Access Immigration Law

16/07/2026

The Home Office policy in relation to good character in Naturalisation applications - namely that irregular entry or arrival without entry clearance indicates bad character (even where later the individual is granted refugee status) has been upheld by the High Court.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2026/1623.html

It may still be possible to succeed and show reasons as to why citizenship should be granted. Applicants should consider the policy carefully before applying: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/good-character-caseworker-guidance

Immigration staff guidance on assessing the good character requirement in nationality applications.

09/07/2026

The Home Office have published a new Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026 -this is currently being considered by the government. We have summariesed some of these below:

Part 1 of the bill establishes the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority (IIAA), which will be responsible for hearing asylum and human rights appeals. Worryingly adjudicators in the new appeals body will not need to be qualified lawyers, as is currently the case.

Clause 17 amends the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Under the new procedure, the application is lodged by the UK-born sponsor with the effect that either party can appeal against a refusal of the claim.

Clause 23 gives the Secretary of State the power to require asylum support payments to be paid back once their claim has concluded, provided this would not make them destitute

There are further changes to family and private life (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights)

The new section 117AA lists considerations that a tribunal should have regard to. This includes provisions stipulating that family life will normally only be engaged between spouses as well as parents and minor children. With respect to other relationships:

‘(4) An adult, A, does not normally have a family life for the purposes of Article 8 with another adult, B, unless—

(a) A and B live together as spouses, civil partners or partners, or

(b) the circumstances are such that there is an additional element of dependency (beyond normal emotional ties) as between A and B.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), the following factors, when taken independently, do not constitute an additional element of dependency as between a person, A, and another person, B—

(a) the fact that A is financially dependent on B;

(b) the fact that A suffers from physical or mental illness or infirmity, unless—

(i) the illness or infirmity means that A is incapacitated to such an extent that A is in need of constant care and support,

(ii) B is (or would be) able to provide that care and support, and

(iii) A would not receive adequate care and support if A were not in the same country as B;

(c) the fact that A relies on B for emotional support;

(d) the fact that A lives in a country affected by war, conflict or instability and as a result B is concerned about A’s welfare.

(6) Nothing in subsection (5) prevents a court or tribunal from considering the factors mentioned in that subsection when determining the public interest question.

(7) In this section, “the public interest question” has the same meaning as in section 117A.’

In clause 19 there are also amendments to section 117B - ‘public interest’ considerations in section 117B these expand the definition of financial independence and good character:

‘(2) In subsection (3), for the words from “are financially” to the end substitute “—

(a) are, and are likely to remain, financially independent,

(b) are, and are likely to remain, able to house themselves (and any dependent family members) adequately without reliance on state support, and

(c) are not, and are not likely to become, reliant on public services, in particular health or social care services, in the long-term,” because such persons are not likely to be a burden on taxpayers and are likely to be better able to integrate into society.”

(3) After subsection (3) insert—

“(3A) It is in the public interest, and in particular in the interests of the prevention of disorder or crime, that persons who seek to enter or remain in the United Kingdom—

(a) have not been convicted of a criminal offence (in the United Kingdom or elsewhere),

(b) have co-operated with immigration authorities and processes, and

(c) are otherwise of good character.’“

‘(4) No weight should be given to a private or family life established by a person at a time when the person is in the United Kingdom

previously this stated little weight

and—

(a) they require leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom but do not have it or obtained it by deception, or

(b) they are in serious breach of a condition attached to their leave to enter or remain.’

09/07/2026

29/06/2026

The Home Office have amended the good character guidance in relation to Naturalisation applications. The new guidance can be found via the following link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/good-character-caseworker-guidance/good-character-requirement-accessible -related-issues
They now give more details on how cases will be considered where there was illegal entry, which would normally result in a refusal.

The guidance notes:
Overstaying, illegal entry, and arriving without a required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation having made a dangerous journey: additional considerations
Arrivals outside of an applicant’s control
It will normally be appropriate to disregard overstaying, illegal entry, or arrival without a required entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation having made a dangerous journey, where it was outside the person’s control. This includes, but is not limited to, where there is reliable evidence that a person was trafficked into the UK, for example, where the person received a positive decision through the National Referral Mechanism (NRM).

