There aren’t any really major immigration policy amendments in the Statement of Changes published yesterday, but there are still a number of developments that you probably need to know about and at least one change that I’m very happy about.
I’ll kick off with the good news.
Exception to immigration bail prohibition across all categories (3 August 2026)
Currently, under the ‘exceptions for overstayers’ in SUI 13.1 (previously, paragraph 39E), when someone who made an in-time application receives a refusal or invalidity notice, they can lodge a new application within 14 days of their leave expiring and have their current overstaying disregarded. That is, unless they are given immigration bail as part of that refusal or rejection because most immigration categories require you not to be on immigration bail when applying. I have always believed this to be an unintentional interaction between the two as it has the effect of nullifying the provisions of SUI 13.1 in many cases for no apparent reason. I am thrilled that this error is finally being rectified.
From 3 August 2026, every relevant category is being amended to permit the applicant to be on immigration bail if SUI 13.1 applies. For example, paragraph E-LTRP 2.2 of Appendix FM will now say:
The applicant must not be in the UK-
(a) on immigration bail, unless:
(i) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the applicant arrived in the UK more than 6 months prior to the date of application; and
(ii) paragraph EX.1. applies; or
(iii) where the Exceptions for overstayers section of Part Suitability applies; or
(b) in breach of immigration laws (except that, where the exceptions for overstayers section of Part Suitability applies any current period of overstaying will be disregarded), unless paragraph EX.1. applies
The disregard of immigration bail where someone arrived in the UK more than six months ago coupled with the application of EX.1 only appears in the changes to Appendix FM. This is the only category in which EX.1 appears, while the other categories only have the SUI 13.1 exception.
The only applicant I can see being caught out by the former provision is someone who entered as a visitor, applied in the partner route before their visa expired, was refused, was then given immigration bail, and then tries a new application within 14 days of that decision. Though in practice, this is a tiny cohort that doesn’t feel significant enough to try to legislate against. If you can see an application of the ‘more than six months’ requirement that I’m missing, give me a shout!
Technically, this exception also covers anyone who makes a late application within 14 days of their permission expiring. But in practice, it will be exceptionally rare for someone to have been granted immigration bail in the 14 days after their permission expired apropos of nothing when immigration bail almost always follows an immigration decision rather than the simple expiry of permission.
Further changes to the children’s settlement rules in Part 8 (3 August 2026)
I previously covered the government’s shameful revision of paragraph 297 following its resounding defeat in the case of Kone here, in which I highlighted that the result of the amendment is that the exclusion undesirable test is now more stringent for children of British citizen than it is for children of Skilled Workers with indefinite leave. The Home Office agree (from the explanatory memorandum):
This minor amendment aligns Paragraphs 297 and 298 with CHI 4.3.(b) of Appendix Children and provides consistency of approach across Part 8 and Appendix Children.
Paragraph 297(i)(f) will now say:
(f) one parent is present and settled in the United Kingdom or being admitted on the same occasion for settlement, their other parent does not have (and is not being granted) limited leave in the UK, unless there are serious and compelling reasons to grant the applicant settlement;
I don’t know if it’s just me but I’m not sure the new version does what the Home Office would want it to do either. What I think they mean is that the following requirements must be met:
- One parent is present and settled in the United Kingdom or being admitted on the same occasion for settlement; and
- Their other parent does not have (and is not being granted) limited leave in the UK, unless there are serious and compelling reasons to grant the applicant settlement; and
- There are serious and compelling reasons to grant the applicant settlement.
I used ‘and’ twice in a way you usually wouldn’t in legislation for emphasis, and then repeated the same requirement twice because I couldn’t find any other way to make sense of what the Home Office is trying to do. If the ‘serious and compelling’ test is met, the other parent test is redundant. If it isn’t met, the child doesn’t qualify anyway.
In any case, that’s not what it says. With the way it’s now drafted, either the ‘serious and compelling circumstances’ test only kicks in if the other parent is here with limited leave (which would mean that a child will qualify for indefinite leave if they simply have one settled parent in the UK and their other parent is not here with limited leave, with no further requirements such as sole responsibility or exceptional circumstances) . Or, the ‘serious and compelling circumstances’ test applies to both parts of the paragraph (meaning that if it applies, the child does not necessarily even require a settled parent in the UK). I think the most natural reading of the new wording is this:
- One parent is present and settled in the UK or being admitted on the same occasion for settlement; and
- Their other parent does not have (and is not being granted) limited leave in the UK, unless there are serious and compelling reasons to grant the applicant settlement.
Once this takes effect on 3 August 2026, I might be tempted to try to squeeze in an application for any child with a pressing need for settlement who has one settled parent here and whose other parent is involved in their lives but is outside the UK or is here as an overstayer before the Home Office amends the rule once more. Assuming they don’t do it before the rule change, which has been known to happen.
