London

A single brown envelope can freeze an entire workforce. When the Home Office writes to say your Sponsor Licence has been suspended, the clock starts ticking—no new Certificates of Sponsorship can be issued, your company disappears from the public register of sponsors, and current visa extensions grind to a halt. For organisations that rely on global talent, Sponsor Licence Suspension is not an administrative hiccup; it is an existential threat. This article breaks down the latest rules, the most common mistakes that trigger the Home Office, and a seven-step legal action plan that has helped dozens of employers regain their licence within the 20-working-day deadline. Why the Home Office Pulls the Plug: Common Reasons for a Sponsor Licence Suspension UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) does not suspend licences on a whim. A suspension is the result of either a routine UKVI Sponsor Licence Compliance Inspection or a tip-off that compliance duties have been neglected. The breaches most frequently flagged  in 2025 include failure to report a change in Authorising Officer within ten working days, incomplete right-to-work files such as missing passport endorsements or expired Biometric Residence Permit copies, payroll gaps that show sponsored workers were paid less than the stated salary on their CoS, absence monitoring oversights where there is no record of annual leave or unauthorised absence for more than ten consecutive days, and inadequate HR systems that cannot produce historical data during an unannounced audit. Importantly, the Home Office can suspend even if the breach was accidental. Ignorance of the rules is not a defence and will still be classed as one of the common reasons for a Sponsor Licence Suspension. The Domino Effect: What Suspension Does to Your Business in the First 72 Hours The moment the suspension letter lands, three things happen. Your SMS account is locked for new CoS allocations, any pending visa applications are placed on hold and applicants receive “not straightforward” emails, and your company name is removed from the public register of sponsors, instantly visible to clients, investors and prospective hires. Existing sponsored workers can continue working, but they cannot extend their visas until the matter is resolved. Recruitment pipelines collapse and competitors quickly poach talent who fear a revoked licence. In short, Sponsor Licence Suspension paralyses growth. Step 1 – Secure Urgent Immigration Legal Advice The letter gives you 20 working days to respond; the first 48 hours are critical. Engaging a team that provides urgent immigration legal advice ensures preservation of evidence before files are accidentally overwritten, immediate privilege over internal emails so that strategy discussions remain confidential, and a single point of contact with UKVI to prevent contradictory submissions. Firms such as A Y & J Solicitors operate a 24-hour hotline precisely because mitigating sponsor licence risk is time-sensitive. Early intervention doubles the likelihood of reinstatement without downgrading. Step 2 – Build Your Sponsor Licence Suspension Defence Treat the suspension letter as the prosecution’s opening statement. Each paragraph contains specific allegations that must be answered line by line. The strongest Sponsor Licence suspension defence combines three elements: a factual rebuttal that produces contemporaneous documents—payslips, email trails, SMS printouts—that prove compliance; a policy overhaul that demonstrates new written policies, training logs and a fresh compliance calendar; and a root-cause analysis that explains why the breach occurred—system migration, staff turnover, Covid disruption—and what structural change prevents recurrence. Legal counsel will map each allegation to the corresponding paragraph of the sponsor guidance, ensuring nothing is missed. Step 3 – Run a Mock UKVI Sponsor Compliance Inspection Before You Submit Before sending your response, stress-test it with an internal audit that mirrors a UKVI Sponsor Licence Compliance Inspection. In practice, this means a solicitor-led team arrives unannounced at your premises, a random sample of personnel files is checked against SMS data, a live right-to-work check demonstration with scanners and the Home Office online tool is performed, and key personnel—HR, Authorising Officer, Level 1 user—are interviewed under caution-style conditions. Any gaps uncovered at this stage can still be fixed and included in your submission, turning a potential weakness into evidence of proactive mitigating sponsor licence risk. Step 4 – Responding to Home Office Suspension Your written response is the centrepiece of responding to Home Office suspension. The most successful packages contain a two-page executive summary cover letter that lists each breach, the corrective action and the evidence bundle reference, a chronological bundle of indexed PDF with bookmarks—right-to-work