London

Arbor Law has been recognised in the Chambers UK 2025 Guide for its outstanding work supporting small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) across the UK – a testament to the firm’s innovative, senior-only model that combines City-firm expertise with in-house commercial insight, designed to eliminate inefficiency and make excellence more accessible to small and mid-sized businesses seeking legal support. Kate Bennett, co-founder of Arbor Law says: “Recognition like this from Chambers and Partners is always deeply meaningful because it reflects the trust our clients place in us and the difference our model is making for them – the biggest accolade. “We built Arbor to deliver Big Law calibre without the baggage. Every Arbor lawyer is trained at top-tier City or international firms and has also served in-house as a General Counsel or senior counsel, giving them a rare dual perspective. That means clients work directly with experienced lawyers who understand risk, strategy and growth – not just the law on paper and can act like true business partners.” “Our lawyers work directly with clients as trusted insiders – often embedding within their teams – to deliver pragmatic, commercially attuned advice that drives business outcomes,” explained Kate. “For SMEs, this approach means access to the same level of expertise typically reserved for multinationals, delivered with the agility and cost transparency that growing businesses need most.” Daniel Adams, co-founder, added: “We’re proud to be named among the UK’s leading SME-focused firms by the world’s leading independent legal research organisation, after a rigorous process of assessment. It’s a credit to our talented team, who bring deep sector experience and a pragmatic, client-first mindset to everything they do. Our goal has always been to make exceptional legal expertise accessible to growing and entrepreneurial businesses and this ranking reinforces that commitment.” The SME-focused firms category celebrates law firms that demonstrate outstanding support for growing and entrepreneurial businesses. Arbor Law’s achievement places it among the Band 2 firms in the category, confirming its position as one of the UK’s leading practices for growing businesses. The full ranking can be viewed on the Chambers and Partners website. For more information about Arbor Law’s legal services for SMEs, visit arbor.law

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.

The New Practice Direction of the Immigration and Asylum Chambers of the First-tier Tribunal (IAC) was published on 1 November 2024. It replaces the previous practice Directions of 13 May 2022 and supersedes Practice Statement No 1 of 2022 dated 13 May 2022.  The issues-based approach and procedural rigour of the new Practice Direction Under guiding principles Part 1 of the Practice Direction, it is stated that “the overriding objective to the Tribunal is that cases are dealt with fairly and justly”. Its aim “allowing appropriate resources, both of the Tribunal and the parties, to be allocated in proportion to the nature and extent of the issues in dispute; avoid unnecessary delay and ensure that both parties can fairly present evidence and submissions. The Practice Direction applies to appellants without representatives in the same way as it does to parties represented by lawyers.  It does not apply to applications of Immigration Bail. Bundles, Appeal Skeleton Arguments (ASAs) and Respondent’s Review Significant new rules on bundles emphasises conciseness, specifying that the Appeal Skeleton Argument should be no more than 12 pages of numbered paragraphs and the text must be “in no less than size 12 font with 1.5 line spacing” and expert reports should be no more than 20 pages, although it is possible to apply for permission to exceed these limits.  The Practice Direction makes clear that the appellant may be directed to provide an ASA or an explanation of their case and evidence (not represented appellants), even if the Respondent fails to provide a bundle. Any bundle that is prepared by a legal representative must be in a digital, indexed, bookmarked and paginated format where every page is A4. Any evidence submitted after the Respondent’s Review, must be prepared as a bundle and accompanied by “a written explanation of why it was not provided earlier in the appeal process”. Parties relying on material within country guidance decisions or additional country background information must include a country information evidence schedule (‘the country schedule’) within the bundle. The country schedule must: contain the country guidance paragraph references and/or extracts of additional country information relied upon by reference to each disputed issue; not exceed 12 pages; and include the relevant hyper-link to the additional country background information source document. Witness statements In relation to witness statements, a witness statement must be in the intended witness own words and it need not be in the language that the witness understands.  If it is drafted in English and this is not a language understood by the witness it must include a signed and date attestation by both the witness and the person who interprets, stating that the statement has been read back to the witness in the language they understand and that it accurately reflects their evidence. This statement should be included in bundles and should be capable of standing as the totality of the evidence in chief of the person giving that statement.  It may be added to the provision of a supplementary statement provided that the supplementary statement is produced and served in accordance with any directions given in the appeal.  Only where there is a good reason and with permission of the judge will a witness be permitted to provide additional evidence in chief. The witness statement should be expressed in the first person and should also state the full name of the witness, their place of residence and if they are making the statement in their professional business or other occupational capacity the address at which they work, the position they hold and the name of the firm or employer.  They must state that they are party to the proceedings or they are the employees or relative or such party and the process by which it has been prepared, for example face to face, over the phone, or through an interpreter. The statement should have the date it was signed and must include a statement that it was made from the witness’ own knowledge and which matters of information or belief and the source for any matters, information or belief.  An exhibit or document that is referred to within the witness statement should be verified and clearly identified by the witness and should remain separate from the witness statement.  Where a witness refers to an exhibit or document, they should refer to a description of the document at page X. The status of documents, skeletons and bundles prepared and submitted prior to 1 November 2024 seems unclear.  If documents already submitted to the Tribunal are non-compliant, presumably the judge will accept the lack of notice and additional resources required to comply with requirements. Adjournments An application for an adjournment of an appeal must be supported by full reasons and any reasonably available supporting material or evidence made no later than 4.30pm one clear working day before the date of the hearing.  It must be accompanied by proposed draft directions for the judge to consider.  An application made later than the end of the period mentioned above must be made at the hearing and will, save in exceptional circumstances, require the attendance of the party or the representative of the party seeking the adjournment.  If an adjournment is not granted and the party fails to attend the hearing the Tribunal may proceed with the hearing in that party’s absence.  If an adjournment is granted the Tribunal shall issue an order containing directions to ensure that the appeal can finally be determined within a reasonable time. Decisions and Reasons In some non-deportation Article 8 human rights and EUSS cases, the Tribunal may be able to give its decision shortly after the conclusion of the hearing by providing a short Notice of Decision or by stating its reasons orally. Reasons will only be provided orally where the Judge is satisfied that the audio recording facilities are available, and an audio recording will be made of the oral reasons. In other cases, written reasons should only be provided where they are expressly required by the Procedure Rules or where the interest of justice otherwise compels written reasons to be given and only to the extent and in terms necessary to dispose justly of the matter in hand. The reasons provided for any decision should be proportionate to the significance and the complexity of the disputed issues. Stating reasons at greater length than is necessary is not in the interests of justice. To do so is an inefficient use of judicial time. New Practice Direction Of The Immigration And Asylum Chamber Of The First-tier Tribunal