Free Movement Weekly Immigration Newsletter #115 - Free Movement Welcome to the weekly Free Movement newsletter!

From last week: Free Movement Weekly Immigration Newsletter #115 | Jasmine Quiller-Doust

Free Movement Weekly Immigration Newsletter #116 - Free Movement Welcome to the weekly Free Movement newsletter!

Latest post from us: Free Movement Weekly Immigration Newsletter #116 | Jasmine Quiller-Doust

Free Movement Weekly Immigration Newsletter #116 - Free Movement Welcome to the weekly Free Movement newsletter!

New from Free Movement: Free Movement Weekly Immigration Newsletter #116 | Jasmine Quiller-Doust

Home Secretary accepts she can grant further leave on the five-year route without the no recourse to public funds condition - Free Movement The Home Secretary has accepted she can grant leave on the five-year route without imposing a no recourse to public funds condition. The concession was made

In case you missed it: Home Secretary accepts she can grant further leave on the five-year route without the no recourse to public funds condition | Nakita Hedges

European Court rules return of Hazara Afghan national would breach Article 3 - Free Movement The European Court of Human Rights has handed down its judgment in a case concerning an Afghan asylum seeker for the first time since the Taliban takeover in

From last week: European Court rules return of Hazara Afghan national would breach Article 3 | Jamie Bell

When domestic abuse survivors don’t fit the rules: options and risks - Free Movement When navigating the UK immigration system, people will naturally aim for the best status they can obtain. For victims of domestic abuse, that usually means an

8. There is no perfect solution. The right approach depends on the strength of evidence, immigration history, and the survivor's tolerance for risk. Advisers need to weigh each option carefully on the individual facts.

7. Option three: submit the human rights parent application first, then vary it to an Appendix Victim of Domestic Abuse application. Paragraph 34BB of the rules may allow both to be considered. But this approach is untested.

6. Option two: apply under Appendix Victim of Domestic Abuse and ask for limited leave as a parent if refused. This is riskier. The Home Office is likely to ignore the fallback request, and refusal means only administrative review.

5. Option one: apply for limited leave as a parent but ask the Home Office to exercise discretion to grant indefinite leave. This is the safest route, preserving existing leave, but the Home Office will rarely agree without a fight.

4. MY (Pakistan) v SSHD [2021] EWCA Civ 1500 complicates matters. The Court of Appeal held the Home Office can ignore human rights arguments tagged onto a different application type. Survivors cannot easily run both cases at once.

3. The core problem: Appendix Victim of Domestic Abuse offers immediate settlement, but some survivors may not meet its strict requirements. A parent route is safer but means limited leave on a ten-year path.

2. Nath Gbikpi takes us through the issues using a detailed case study, examining what happens when a survivor could apply under the domestic abuse rules or as a parent of a British citizen.

Long thread alert 🧵

1. Domestic abuse survivors who don't fit neatly within Appendix Victim of Domestic Abuse face a real dilemma. We've explored the options available and the risks each one carries.

When domestic abuse survivors don’t fit the rules: options and risks - Free Movement When navigating the UK immigration system, people will naturally aim for the best status they can obtain. For victims of domestic abuse, that usually means an

Latest post from us: When domestic abuse survivors don’t fit the rules: options and risks | Nath Gbikpi

When domestic abuse survivors don’t fit the rules: options and risks - Free Movement When navigating the UK immigration system, people will naturally aim for the best status they can obtain. For victims of domestic abuse, that usually means an

New from Free Movement: When domestic abuse survivors don’t fit the rules: options and risks | Nath Gbikpi

Home Secretary accepts she can grant further leave on the five-year route without the no recourse to public funds condition - Free Movement The Home Secretary has accepted she can grant leave on the five-year route without imposing a no recourse to public funds condition. The concession was made

7. This matters because the difference between the five-year and ten-year routes is profound, especially for disabled people. Where the Home Secretary fails to consider exercising her discretion, decisions imposing NRPF on the five-year route may now be open to challenge.

6. The Home Secretary also accepted that the policy places disabled people at a particular and substantial disadvantage. She has agreed to review the guidance by September 2026, including compliance with the public sector equality duty and the risk of indirect discrimination.

5. The High Court approved a consent order quashing the decision as unlawful. The Home Secretary accepted that she retains discretion to grant leave on the five-year route without the NRPF condition and that the current guidance does not clearly reflect this.

4. Home Office guidance had instructed caseworkers to offer applicants only two options: stay on the five-year route with NRPF re-imposed, or switch to the ten-year route to access benefits. No discretion to depart from this approach was recognised in the guidance.

3. The claimant and her British citizen husband are both registered blind and live with various physical and mental health conditions. They rely on public funds for basic living and accessibility needs. Re-imposing NRPF placed them at risk of homelessness and destitution.

2. Nakita Hedges takes us through this significant concession, made in judicial review proceedings brought by a disabled woman whose further leave on the five-year route was granted with the NRPF condition re-imposed despite her ongoing reliance on welfare support.

Long thread alert 🧵

1. The Home Secretary has accepted she has discretion to grant leave on the five-year route without imposing a no recourse to public funds condition. Until now, applicants were told to accept the condition or switch to the ten-year route.

Immigration roundup podcast: March 2026 - Free Movement If you listen to podcasts on your mobile phone, you can subscribe for free on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. Using a mobile device and subscribing

From last week: Immigration roundup podcast: March 2026 | Jasmine Quiller-Doust

Home Secretary accepts she can grant further leave on the five-year route without the no recourse to public funds condition - Free Movement The Home Secretary has accepted she can grant leave on the five-year route without imposing a no recourse to public funds condition. The concession was made

Latest post from us: Home Secretary accepts she can grant further leave on the five-year route without the no recourse to public funds condition | Nakita Hedges

Home Secretary accepts she can grant further leave on the five-year route without the no recourse to public funds condition - Free Movement The Home Secretary has accepted she can grant leave on the five-year route without imposing a no recourse to public funds condition. The concession was made

New from Free Movement: Home Secretary accepts she can grant further leave on the five-year route without the no recourse to public funds condition | Nakita Hedges

High Court warns Home Office against imposing unrealistic evidence standards in trafficking cases - Free Movement The High Court has confirmed there is no minimum standard of detail required for a conclusive grounds decision for a potential victim of trafficking.

In case you missed it: High Court warns Home Office against imposing unrealistic evidence standards in trafficking cases | Karen Staunton

Applications for costs in immigration cases: what practitioners need to know - Free Movement Applications for costs in immigration appeals are relatively rare. In fact, many practitioners can spend years, or even their entire career, without making

In case you missed it: Applications for costs in immigration cases: what practitioners need to know | Leanna Burnard

High Court warns Home Office against imposing unrealistic evidence standards in trafficking cases - Free Movement The High Court has confirmed there is no minimum standard of detail required for a conclusive grounds decision for a potential victim of trafficking.

5. The judgment reaffirms that anxious scrutiny applies and decision-makers must consider the totality of evidence. The judge expressed surprise the Home Office had not agreed to withdraw and remake this plainly flawed decision.

4. The court found the reasoning irrational. The claimant's unchallenged account appeared to satisfy all three components of trafficking. If information was truly insufficient, the correct approach was to seek more, not refuse.

3. The Home Office made a positive reasonable grounds decision with no credibility concerns identified. After receiving further statements, it then issued a negative conclusive grounds decision citing "insufficient information" without explaining why.