folders, updated HR policies, training certificates, a 90-day roadmap with milestones and KPIs often prepared as a Gantt chart, and an expert opinion statement from an independent compliance auditor confirming the new systems meet Appendix D standards. Send the response by tracked delivery and email a duplicate to the caseworker to avoid any claim of non-receipt. Step 5 – Downgrade vs Reinstatement Once UKVI receives your response, four outcomes are possible: licence reinstated with A-rating, licence downgraded to B-rating with a £1,476 action plan fee, suspension extended for further investigation, or licence revoked. Experienced solicitors will open a back-channel with the Sponsor Compliance Team to negotiate. Demonstrating that you have already paid for an external audit and scheduled quarterly reviews often persuades UKVI to skip the B-rating and revert straight to A, saving both money and reputation. Step 6 – Post-Submission UKVI Sponsor Compliance Audit Even after reinstatement, UKVI can conduct a follow-up UKVI sponsor compliance audit within 12 months. To stay ahead, schedule quarterly internal audits and retain the reports, set SMS reminders for reporting deadlines, run refresher training for all new Level 1 users, and maintain a “compliance diary” that logs every CoS assigned, every change reported, and every right-to-work check. This living document becomes your first line of defence if selected for another inspection. Step 7 – Have a Plan B: Judicial Review or Fresh Application Even if revocation is given by the UKVI, you have options. For instance, you can challenge procedural unfairness in the judicial review within three months, such as not considering relevant evidence. Alternatively, you can, after 12 months, submit a fresh application with enhanced compliance updates. Both options will require extensive planning, so engage your legal team throughout this 'cooling-off' period. Conclusion: Act Fast, Act Smart Sponsor Licence Suspension is not the end of the road, but the next 20 working days will shape the next two years of your business. By securing urgent immigration legal advice, building a data-driven Sponsor Licence suspension defence, and demonstrating genuine cultural change, most employers recover their A-rating without losing a single sponsored worker. Get comprehensive legal representation on challenging and reinstating your sponsor licence from A Y & J Solicitors. A Y & J Solicitors is a specialist immigration law firm with extensive experience in assisting with challenging Sponsor Licence Revocation. We have an in-depth understanding of immigration law and are professional and results-focused. For assistance with your visa application or any other UK immigration law concerns, please contact us at +44 20 7404 7933. We’re here to help!  

MPs often receive questions from constituents about the UK asylum system and financial support for people seeking asylum. The House of Commons Library published on 16th September 2025 a list of the common questions asked and the issues which were covered. Below is a summary of some of the questions published by the research briefing. 1. Why are people who arrive by small boat allowed to stay in the UK? Those who arrive on small boats claim asylum and under UK law, which reflects the United Nations Refugee Convention, someone with a pending asylum claim cannot be sent back to their home country, because the basis of the asylum claim is fear of persecution or serious harm at home. If an asylum claim is accepted, they are granted refugee status which gives them legal residence in the UK and if it is refused, they can legally be removed but in practice removal is difficult if the home country does not cooperate. On 18th September 2025, the first channel migrant was deported to France under the prime minister’s ‘one in, one out’ deal. He is the first of up to one hundred channel migrants detained by Border Force at the start of August who are to be sent back to France. The second migrant is to be sent after the Home Secretary saw off the fresh high-court challenge by his lawyers seeking to delay his removal to France. Moving forward, migrants will only be allowed to appeal through Judicial Review after being deported to France. The Home Secretary also ordered a review of the UK’s modern slavery laws to prevent migrants making “vexatious last-minute appeals” to block their deportations. According to the Telegraph, this removal follows three consecutive days, when the Home Office failed to remove a single migrant, based on the challenge of being victims of modern slavery and trafficking. If the migrant from India has his asylum claim refused, he is likely to face expulsion to India as France has a reciprocal arrangement with India to accept enforced returns. 