If I were the Home Office, I would just abandon the exception for children with a second parent with limited leave because it never made conceptual sense anyway. It creates unnecessary redundancy that keeps tripping them up. They should instead go with the Appendix Children formulation that simply relies on ‘there are serious and compelling circumstances to grant the child settlement’ test to distinguish between children they want to grant settlement to and children they’re happy keeping on limited leave. But this would mean abandoning the knee-jerk reaction to their Kone loss in which they chose the most literal, simplest-on-its-face amendment that they think would have won them the case.
Paragraph 298 (for in-country applications) is being amended in line:
(d) one parent is present and settled in the United Kingdom or being admitted on the same occasion for settlement, their other parent does not have (and is not being granted) limited leave in the UK, unless there are serious and compelling reasons to grant the applicant settlement;
Also, a new paragraph 297(i)(g) is being added:
(g) a close relative is present and settled in the United Kingdom and the applicant has no family other than the close relative in the UK that could reasonably be expected to support or care for them;
An equivalent provision appears in paragraph 298. The reason for the addition is that the previous version of the ‘serious and compelling’ provision applied to both parents and close relatives, whereas the new version only applies to parents, so close relatives are getting their own separate provision. I would say that this represents a simpler test than the previous one in which you had to show that there were exceptional circumstances to let you enter, even if you had no family outside the UK. Whereas now, the only requirement is that the only close family the applicant has is in the UK.
Truncated asylum process (3 August 2026)
The rules on asylum interviews have been tweaked. The requirement has been dropped for the Home Office to give an asylum applicant and dependents a “reasonable opportunity to submit further information” if there was no asylum interview. It is not obvious from the rules themselves how this change will play out in real life but the Explanatory Memorandum gives us a better idea:
This process will be known as ‘merged registration’ and will involve one interview, covering the registration of the asylum claim, screening of the individual, and the establishment and assessment of the basis of claim. The interviewing officer will ask relevant and appropriate questions to establish whether an individual has protection needs and, if not, whether they can be removed from the UK without the need for a further asylum interview. This will truncate the current process which involves a screening interview, followed by a separate asylum interview, which may be scheduled for weeks or months later.
Basically, it looks like the Home Office is truncating the asylum process for claims pre-judged as being weak. There is an obvious risk of this turning out to be a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Deportation triggered by 12 month suspended sentence conviction, rather than sentencing (3 August 2026)
This one is fairly minor but may be of crucial importance to a very small cohort. Paragraph 13.1.1 currently states that liability to deportation is triggered where someone is given a 12-month suspended sentence, as long as the sentencing happens after 22 March 2026. This is being amended so that it is the conviction, rather than the sentencing, that has to take place after 22 March 2026. The change brings it in line with Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
A similar change is made to paragraph 13.2.1 (dealing with Article 8 exceptions to deportation).
UK-born children of Graduates can now get permission as their dependants (3 August 2026)
Currently, a child can only qualify as a Graduate dependant if they previously held permission as their dependant in the Student route. Obviously, that will not be possible in cases where the child was born after the switch into the Graduate route and this oversight is now being remedied with a new provision in GR 9.4A:
(d) they must be a child born in the UK to a Graduate who holds existing permission to stay in the Graduate route.
The explanatory memorandum says that the ‘Rules do not make provision for a child born in the UK during a parent’s Graduate permission’, but that’s not actually true. Part 8 contains provisions that still in effect for UK-born children to apply for limited leave if their parent(s) have limited leave, though I appreciate these provisions are not widely known or used.
Diplomatic Visa Arrangement (DVA) visit visas extended to Indian nationals (3 August 2026)
This is the visa framework that replaced the previous Diplomatic Visa Waivers and Indian nationals will be able to take part from 3 August 2026.
This is touted as an efficiency measure but please note that:
These changes will not impact accredited diplomats who are free, or “exempt”, from immigration control. DVAs ensure diplomatic passport holders from eligible countries who are nominated by their governments through a Note Verbale will benefit from smooth and efficient access to the UK.
Appendix FM – period of permission granted where the sponsor has protection status (maybe 3 August 2026)
With the rollout of 30 months of leave for anyone now granted protection status, the Home Office is concerned that applicants whose sponsors have this status (currently, refugee status or humanitarian protection) might now be given a longer period of permission than their sponsor. Appendix FM currently does not distinguish between the different types of sponsors in this case and states that they are granted a period of leave ‘not exceeding 33 months’ (other than fiancés/fiancées).
However, in practice I’m pretty sure that an applicant is currently already given leave in line with the sponsor if their leave expires in less than 33 months (though it has been a few years since I’ve applied for a partner of a refugee or someone with humanitarian protection, so give me a shout if that’s incorrect). The ‘not exceeding 33 months’ wording already allows for this and even when refugees were granted five years at a time, there will still have been cases where by the time of the application, they have less than 33 months of leave remaining. The current guidance already says:
This period of 33 months (or 6-months as a fiancé, fiancée or proposed civil partner) is to be granted where the sponsoring partner is in the UK with protection status, unless the protection status was granted for 30 months (for those granted protection following an asylum application made on or after 2 March 2026). Applicants whose sponsor received a 30 month protection grant following an application made on or after 2 March 2026 will be granted permission for the same duration, with their permission ending on the same date as the sponsor’s.
