workers in precarious positions, and the finding that the respondent had knowingly or recklessly ignored immigration laws for 1-2 years. The business model appeared to rely fundamentally on illegal labour, which significantly influenced the court’s decision regarding the length of disqualification.
In determining the 7-year disqualification period, the court applied an objective standard of probity, citing Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Azam [2024] as relevant precedent. This substantial period was deemed necessary for public protection and deterrence, with particular emphasis on safeguarding potential creditors and discouraging similar misconduct.
The ruling sends a clear message that directors who fail to uphold immigration compliance obligations face significant personal consequences, even absent demonstrable fraudulent intent, aligning with modern enforcement trends targeting labour market abuses and underscoring the courts’ increasingly robust approach to immigration compliance failures.
Hartford Care Group Ltd [2024] EWHC 3308 (Admin) finds HO expectations of guaranteed hours in care provider contracts irrational
In the landmark case of R (Hartford Care Group Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department* [2024] EWHC 3308 (Admin), the High Court ruled that the Home Office’s requirement for guaranteed-hours contracts in care worker sponsorship applications was both irrational and unlawful. The court found that demanding contracts with specified guaranteed hours to prove “genuine vacancies” was unjustified under immigration rules and inconsistent with care sector norms, where flexible contracts are standard practice due to fluctuating demands from service users and variable local authority funding. The judgment established that the Home Office had fundamentally misunderstood industry realities.
The court determined that the Home Office had breached the Tameside duty by failing to conduct adequate inquiries into standard practices within the care sector before imposing the requirement. This finding highlighted the routine use of framework agreements and “spot contracts” without fixed hours as standard industry practice.
The judgment clarified that a vacancy’s genuineness must be assessed holistically, considering factors such as organisational charts, employment contracts, sector-wide staffing shortages and the employer’s operational history, rather than focusing narrowly on guaranteed hours.
This significant ruling establishes that the Home Office cannot impose unpublished or non-statutory requirements beyond the Immigration Rules, requiring immigration policies to align with sector practices and avoid creating arbitrary barriers to sponsorship.
The implications are far-reaching, as the Home Office must now revise its approach to care worker sponsorship applications by removing the unlawful guaranteed-hours requirement. Care providers can continue using standard flexible contracts without fearing visa rejections, which should aid recruitment efforts amid critical staffing shortages in the sector.
Updates to Compliance Casework Guidance
The Home Office Compliance Casework Guidance, updated on 22 January 2025, introduces significant changes to sponsor compliance enforcement, including expanded digital reviews, interdepartmental checks and physical visits. The guidance establishes a clearer tiered enforcement approach, ranging from corrective action plans for minor issues to licence revocation for serious breaches such as providing false information or failing to prevent worker exploitation. Compliance officers must now submit objective, evidence-based reports, with caseworkers instructed to reject those containing unsupported assumptions.
The updated framework emphasises proportionality in enforcement actions, requiring caseworkers to balance strict compliance with fairness considerations, taking into account the sponsor’s history and breach severity. Process improvements include streamlined internal workflows through enhanced spreadsheet logging for case status updates and a formal appeals process allowing sponsors to request reinstatement following revocation where procedural errors can be demonstrated. These changes reinforce the Home Office’s focus on systemic compliance rather than isolated administrative errors.
For sponsor licence holders, the implications are substantial, with non-compliance now carrying heightened risks of licence suspension, reputational damage and workforce loss. The guidance flags the critical importance of maintaining robust Sponsor Management System records and ensuring transparent, timely communication with UK Visas and Immigration.
This aligns with broader immigration control objectives that seek to maintain the integrity of the sponsorship system whilst providing clearer guidelines on compliance expectations.
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 Pre Order for the latest hard copy manual 2024 edition for MIL is now in full swing. 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.
With a new government now in place, 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
Check out our animation video
