News Update – 31 July 2026
It has been a busy week for those advising on work and enforcement matters. A new shortage-list mechanism has taken further shape, the care sector may be in line for a settlement concession, one council has broken ranks over immigration raids, and two significant cases are progressing through the higher courts.
Migration Advisory Committee Recommends 28 Occupations for the Temporary Shortage List
The Migration Advisory Committee has published the second stage of its review of the Temporary Shortage List, recommending that twenty-eight occupations be granted access for an initial period of eighteen months. Notably, no occupation was judged to have a strong enough case to warrant full access lasting until the next scheduled review, which is expected in three years.
The Temporary Shortage List is a new mechanism intended to allow time-limited migration access for selected middle-skilled roles considered necessary to support the Government’s Industrial Strategy or critical infrastructure delivery. Access is confined to occupations backed by workforce strategies, described in the review as “Jobs Plans“, which set out how a sector intends to expand domestic training, recruitment and retention.
The recommended roles are heavily weighted towards construction, engineering and skilled trades, including electricians, welders, bricklayers, plumbers, carpenters, roofers and plasterers, alongside a smaller number of technical roles such as data analysts and building and civil engineering technicians. The Committee assessed eighty-two occupations in total and selected those where the evidence of current or future shortage was plausible and the accompanying Jobs Plans were relevant to the identified shortage drivers.
The recommended occupations accounted for roughly 4,000 visas a year on average between 2022/23 and 2024/25, against around 10,000 across all eighty-two roles considered, and the Committee anticipates only a limited overall effect on migration. Future access will depend increasingly on demonstrable progress in reducing long-term reliance on overseas labour.
Existing Care Workers May Be Exempt from Tougher Settlement Rules
Reports this week suggest that hundreds of thousands of care workers could be shielded from the tightening of settlement rules, with the Prime Minister understood to be considering a broader exemption for those already working in the sector. The measure would sit against the Home Secretary’s wider plans to make indefinite leave to remain harder to obtain, including by extending the qualifying period.
The exemption is not expected to feature in the Prime Minister’s forthcoming speech on social care reform and is more likely to be confirmed later in the year, once the Home Office has assessed responses to its public consultation on settlement. The working assumption is that existing care workers would be protected while the stricter rules apply to future arrivals.
The context matters for advisers with care-sector clients. Around 200,000 health and care visas have been granted over the past five years, and the sector has voiced strong concern that a longer route to settlement would deepen recruitment and retention pressures. The position remains provisional, but it is one to watch closely for clients weighing their settlement timelines.
Lewisham Becomes the First Council to Refuse Cooperation With Immigration Raids
In a development that reflects growing friction over enforcement activity, Lewisham Council has become the first local authority in the country to resolve to withhold assistance from Home Office immigration raids wherever it is “legally possible” to do so. The motion, agreed at a full council meeting, includes a review of the council’s data-sharing and service agreements and a commitment not to deploy council resources or public money for enforcement purposes.
The move follows a marked intensification of enforcement in the capital. Home Office figures cited in the reporting record 2,715 illegal working visits and raids across London during 2025, resulting in 2,172 arrests, up from 2,008 raids the previous year, with the Department pointing to a substantial rise in both raids and illegal working arrests since mid-2024. The council intends to work with neighbouring, Green-led authorities to establish a “sanctuary corridor” and to inform migrant communities of their rights when faced with enforcement.
Academic commentary quoted in the coverage suggests that non-cooperation may hinder rather than halt raids, given the limited powers a council holds to obstruct Home Office activity. The significance may lie less in preventing enforcement than in the reduced access to local data and the improved rights awareness among affected communities.
Supreme Court Ruling on Illegal Working Civil Penalties: Akbars Restaurant
The Supreme Court has handed down judgment in Akbars Restaurant (Middlesbrough) Limited v Secretary of State for the Home Department this week.
The dispute arose from a £15,000 civil penalty issued after an enforcement visit found a kitchen worker whose leave had expired, leaving him without the right to work. The legal question was narrow but important. Section 15(6)(a) requires a penalty notice to state why the employer is liable, and the notice in question simply listed all three possible grounds under section 15(1) rather than identifying the one that applied.
The County Court and the Court of Appeal both found the notice adequate. The Supreme Court disagreed and unanimously allowed the appeal. It held that a notice must specify which limb of section 15(1) is relied upon.
The Court reasoned that listing every ground was not fair to the employer, as it denied them accurate and sufficient information about the basis of the penalty. For advisers, the ruling is a useful tool. Civil penalty notices drafted in the same generic, catch-all format may now be open to challenge, and the decision strengthens an employer’s ability to understand and contest the case against them.
Court of Appeal Judgment Awaited in Deportation Case: Ojaleye v Secretary of State
In Secretary of State for the Home Department v Ojaleye (UI-2024-005901, the Upper Tribunal (UTJ Ruddick and Deputy UTJ Clarke) dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal, finding no material error of law in the First-tier Tribunal’s decision to allow Mr Ojaleye’s appeal against deportation. It held that the FTT had directed itself correctly on the law, had properly taken account of the seriousness of his seven-year fraud sentence, and was entitled to conclude that the needs of his two autistic children amounted to “very compelling circumstances” over and above the statutory exceptions. The Tribunal rejected the Secretary of State’s grounds as a mischaracterisation of the evidence, noting that the children’s difficulties went well beyond what is ordinarily expected on a parent’s imprisonment and that applying a “notional comparator” test had been disapproved in HA (Iraq), and confirmed that the FTT’s finding on the damaging effect of indefinite separation was consistent with Sicwebu v SSHD. As of 30 July 2026, the Court of Appeal has yet to hand down its judgment.
