Mastering Immigration Law Update – April 2026
April 2026 saw significant developments in UK immigration law, driven by new case law and policy updates. Key changes affected areas such as Visitor visa, Skilled worker salary updates, and Protection claims, with several important developments arising from precedents issued during the month.
Our MIL Blog covers some of these essential updates that immigration advisers need to understand for effective client representation.
Visitor Visa
Tribunal’s verdict on visitors and the dangers of using agents
The decision in Ahmed & Akbor [2026] UKAITUR JR2023LON002929 highlights the credibility risks that arise where a visit application is prepared or submitted through an agent. Visitor applications are inherently fact-sensitive and are assessed under Appendix V: Visitor, with the decision-maker required to be satisfied that the applicant is a genuine visitor who intends to leave the United Kingdom at the end of the trip. Where the evidence is thin, inconsistent, or generated by an agent with little corroboration, the Secretary of State is generally entitled to draw adverse inferences, and the practical burden rests with the appellant to show that the refusal was not sustainable.
Instructing an agent does not immunise the applicant from the consequences of what is submitted. The Tribunal distinguishes between a mere drafting or translation error and an affirmative falsehood or material omission that goes to the heart of the application. An appellant may reduce the weight of an adverse inference by showing that the agent misunderstood instructions or acted without authority, but only where this is supported by clear and credible evidence. An account that shifts over time, or one in which parts of the application are disowned only after refusal, will usually damage credibility further.
The essential lesson is that agent involvement in visitor applications is a litigation risk rather than a defence. The contents of an application will generally be attributed to the appellant unless convincingly disavowed, and in this context even small inconsistencies may be read as evidence that the visit is not genuine. Unless the appellant can demonstrate a specific, material mistake by the agent, and explain it coherently and with evidence, the Tribunal is likely to treat the application as the applicant’s own.
Skilled Worker Visa Salary Updates
Workers to be paid the required salary in each pay period so that monthly pay is the expected fraction of annual pay
For Skilled Worker cases, the March 2026 Statement of Changes has introduced an important shift in how salary compliance is assessed. It is no longer sufficient to demonstrate that the annual salary appears correct on paper; the worker must now be paid the required amount in each relevant pay period, so that monthly pay equals the expected monthly fraction of the annual salary. The relevant amendment came into force on 8 April 2026, and its purpose is to prevent situations in which a worker is underpaid for part of the year and then “topped up” later so that the annual figure appears compliant.
The mechanics of the rule depend on how frequently the worker is paid. Where a worker is paid monthly, the salary paid over any three-month period must be at least one quarter of the annual required salary. Where the worker is paid more frequently than monthly, the Home Office looks instead at a twelve-week period, which must equal at least twelve fifty-seconds of the annual requirement. Where hours vary from week to week, the applicable test is a seventeen-week period. The effect is that compliance is now measured across the pay period itself rather than solely at the end of the year.
In practical terms, sponsors must ensure that payroll, contractual terms, and the Certificate of Sponsorship are properly aligned, so that the worker receives the correct amount throughout the relevant period rather than only by the close of the year. This is particularly significant where pay fluctuates, because a shortfall in a single period may now create a compliance risk even if the annual total eventually catches up. A straightforward illustration assists: if the annual required salary is £40,000 and the worker is paid monthly, then over any three-month period the worker should receive at least £10,000 in total, subject to the permitted variations built into the rule.
The underlying policy objective is the protection of worker welfare and the quicker detection of underpayment by UKVI. For sponsors, the message is a clear one. Payroll systems should be reviewed, irregular salary smoothing should be avoided, and any variable pay structure must be checked to ensure that it satisfies the requirement period by period, and not merely in aggregate across the year.
Student Visa
Further guidance released on remote delivery of student courses
The 2026 update to the UKVI Student Sponsor Guidance tightens and clarifies how much of a sponsored student’s course may be delivered remotely. In essence, the course design must remain within the permitted remote-delivery limit, the main rule being that no more than 20% of the taught element may be delivered remotely, with only limited exceptions allowing anything further. The updated policy came into effect in April 2026 as part of the student sponsor framework.
