Mastering Immigration Law Update – May 2026
The past few months have brought a run of changes that matter in day-to-day practice: a sharper focus on when a modern slavery account is disclosed, a quiet but consequential shift in how long an Appendix FM partner is granted where the sponsor holds protection status, a new fast-track referral for certain overseas businesses seeking a UK Expansion Worker licence, tighter sponsor guidance on trading presence, and a reported case on who may instruct a solicitor for a child. Each is set out below.
Our MIL Blog covers some of these essential updates that immigration advisers need to understand for effective client representation.
Modern Slavery and Protection
Modern Slavery Guidance gives increasing attention to the timing of disclosure
The relevant update sits in Version 4.6 of the Home Office Modern Slavery Statutory Guidance, published on 11 May 2026. It introduces an expanded, standalone credibility section on the timing of disclosure in Annex E, rather than leaving the issue tucked inside a general credibility checklist.
Decision makers must now consider when information relevant to an NRM referral was disclosed and treat that timing as part of the credibility assessment. They are directed to identify whether the account was raised at the first opportunity, at some later opportunity, or only after a defined “trigger event”. Removal directions, a charging decision, the approach of a removal flight, and a criminal hearing are all given as examples of such an event.
They must also consider whether the individual had been told about the importance of providing information promptly. Taken together, this moves the guidance towards a more expressly enforcement-focused analysis of late disclosure.
The update does not create an automatic rule that a late disclosure is a false one, or that delay defeats an NRM referral. Timing remains a credibility factor to be weighed in the round. What the guidance does do is single out disclosures made once removal action is under way, or shortly before a criminal hearing, as circumstances in which timing may legitimately bear on credibility.
For immigration representatives, that makes it more important than ever to put forward evidence and submissions explaining any delay. Trauma, shame, fear of traffickers or reprisals, mistrust of the authorities and fear of immigration consequences are all familiar reasons why an account emerges late. So are mental-health difficulties, cognitive impairment, age, dependency, and the absence of appropriate interpretation.
It is equally important to address what the client / applicant understood at the time, e.g.; Did they know what the NRM was? Did they appreciate that their experiences amounted to exploitation? Did they grasp what disclosure would mean for them? Submissions should also set out the precise circumstances of any earlier screening, interviews, engagement in detention, access to legal advice, or contact with First Responders.
Where a particular event did prompt disclosure, explain why that event enabled the client to speak. Left unexplained, the same event is easily read as evidence of opportunism.
The May 2026 revision made several further adjustments. The Recovery Rate financial-support amount changed with effect from 1 May 2026, the definition of medical evidence was updated, and the provisions on re-contacting First Responders were revised.
A further notice followed on 17 July 2026, in which the Home Office confirmed that it would no longer apply paragraph 14.227, concerning intended removal to a country that has signed ECAT or the ECHR. The reconsideration provisions at paragraphs 14.228 to 14.246 are to be considered individually until the guidance is amended.
Appendix FM: Family Visas
Refugee sponsors’ Appendix FM partners get leave in line under March 2026 changes
In March 2026, 30-month protection grants were introduced for many new asylum claimants. A consequential amendment to Appendix FM followed through HC 259 of 9 July 2026, taking effect on 3rd August 2026.
The core change is that, where the sponsor of an Appendix FM partner holds 30 months’ permission on the basis of protection status, the partner is now granted leave that expires on the same date as the sponsor’s current permission.
Previously, the partner would ordinarily have received the standard maximum grant: up to 33 months on an application for entry clearance as a partner, and up to 30 months on an in-country application for leave to remain. Where the sponsor holds 30-month protection permission, both are now replaced by a grant ending on the sponsor’s permission-expiry date.
The amended Rules retain a condition of no recourse to public funds, subject to the usual Appendix FM provisions on a change of conditions.
HC 259 amended the grant provisions in Appendix FM across both the five-year and ten-year partner routes. Entry clearance as a partner is dealt with at D-ECP.1.1 for the five-year route and D-ECP.1.2 for the ten-year route. Leave to remain as a partner is dealt with at D-LTRP.1.1 and D-LTRP.1.2 respectively.
The operative wording is materially the same in each. In place of a standard grant “not exceeding 33 months” for entry clearance, or “not exceeding 30 months” in country, leave may be granted “for a period which ends on the same date as the sponsor’s permission” where the sponsor’s protection-based permission is for 30 months.
This affects a partner applying under Appendix FM where the sponsor has refugee status or humanitarian protection and was granted 30 months’ permission on the basis of that status. In practice, that will usually mean a sponsor granted protection following an asylum application made on or after 2 March 2026, subject to the transitional provisions on the protection route.
It does not follow that every refugee sponsor’s Appendix FM partner now receives a shortened or aligned grant. A sponsor with a five-year protection grant falls outside this drafting, and the ordinary Appendix FM grant framework continues to apply.