Either way, this is being amended, possibly just in case:
or; where the sponsor has been granted 30 months’ permission on the basis of protection status, for a period which ends on the same date as the sponsor’s permission. Any grant of permission under this paragraph will be subject to a condition of no recourse to public funds
Changes to the biometric enrolment requirements for EUSS Family Permits (30 July 2026)
In typically-elegant wording, the definition of ‘required biometrics’ in the Definitions section of Appendix EU (Family Permit) is being updated with an amended subparagraph (b) so it will now read:
(a) a facial photograph of the applicant (within the meaning of “biometric information” in section 15 of the UK Borders Act 2007); and
(b) (where the applicant relies on meeting the eligibility requirements in paragraph FP6(1) or FP6(2)) the fingerprints of the applicant (also within that meaning of “biometric information”; unless, in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State and in force at the date of application, they are not required to provide these)
This is explained in the explanatory memorandum as follows:
An EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) travel permit enables an EUSS status holder to travel to the UK where they are currently unable to update their UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) account from outside the UK, e.g. with details of a new travel document. The change in Appendix EU (Family Permit) removes the requirement for an applicant for an EUSS travel permit to provide fingerprint biometrics. This aligns the requirements, as far as is operationally possible, with those applicable to an EUSS status holder updating their UKVI account in country.
Deadline clarification for family members of qualifying British citizens under EUSS (30 July 2026)
The change is being made to Appendix EU to confirm that where someone with pre-settled status has switched into another route, they can still apply for settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme at any point prior to their permission expiring or later, if they have reasonable grounds for the delay. This change is, again, being effected by amending the Definitions section of the relevant appendix to add the following to the definition of ‘required date’:
and (c) the date of application may be any date where: (i) the applicant was previously granted limited leave to enter or remain under this Appendix as a family member of a qualifying British citizen; and (ii) that limited leave was varied into the leave under or outside the Immigration Rules held by the applicant (or last held by them, where that leave has expired and the Secretary of State is satisfied by information provided with the application that, at the date of application, there are reasonable grounds for the person’s delay in making their application since the date of expiry of that leave)
New care requirement under Appendix FM (3 August 2026)
Child applicants under Appendix FM will now need to show that there are suitable arrangements for their care in the UK:
E-ECC.1.7. There must be suitable arrangements for the child’s care and accommodation in the UK which must comply with relevant UK law.
There is an equivalent provision in the leave to remain section that takes into account the fact that the child might have turned 18 since:
E-LTRC.1.7. If the applicant is under the age of 18 on the date of application, there must be suitable arrangements for the child’s care and accommodation in the UK which must comply with relevant UK law.
It is not clear at present how strictly this must be evidenced. Hopefully, the guidance will be amended to clarify this point.
Minor changes to the Armed Forces appendices relating to dependants (3 August 2026)
Appendix HM Armed Forces is being amended to allow dependants of ‘single-serving personnel’ whose parent is exempt from immigration control to be granted permission under the Rules instead of outside the Rules by amending AF 21.2 to add:
Where the child’s sole parent is a member of HM Armed Forces who is exempt from immigration control and does not hold permission under these Rules, the child will be granted permission to stay for a period of five years.
Where the child has only one parent with permission to enter or stay in the UK, the same alignment rules apply in relation to that parent.
There are also settlement provisions:
AF27.3. Where the applicant is a child, the requirement to complete a period of 60 months under this Appendix does not apply if: (a) the applicant’s parent meets AF 27.1 and is being granted settlement under this Appendix at the same time; or (b) the applicant’s sole parent is a member of HM Armed Forces who is currently exempt from immigration control, but who is applying for settlement under AF 5.1.
Appendix International Armed Forces and International Civilian Employees is also being amended ‘to clarify that dependants of exempt international service personnel are not automatically eligible to accompany them, and must apply for entry clearance’. However, this change is being made exclusively to the introduction section and not the rules themselves.
Other minor changes (3 August 2026)
- Appendix Global Talent: Prestigious Prizes is being amended to update some of the prize names (while keeping the actual list the same);
- Appendix Electronic Travel Authorisation is being amended to add the same mandatory ban for anyone with a 12-month suspended sentences as currently exists in other parts of the Rules;
- Neonatal leave will be a permitted absence for the purpose of the earnings requirement on the Scale-up route;
- Stateless people applying for settlement will now be able to use form SET(O);
- The carer criminality provisions of Appendix Child Student will now include a prohibition for anyone with a 12-month suspended sentence, in line with the rest of the Rules;
- ECAA workers or businesspeople who were refused settlement can once again apply for Administrative Review (which I thought was already the case, at least in practice).
You can also take a look at the changes in our rules browser where you can compare the new rules to previous versions and see exactly what has changed. This tool is included in Free Movement membership, and we’ve given non-members access until Friday 17 July.
Happy Friday everyone!