This case matters for several reasons. Most obviously, it illustrates the application of the highest threshold in deportation appeals. Where a foreign criminal has been sentenced to four years’ imprisonment or more, it is not enough to satisfy the statutory exceptions; there must be very compelling circumstances over and above them.
It also demonstrates how the needs of children can bear on that assessment. In truly exceptional circumstances, the needs of autistic children may be capable of outweighing the powerful public interest in deporting a serious offender, and this case explores where that balance can tip. Closely related is the distinction the courts have drawn between imprisonment and deportation.
There is a procedural dimension too. The Upper Tribunal’s decision offers a useful reminder of the limited role played by appellate tribunals, which cannot remake the original decision or substitute their own view, but must instead identify a genuine error of law.
Finally, the offence at the heart of the case gives it a topical resonance. The large-scale exploitation of the Bounce Back Loan Scheme is something sentencing judges have treated with seriousness, given that it defrauded a scheme designed to help businesses survive the pandemic.
News Articles
Position Paper of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment: Non-Refoulement and the Prohibition of Torture Position Paper of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment: Non-Refoulement and the Prohibition of Torture
The UN special report on torture, warns in a July 2026 position paper that tougher migration policies cannot override the absolute ban on returning anyone to a real risk of torture. States keep full powers to deport, extradite and prosecute, but must give each person a fair, individualised risk assessment and cannot sidestep the rule through third-country deals, “chain refoulement,” or unenforceable diplomatic assurances. The protection applies even to serious criminals, since accountability must be pursued lawfully. To view the full report, visit here
Temporary Shortage List Review, Final report, July 2026
The Migration Advisory Committee’s second-stage review of the new Temporary Shortage List recommends 28 of 82 occupations examined mostly construction, engineering and skilled trades roles for temporary migration access lasting 18 months, with none qualifying for full three-year access. Access depends on sectors having credible “Jobs Plans” to boost domestic training and recruitment. The affected roles account for only around 4,000 visas a year, so the overall impact on migration is expected to be modest. To view the full report, visit here
Green-led council ‘won’t assist immigration raids’ Lewisham Council has become the first local authority in the UK to refuse to assist Home Office immigration raids wherever “legally possible”.
A motion to that effect, proposed by the Green administration, was formally agreed at a meeting of Lewisham’s full council at the Town Hall this week. To view the full article, visit here
AI tool will lead to more child refugees being treated as adults, charity warns
Flawed and racialised models that underpin the AI-powered age-detection systems to be introduced by the British government will endanger children, rights groups and children’s charities have warned. Urging ministers to reverse plans to introduce facial age-estimation technology to screen migrants, critics have warned that black children arriving from conflict zones are at risk of being of thrust into the adult system. To view the full article, visit here
Existing care workers could be exempt from UK’s tough new immigration rules
Hundreds of thousands of care workers could be exempted from the home secretary’s plans to toughen up the immigration system under proposals being considered by Andy Burnham as he looks for ways to relieve pressure on the social care sector. To view the full article, visit here
Four migrants die attempting to cross English Channel in small boats
Four migrants have died trying to cross the English Channel in small boats, French authorities have said. In one incident, three women suffered heart attacks after their boat launched off the coast of Dunkirk. To view the full article, visit here
500 arrivals – including a ‘mega dinghy’ that brought 165 migrants in a single trip
Andy Burnham was under mounting pressure to break his silence on immigration last week as it emerged more than 500 small-boat migrants arrived in his first week. News sources reported one dinghy was a staggering 12m long and carried 165, with the six vessels crossing the Channel in total this week branded ‘Burnham’s boats. To view the full article, visit here
Case Law
Akbars Restaurant (Middlesbrough) Limited (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)
The UK Supreme Court unanimously quashed a £15,000 civil penalty issued to Akbars Restaurant for employing a worker without the right to work. The penalty notice listed all three mutually exclusive limbs of section 15(1) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 without saying which one applied, breaching section 15(6)(a)’s requirement to state why the employer is liable. Because the regime is penal, the Court held the Secretary of State must specify the relevant limb, and the later identification of the correct one before the county court could not save the defective notice. To view the full decision, visit here
Ojaleye (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant)
The Upper Tribunal dismissed the Home Secretary’s appeal, finding no error of law in the First-tier Tribunal’s decision to let Mr Ojaleye stay. It held the FTT was entitled to treat his two autistic children’s needs as “very compelling circumstances” outweighing the public interest in deporting him, despite his seven-year fraud sentence. To view the full decision, visit here
Home Office Guidance and Policy Updates
To view the Home Office Guidance and Policies updated between 23rd July 2026 to 30th July 2026, visit here
Whats on
As the season closes, Mark Symes leads a FREE course: Immigration Update 2026 the Year so Far, spanning the new era of refugee protection, recent rule amendments, earned settlement proposals, fresh case law across fairness, visa cancellation, deportation, adoption, naturalisation, detention and family life, and the tougher sponsor licence regime with its heightened revocation risk.
The new season opens on 8 October with Danai Papachristopoulou of the Refugee and Migrant Centre on How to Prepare Fee Waivers.
With the new right to work rules landing on 1 October 2026, the popular Sacha Special returns two courses for just £99! Sacha Wooldridge delivers a Sponsor Licence Masterclass and Right to Work Checks.
Our acclaimed Judicial Review Conference then returns in person on 27 November, fully catered in central London, with Adrain Berry KC, Duran Seddon KC, Grace Brown, Mark Symes and David Jones.
Visit us HERE for more
Early booking is recommended; for enquiries, contact enquiries@hjt-training.co.uk or call +44 7446 466898.
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.