The grant is tied to the remainder of the sponsor’s existing leave, not to a fresh 30-month period.
The Home Office rationale is to prevent a mismatch in which the sponsor’s protection leave expires, is refused, or is not renewed, while the Appendix FM partner continues to hold a longer period of family-route permission.
Where an Appendix FM partner application involves a protection sponsor, advisers should establish at the outset the sponsor’s current permission expiry date, whether the protection grant is for 30 months, the date of the asylum claim and any transitional issues. Although the aligned grant applies to both entry clearance and in-country applications, it has practical consequences for evidence, extension timing and the partner’s settlement clock, so clients should be advised early that a shorter grant may mean a sooner further application.
The updated Family Life guidance of 6th August 2026 confirms that, where the sponsor received 30 months’ protection leave following an asylum claim made on or after 2nd March 2026, the partner should normally receive permission ending on the same date as the sponsor’s leave.
Business Visa: Expansion Workers
OFI Fast Track Referral scheme for UK Expansion Worker licence applicants
The Office for Investment (OFI) Fast Track Referral is a selective government referral mechanism for certain high-potential overseas businesses applying for a UK Expansion Worker sponsor licence. It is not a new visa route, and it is not an alternative to meeting sponsor-licence eligibility. What it can do is reduce the Home Office’s licence-decision time to around 10 working days, against a standard published timeframe of roughly eight weeks.
The scheme applies only to an application for a UK Expansion Worker sponsor licence. That is the Global Business Mobility route used by an overseas business which has not yet started trading in the UK, to send senior managers or specialist workers here to establish a UK branch or subsidiary.
A business that obtains the licence still has to meet every ordinary sponsorship and route requirement. It will need a UK footprint, such as UK premises or a Companies House registration, and an active overseas trading presence, normally of at least three years. There must be a qualifying common-ownership or control link between the overseas business and the proposed UK entity, and a credible plan to establish UK trading within two years. The roles must be genuine and eligible, and the business must comply with sponsor duties.
A reminder, that the fast-track process addresses the speed of a licence decision. It does not relax the substantive evidential, genuineness or compliance thresholds.
A business must satisfy three conditions. It must be receiving ongoing support from the Office for Investment, it must operate in one of the eight priority sectors identified in the UK Modern Industrial Strategy, and it must meet at least one growth criterion.
The growth criteria are alternatives rather than cumulative requirements. A business qualifies if it has received at least £1 million in venture-capital or institutional investment, or if it has committed at least £2 million of capital investment for its UK expansion, or if it participates in a government-recognised high-growth programme such as the Global Entrepreneur Programme.
The ongoing OfI relationship is the gateway condition. An ordinary UK Expansion Worker applicant cannot buy priority processing and cannot self-refer simply because it has a strong business plan.
Before OfI refers the matter to the Home Office, the business is subject to due diligence, which includes checks against UK sanctions regimes.
The business must provide a genuine, planned and plausible breakdown of its UK setup costs, a month-by-month projection of UK expansion operating costs for the first 12 months, and a forecast of UK revenue together with the reasoning that supports it.
OfI then authenticates and tests those materials against the company’s past performance and relevant market benchmarks before making a referral. The stated contact route is globaltalenthub@officeforinvestment.gov.uk, copying in the business’s OfI Account Manager.
A referral is not a guarantee that the sponsor licence will be granted, and it is not a guaranteed 10-working-day service either. Where the Home Office identifies the application as complex, it reverts to standard processing times. Nor does a referral displace the requirement that the UK Expansion Worker route be used only before UK trading begins. If the UK entity is already trading, a different route will generally be needed, such as Skilled Worker or Senior or Specialist Worker.
The licence is also time limited. The business is expected to establish a UK trading presence within two years, and a failure to do so can prevent further sponsorship, block extensions for existing Expansion Workers, and ultimately cost the business its licence.
For an eligible client, advisers should prepare two separate but connected evidence bundles: one for the OfI referral, focused on investment, growth, budget, forecasts and due diligence, and one for the Home Office sponsor-licence application, covering Appendix A documents, UK footprint, overseas trading, corporate links, the expansion plan, key personnel and the initial CoS request.
A positive OfI referral should be viewed only as a faster processing route, not as confirmation that the Home Office will accept the application as genuine or eligible.
Sponsor Licence Update
Sponsor guidance updated re refusing applications due to lack of trading presence & sponsorship created to facilitate immigration permission for those lacking right to work
The material change was made in Sponsor Guidance Part 1, version 05/26, effective from 20 May 2026. It gives UKVI clearer and wider bases on which to refuse a sponsor-licence application where the organisation lacks a genuine UK operating or trading presence or appears to have been created mainly to obtain immigration permission for a particular worker.
Three linked amendments were made. Paragraphs L8.4 and L8.5 add new examples of circumstances in which UKVI is unlikely to accept that an organisation is genuinely operating or trading.