2. Why aren't small boat arrivals arrested and detained? Unauthorised migrants are administratively arrested by immigration officers and briefly detained for questioning, but they cannot be detained beyond the initial examination. UK law only allows for people to be detained for immigration purposes where there is a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable period of time. Someone who has claimed asylum usually has a legal right to be in the UK until that claim is decided. So, there is no realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable period, given that asylum decisions take months or years to process. 3. Can asylum be refused if the person could have claimed it in another safe country such as France? The UN Refugee Agency says that it is not required by the Refugee Convention or international law for people to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. People who have passed through a safe country can nevertheless be denied access to the UK’s asylum system and the law allows the Home Secretary to declare an asylum claim as inadmissible if the person was previously in another country where they could have claimed asylum. However, this is not enforceable unless another safe country is likely to accept the person “within a reasonable period of time”. Therefore, the Home Office is not able to arrange this in practice. Although it began a pilot scheme with France. The Telegraph reported on 19th September 2025 that asylum seekers told the newspaper “that if deported back to France, they would return to Britain again and again”. 4. Why are unauthorised migrants provided support with maintenance money and accommodation? Illegal immigrants who are outside the asylum system are not allowed to claim most forms of social welfare. By contrast, asylum seekers who state they are destitute can apply to the Home Office for accommodation or subsistence payment, or both while they are waiting for a decision on their asylum claim. This is commonly referred to as asylum support. A person is destitute if they do not have adequate accommodation or any means of obtaining it, or if they have adequate accommodation or the means of obtaining it but cannot meet their other essential living needs. 5. When can asylum seekers be granted legal residence in the UK? There are two main types of legal status that can be granted to people who claim asylum. These are refugee status or humanitarian protection. Under the Immigration Rules, the central requirement for refugee status is that the person is a refugee, as defined in Article 1 of the 1951 convention. Humanitarian protection does not require a person to be a refugee under the 1951 Convention, but instead allows them to be granted asylum if they would face a real risk of suffering serious harm. The Immigration Rules define “serious harm” to mean the death penalty, unlawful killing, torture, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. People granted either refugee status or humanitarian protection status have a right to work in the UK and access the welfare system on the same basis as British citizens and permanent residence.

What are the concerns with the student visa? In recent years, there has been an increase in students staying in the UK following their studies, as well as an increase in sponsored study visas for law and banking education institutions. The Government believes there has been exploitation of student visas, and that too many graduates are allowed to stay in the UK following the successful completion of their studies, despite not moving into graduate level roles for which the graduate visa route was created. For these reasons, the Government is setting out reforms that will recognise the benefits that international students bring to the UK, but will raise standards and compliance to prevent visa misuse and strengthen the requirements to work and contribute for graduates who stay on after the courses have been completed. The evidence suggests that, in some cases, the integrity of the UK student visa system is being undermined, and the number of students claiming asylum is increasing. How does the Government intend to bring numbers down? 1. To prevent the misuse of the student visa, the Government is stressing the requirements that all sponsoring institutions must meet in order to recruit international students and the measures to be implemented to this end. It will raise the minimum pass requirement of each BCA metric by 5% points, so that a sponsor must maintain a course enrolment rate of at least 95%, and a course completion rate of 90% in order to pass the compliance threshold. Simultaneously, the Government implementing a new red, amber and green banding system to rate the BCA performance of each sponsor, makes it clear to them, the authorities, and the public, which institutions are achieving a higher rate of compliance, and which are at risk of failing. 2. Introducing new interventions against sponsors who are close to failing their metric, including placing them on a bespoke action plan designed to improve their compliance, while imposing limits on the number of new international students they can recruit while they are subject to those plans. 