Importantly, remote delivery is not confined to teaching that is delivered online only. It also captures timetabled learning that a student may choose to attend either in person or remotely. UKVI treats the rule as applying to the design of the course itself, rather than merely to a student’s individual decision to join a particular class online. The guidance also draws a clear distinction between taught content and activities that do not count as taught hours, with dissertation writing, research, fieldwork, work placements, and examinations all excluded from the remote-delivery calculation.
As to the limits, the usual position is that no more than 20% of the taught part of the course may be delivered remotely. A provider may apply for special permission to increase this to 40% in certain circumstances. Where a course exceeds the permitted limit, the sponsor is expected to cease sponsoring the student and to report the matter to UKVI. The guidance permits remote delivery for whole-cohort issues, such as a campus closure caused by extreme weather or a similar event, and where it is needed to avoid unlawful discrimination connected to a student’s protected characteristics. In the latter case, however, remote delivery should be treated as an individual adjustment and documented accordingly.
From a compliance perspective, providers should maintain records demonstrating the justification for any remote delivery, the amount of remote delivery involved, and the duration of the arrangement. Where a student repeats part of a course or retakes examinations, the remote-delivery percentage is recalculated using the new end date. The central message is that institutions must design their courses with care, because UKVI will assess the planned delivery model rather than any informal flexibility exercised in day-to-day teaching.
Asylum & Protection
New Guidance published on Permission to stay on a protection route for asylum claims lodged on or after 2 March 2026
The updated Caseworker Guidance alters the permission-to-stay outcome for protection claims lodged on or after 2 March 2026, linking the grant to the new refugee protection regime and its transitional timing rules. In short, claims lodged from that date are treated under the new framework, while older claims remain under the earlier guidance. The practical result is a clean division between pre- and post-2 March 2026 claims.
Under the updated guidance, an individual granted humanitarian protection following an asylum claim lodged on or after 2 March 2026 will be granted permission to stay on a protection route under the new system. The earlier guidance applied expressly only to claims or further submissions lodged on or after 28 June 2022 and before 2 March 2026, which confirms the cut-off point for the transitional arrangements.
The central transitional rule turns on the lodging date of the asylum claim or further submission, rather than the date of the decision. A claim made before 2 March 2026 therefore remains under the previous protection framework, even where the Home Office decides it at a later stage. By contrast, claims lodged on or after 2 March 2026 fall to be considered under the new regime.
This reform carries real significance because the new regime shortens the standard grant for many protection cases to 30 months, rather than the five-year pattern described in earlier commentary on the reforms. For casework, the essential question is a simple one: was the claim or further submission lodged before or after 2 March 2026? – If it was lodged before that date, the earlier protection guidance applies; if it was lodged on or after that date, the new permission-to-stay guidance governs the outcome. The distinction is especially relevant when advising on timing, further submissions, and settlement planning.
EUSS Leave to Remain
Appendix EU Suitability refusal reasons add assisting another person fraudulently to obtain, or to attempt to obtain UK immigration status
The update to the suitability provisions in Appendix EU introduces a new refusal ground, under which an EUSS application may be refused, where proportionate, if the applicant has assisted another person to obtain, or to attempt to obtain, UK immigration status by fraudulent means after the end of the transition period. The amendment is designed to tackle abuse involving individuals who sponsor or facilitate bogus EUSS claims through falsely claimed family members.
The significance of the change lies in its focus on conduct that extends beyond the applicant’s own application. It is directed at the applicant who has helped someone else use fraud to secure UK immigration status, and it is framed as a suitability issue rather than a question of eligibility. In other words, the ground is not concerned with whether the applicant meets the substantive EUSS requirements, but with whether the application ought to be refused on conduct grounds.
Importantly, the refusal is not automatic in every case. The Guidance indicates that it applies where refusal is proportionate, which means that the decision-maker should weigh the seriousness of the conduct and consider whether refusal is justified on the particular facts. This calls for an assessment of the individual circumstances rather than a blanket approach.
For advisers, the practical significance is that the new ground reaches those who have helped to create or support fraudulent family-member claims, and not merely those who submit false information in their own application. It sits alongside the wider false-representations framework within the suitability guidance, which continues to govern deception and false documents more generally. The essential message is that EUSS applicants may now face refusal where the Home Office can show that they were involved in helping another person to obtain, or attempt to obtain, UK immigration status by fraud.
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
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
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.