Paragraphs L8.8 and L8.9, read with Annex L1(v), introduce a new mandatory-refusal basis where UKVI has reasonable grounds to consider or suspect that the organisation was established, or exists mainly, to facilitate a worker’s entry or residence.
Annex L2(g) clarifies the normal revocation grounds where a sponsor employs or sponsors a person without the required work permission, and either did not undertake right-to-work checks or could otherwise reasonably have known.
The May version replaced the March 2026 guidance, and the change log expressly identifies the first two of those points as new provisions.
The underlying requirement is not new. An organisation normally needs a genuine operating or trading presence in the UK, while a UK Expansion Worker applicant needs a UK “footprint” rather than an existing UK trading presence. If UKVI finds no operating or trading presence, it will refuse the application; if it discovers that absence after grant, it will revoke the licence.
What is new is the added guidance on what may not satisfy that requirement. The glossary now draws a distinction between two terms. Trading is commercial activity in which goods or services are provided to customers for reward. Operating is broader, covering charities and not-for-profits providing services, and businesses undertaking genuine pre-trading activity with a view to commencing commercial trading in the foreseeable future.
UKVI is unlikely to accept that an applicant is genuinely operating or trading where there is little or no evidence of external commercial activity, such as transactions with independent customers, clients or service users, or where activity consists mainly of contracts and invoices between linked entities under common ownership or control. Routine business outgoings, investor funding or intra-group payments will not usually be enough; the key question is whether there is credible commercial substance, including actual delivery, an arm’s-length rationale and genuine activity beyond circular or internal invoicing.
Annex L1(v) requires UKVI to refuse a sponsor-licence application where there are reasonable grounds to consider or suspect that the organisation was established, or exists mainly, to secure a worker’s entry or stay in the UK where they otherwise lack permission to work. The test does not require proof of a sham arrangement and can apply even if the role appears to meet skill and salary requirements, making it especially relevant to owner-managed companies, new businesses and “self-sponsorship” arrangements; the key issue is whether there is a genuinely viable business with a real eligible role, or merely a company created principally to facilitate one person’s immigration position.
UKVI will normally revoke a sponsor licence where the sponsor employs or sponsors someone without the required permission to work, and either failed to carry out proper right-to-work checks or could reasonably have known the individual lacked permission. In sponsorship compliance, the issue therefore goes beyond whether the sponsor can rely on a narrow statutory excuse.
In practice, licence applicants, especially new or owner-led businesses, should evidence genuine independent market activity, credible contracts, delivery, bank receipts, tax records, staffing, premises, financial capacity and a real business pipeline.
Where group-company work is relied on, the commercial rationale and actual services must be clear; right-to-work systems should also be embedded from the outset, as the updated guidance now gives UKVI express refusal and revocation grounds for artificial trading and immigration-led company formation.
Compliance Obligation for Immigration Advisors
AF Nigeria [2026] UKUT 274 (IAC) – lawyers must conduct proper due diligence to ensure they only act for individuals from whom they have instructions, either from a competent child or their legal guardian
AF (child appellant; representation and instructions) Nigeria [2026] UKUT 274 (IAC) establishes that a representative must have valid authority before conducting an immigration appeal for a child. Instructions must come either from a child with sufficient capacity to give them, or from a person with legal authority to act for the child. Acting because a relative believes the appeal is in the child’s best interests is not enough.
AF confirms that solicitors must have valid authority before bringing or conducting an immigration appeal for a child. In that case, although AF’s cousin and sponsor sought to progress the appeal, there was no evidence that AF himself had capacity to instruct or that the cousin had parental responsibility or legal guardianship, so the Upper Tribunal held that the representatives lacked proper authority.
The practical lesson is that lawyers must carry out and record due diligence at the outset, identifying whether instructions come from a competent child or from an adult with legally recognised authority to act for them. A child’s best interests remain relevant to the immigration merits, but they do not authorise proceedings, and a sponsor, relative, prospective carer or funder cannot instruct representatives simply because they wish to help the child.
The key point is that representatives must have valid authority before acting for a child: either the child must be competent to give instructions, or an adult must have parental responsibility, guardianship or other recognised legal authority. A sponsor or relative’s view that an appeal is in the child’s best interests is not enough. The judgment confirms that children under 18 may sometimes instruct, but competence must be assessed and recorded case by case, not assumed or replaced by a third party’s wishes.
For child applicants or appellants abroad, representatives should verify and record the child’s identity, age, location, direct means of communication and capacity to give instructions, as well as the legal authority of any adult purporting to act for them. Kinship or sponsorship is not enough without documentary proof of parental responsibility, guardianship or equivalent authority. If capacity or authority is unclear, formal authority or tribunal directions should be sought, as an appeal brought without valid instructions may not be properly constituted.
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.