3. All sponsors wishing to use recruitment agents for overseas students will need to sign up the Agent Quality Framework. Together, all these measures will ensure that the sponsors are encouraged to recruit their students responsibly, only offering places to genuine students who meet the requirements of the route and ensuring that when failing to do so, the Home Office can intervene and ensure compliance in the future. 4. The graduate scheme will be reviewed, as the Government will reduce the ability of graduates to remain in the UK for a period of eighteen months after their studies. The Government will also look into introducing a levy on higher education providers’ income from international students, to be reinvested into a higher educational skill system. While these steps are enforceable on paper (the Home Office has an established sponsor licensing system), the concern is whether the UKVI has the capacity to monitor and intervene across hundreds of educational institutions. Placing a university on an “amber” rating with recruitment caps, for example, is a serious measure that could provoke legal challenges, especially if the institution disputes the data. Smaller private colleges might quietly close if they cannot meet requirements, which could be an intended effect (to weed out sub-par providers) but also could inadvertently harm local economies that benefit from those students. Reducing the Graduate visa to 18 months is straightforward to enforce – it’s simply a rule change – but its feasibility in terms of impact is debatable. The Home Office expects 7,000 fewer students per year as a result of the mooted 6% levy, and presumably an additional drop due to the shorter post-study period. If this holds true, universities may lose income and could downsize or cut courses. Enforcement of the student fee levy also raises feasibility questions – how exactly will it be implemented (as a tax collected by HMRC, or a surcharge via the immigration system)? And, if passed on as higher tuition, could it price out some applicants, leading to unintended socio-economic selection effects among students? These details are to be consulted on; until resolved, uncertainty itself might deter students or complicate university planning. In the longer run, the UK’s reputation as a welcoming destination for global talent may suffer; competitors like Canada and Australia might scoop up students deterred by UK’s stricter post-study rules and additional costs. There is an irony, that even as the White Paper talks of “supercharging UK growth in strategic industries,” by bringing in top talent, it simultaneously undermines one of the UK’s key sectors – higher education – and possibly the pipeline of young talent it produces. The tech and startup ecosystem could also feel an impact: the reduction in Graduate visa time and tougher settlement rules might dissuade some foreign graduates from staying to set-up companies or join UK startups (they may instead choose countries with more straightforward paths to residency). Conversely, the expansion of Innovator and Global Talent routes might mitigate this for a select few. What are the reforms to the Family routes? Family immigration rules are particularly important as British citizens meet and marry people from all over the world. However, the family migration, argues the paper has become overly complex, developing increasingly around core decisions in case law, including Court interpretation of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. An overly high proportion of family related immigration cases are now decided on the basis that they are an “exception” to the normal rules, rather than being in line with the rules set out by Parliament. The Government will reform the framework for family immigration and, before the end of the year, will set out a new family policy that will cover all UK residents, including those who are British, settled, on work routes, or refugees seeking to bring family to the UK. The new requirements are: • A clear relationship requirement to ensure that only those in genuine, subsisting relationships qualify, to reduce forced marriages and to include protection for victims of domestic abuse. • Ensure that those coming to the UK have an appropriate level of English language skills to be able to integrate effectively into local communities. • Ensure the family unit has sufficient financial resources to support any migrants who are relying on the taxpayer, through reviewing and extending the financial requirements to other dependents routes. • In relation to exceptional circumstances, there will always be exceptional circumstances, but greater specificity about where the balance is considered to lie in the majority of cases is hoped to reduce the volume of cases and clarify the approach for applicants and case workers.