There are similar provisions where the person was a child when they overstayed, entered illegally or arrived without a required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation; see discretion relating to children above.

Defence for a refugee
Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (‘the IAA 1999’) incorporates into domestic law the protection provided in Article 31 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Section 31 provides a defence against prosecution for certain specified offences where a refugee travelled to the UK directly from the territory where they feared persecution and where all the following apply:

they presented themselves to the domestic authorities without delay
they showed good cause for their illegal entry or presence
they made a claim for asylum as soon as was reasonably practicable after arriving in the UK
Alongside illegal entry, a section 31(1) defence could also apply to a person who has good cause for any unlawful presence in the UK prior to making an asylum claim. For example, a person who overstayed a period of valid leave, where the political situation changed in their home country towards the end of that stay, and the person then presented themselves to the UK authorities without delay to seek protection.

Section 31(1) does not specify any time within which a person should claim asylum, and this will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. However, an applicant who delayed claiming asylum will normally be refused citizenship, unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay.

You should note the date of the applicant’s asylum claim when considering if there is a valid section 31 defence.

If the applicant’s asylum application was made before 28 June 2022, you must consider whether there was a reasonable explanation for any delay in the applicant claiming asylum, and whether they have a valid section 31 defence. For further advice see: page 53 of Assessing credibility and refugee status pre 28 June 2022.

If the applicant’s asylum application was made on or after 28 June 2022, they will be treated as either a Group 1 refugee or a Group 2 refugee, as defined in section 12 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (NABA 2022):

Group 1 refugees met the requirements in section 12(2) and (3) of the NABA 2022, meaning that they came to the UK directly from a country or territory where their life or freedom was threatened, and either presented themselves to the authorities without delay or have shown good cause for any illegal entry or presence in the UK - therefore, Group 1 refugees have already been assessed as having a defence under section 31 of the IAA 1999
Group 2 refugees will not have met one or more of the requirements in section 12(2) and (3) of the NABA 2022, and do not have a defence under section 31 of the IAA 1999
Section 31(2) provides that section 31(1) only applies to refugees who have travelled to the UK through another country if they can show they could not reasonably have expected to be given protection under the 1951 Refugee Convention in that country.

Section 31 does not provide for a defence against prosecution in cases where the person stopped in a country outside the UK and could reasonably be expected to have sought protection there.

Consequently, refugees who entered illegally or overstayed, will normally be refused citizenship if they chose not to claim asylum at the first available opportunity, did not travel directly from the country where they fear persecution (or could not reasonably have expected to be given protection in the country they travelled through before reaching the UK), or only claimed asylum after enforcement action was taken against them.

Applicants with a valid section 31(1) defence, must not be refused citizenship on the sole basis of the illegal entry or overstaying that featured in that defence; all other character factors must still be considered in full.

Defence for certain offences
If an applicant entered illegally, or overstayed, and would have had a valid section 31 defence but was convicted before their application for asylum was decided and granted, it may be appropriate to disregard the conviction: see defence for a refugee charged with certain offences.

Evidence of immigration breaches
Failure to comply with immigration requirements may have been evidenced by service of an IS151A, a RED.0001 form, a notice of liability to administrative removal or, where an application is also being refused, by a single decision notice which incorporates a notice of liability to removal. This can show that a person came to notice as someone who breached the conditions of their leave, remained in the UK unlawfully without leave, or entered the UK illegally. Records must be checked to see why the notice was served and whether it was subsequently withdrawn.

For further information see:

Irregular or unlawful entry and arrival guidance
Section 31 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999: defence against prosecution
UNHCR - The 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

08/06/2026

The Home Office are raising the standards for recruting foreign students. These reforms raise the pass marks of the annual test used to monitor visa sponsors – across all three of its metrics:

Visa refusal rate: must remain below 5% (previously 10%)

Course enrolment rate: must reach at least 95% (previously 90%)

Course completion rate: must reach at least 90% (previously 85%)

These may well mean that Universities are more reluctant to issue a CAS.

From summer 2027, a traffic light rating system will be brought in and will make university compliance performance public