On the first day of his second term of office, President Donald Trump issued ten Executive Orders and Proclamations seeking to change the face of US Immigration Law and Policy. According to the American Immigration Council, in their Fact Sheet of 22 January 2025, the Trump Administration has followed up the record of its first term, and the promises of his presidential campaign. This Fact Sheet aims to explain not just the scope of the Executive Orders, but also what precisely they aim to do and on what timescale. Most of the policy changes take the form of instructions to Federal departments or agencies. The key policy changes are: (a) Ordering the expansion of “Expedited Removal” which allows the US to deport someone without a court hearing. US Officials will be authorised to arrest someone accused of entering the country without inspection anywhere inside the US and subject them to Expedited Removal if they believe that person has been there for less than two years, with the burden on the immigrant to prove that they have been in the US for longer. “Expedited Removal” is a process by which a low level Immigration Officer can summarily remove certain non-citizens from the United States without a hearing before an immigration Judge. Undocumented immigrants placed in expedited removal proceedings are entitled to access the asylum system if they express a fear of persecution or torture if returning to their own country. (b) Requiring all non-citizens to register and present their fingerprints to the US Government under a rarely used provision of US law and declaring that all those who have not registered will be subject to criminal penalties. (c) Instructing the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that work permits are not given to people without other legal status even if they have a pending immigration application. This change will radically restrict the population of people who are eligible to work in the US legally. (d) Directing the Office of Management and Budget to take action to ensure that no public benefits are provided to unauthorised immigrants. (e) Threatening the revocation of all Federal funding to States and Localities deemed to be sanctuary jurisdictions. Over the past decade, an increasing number of states, counties and cities have adopted a variety of policies intended to promote a greater level of trust and cooperation between local law enforcement and communities with sizeable immigrant populations, regardless of their immigration status. (f) Revoking all Biden’s policy setting priorities for immigration enforcement and directing audits of any Federal contracts with non-governmental organisations engaged directly or indirectly in assisting undocumented immigrants in any way including freezing all funding during these audits and threatening to order the return of those funds following the audit. According to the American Immigration Council Fact Sheet, the immediate effect of the above measure are: The expansion of expedited removal will subject millions of recent arrivals and others to potential deportation without a court hearing and increase racial profiling through the expansion funding threats, criminal prosecution to sanctuary jurisdictions so as to potentially intimidate localities. Depriving applicants of legal status for the ability to work legally which creates a strain on local government by preventing people from being able to support themselves. However, Trump is not alone in pushing a restrictive immigration agenda as many EU Member States have also been looking at ways to limit irregular migration and increase returns. Trump’s actions in this regard could serve as inspiration for EU leaders. It is predictable that proposals for mass deportation may increasingly appear in the European far right narrative. Both the US, United Kingdom and Australia have been experimenting already with offshore detention abroad. In recent months, the British Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, has made joint statements on irregular migrations with Italy and Germany. A new joint mission exists between the UK and Bulgaria to tackle the people smuggling gangs making millions from ferrying irregular migrants across the English Channel. The alliance is part of the UK’s wider mission to bolster partnership with EU Member States. This increased focus on Bulgaria comes after the country became a full member of the EU Schengen borders and travel zone on 1 January 2025. This has made the country’s border with Turkey a key target for people trafficking others illegally, seeking to reach the European countries. In addition, current UK changes to the immigration rules state that refugees who arrive in the UK after making a dangerous journey or via irregular routes will not be allowed to claim citizenship under a change to the immigration laws. The new guidance for staff assessing naturalisation claims states that any person applying for citizenship from 10 February 2025, who previously entered the UK illegally will normally be refused. This change to the rules comes as the Prime Minister seeks to present a hardline on migration and border security. Even the current UK Immigration Rules are not too different to some of Trump’s new proposals. In the UK Immigration Enforcement Officers have a wide range of powers provided to them under schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 – their powers include locating, arresting and detaining individuals for the purposes of removal. Immigration Officers are allowed to detain individual even when removal directions haven’t been made against them – as long as officers have “reasonable grounds” for suspecting that the individual in question may be given removal directions, they are able to exercise these powers, meaning they have similar powers to US officials working under Trump’s new “Expedited Removal” system. The Labour Party announced in their official manifesto how they intend to “set up a new returns and enforcement unit, with an additional 1,000 staff, to fast-track removals”. There also a number of Immigration Removal Centres, Short-Term Holding Facilities and Pre-Departure Accommodations in the UK – as per the Home Office report titled ‘How many people are detained or returned?’ published on 13 June 2024, 16,031 people entered immigration detention between March 2023 and March 2024. Sometimes the Home Office releases through liable to detention in removal centres Immigration Bail, during which they must frequently report to the Home Office. The UK is also part of the Eurodac system – this is a Europe-wide fingerprint database. As per Eurodac regulations, any person aged 14 or above who has either claimed asylum in the UK or come to the UK illegally must be fingerprinted. These requirements to submit fingerprints is not only applicable to asylum seekers and illegal entrants in the UK – as per the UK’s Biometric enrolment policy, all individuals over the age of 5 who make any applications under the Immigration Rules are required to give their biometrics, which means they must attend a biometric appointment to provide scans of their fingerprints and a digital photograph of themselves. This is of course not dissimilar to Trump’s plan to require non-citizens to register and present their fingerprints to the government. Further, most people without valid leave in the UK are not permitted to work, even if they have outstanding immigration applications which are pending a decision. The Home Office guidance titled ‘Permission to work and volunteering for asylum seekers’ confirms that asylum seekers specifically cannot apply for permission to work unless they have been waiting for more than 12 months for a decision. Even when asylum seekers have been waiting for more than 12 months for a decision, they can only apply for permission to work if they have highly specialised skills which would allow them to obtain a job on the immigration salary list – this list only has 23 jobs on it, many of which require advanced qualifications. Employers also face heavy sanctions if they employ anybody without valid immigration status in the UK – the government’s guidance titled ‘Employer’s guide to right to work checks’ summarizes how they can face civil penalties of up to £60,000 per illegal worker, face criminal convictions carrying a prison sentence of up to 5 years and an unlimited fine, or have their business closed by way of a court order. There is also quarterly report published by the Home Office outlining the companies which have faced illegal working penalties. Landlords in the UK can also face similar penalties for renting those without the right to rent – these penalties can also range from fines to a period of imprisonment. Those in the UK without valid leave don’t have the right to rent – this includes asylum seekers who are awaiting decisions on their claims. Despite most individuals awaiting decisions on their immigration applications not being able to work whilst their applications are pending, the UK also does not allow these individuals to access public funds. Under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, people who do not have any immigration permission are excluded from benefits and housing. It also outlines the ‘NRPF’ condition – NRPF stands for ‘No Recourse to Public Funds’, which is a condition applicable to most visas in the UK, meaning many immigrants who have valid leave are also unable to access public funds. When it comes to asylum seekers specifically, they cannot claim mainstream welfare benefits or housing assistance whilst their asylum claims are pending decision – instead, they receive a specific, limited amount of support from the Home Office called “asylum support”, to cover basic needs like food and accommodation. Asylum seekers in self-catered accommodation receive £49.18 weekly for their needs, whereas those in catered accommodation receive £8.86 per week. There are also several other examples of immigration policy in the UK which could be considered hostile – over the last few years, for example, the Immigration Rules have been changed to prevent Care Workers and Students below PhD level from bringing their dependents with them. The minimum salary level which Skilled Workers and individuals intending to bring Partners to the UK has also increased – all of these measures are likely intended to deter immigration from various demographics. The UK also has very strict provisions within the Immigration Rules which prevent those with custodial sentences from coming to the UK – anybody who has ever received a custodial sentence of any length, for example, can generally not come to the UK as a visitor. Those applying for work visas also need to meet several suitability requirements – they must show that they do not fall for refusal under Part 9 of the Immigration Rules, which is a section preventing many people with custodial sentences and previous immigration offences from applying to enter the UK legally in future. The Home Office also sometimes certifies asylum and/or human rights claims as “manifestly unfounded”, under section 94(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 – if a claim is certified as being manifestly unfounded, this prevents the individual in question from appealing their refused decision. The Home Office guidance on this section clearly outlines that the policy intention behind certifying claims as manifestly unfounded is to enable individuals to be removed once the claim is refused and certified. The difference between Trump’s new policies, and existing policies in the UK and Europe, therefore, is not too large – Trump does not hesitate to use the word “deportation”. European leaders, on the other hand, speak of returns or return hubs. Whilst Trump qualifies some migrants as illegal, European leaders call it irregular. A new role within the European Union is that of the EU Return Coordinator, a novelty introduced by the new Pact on Migration and Asylum. The main task of the EU Return Coordinator is to bring together different strands of EU return policy to support coherent implementation and establish a common EU system for returns of illegal immigration. The European Commission appointed Ms Mari Juritsch as Return Coordinator in March 2022. She works with a high-level network of return officials and, together with her network, provides practical and operational support to member states to increase the effectiveness of the overall returns process. The role will help identify the best use of member states’ national return systems because operational realities vary greatly from one country to another. The network aims to link member states’ return activities more closely with the EU and member state engagement with third countries on their readmission, making cooperation with third countries more effective.