Asylum and immigration in 2024

Written by Anna Knox, Latta & Co. Solicitors

With practitioners already experiencing sector changes in 2025, it is beneficial to reflect on a selection of the multitude of immigration law and policy developments of 2024.

Asylum developments

As anticipated, the incoming Labour Government immediately announced that it would not be progressing the Conservative government’s controversial plan to send refugees and migrants who had entered the United Kingdom in breach of immigration laws to Rwanda. The Government subsequently implemented the IMA Regulations, ending the ban on claiming asylum in the UK for those who enter the UK irregularly. Following the enactment of the regulations, the Home Office began to process the backlog of claims previously held to be inadmissible.

Following publicity in relation to the issues of homelessness and destitution faced by newly recognised refugees, the Home Office begun trialling an extended “move-on period”. Refugees now have 56 days from the date of their asylum decision before the Home Office will discontinue the accommodation and support provided to them throughout the asylum claim process.

Immigration changes

The first half of 2024 saw the Conservative government introduce measures to further the aim of reducing net migration. From 11 March 2024, Health and Care Worker visa holders were prevented from applying for their immediate family members to join them as visa dependents. On 4 April 2024, the minimum salary for requirements for sponsorship for a Skilled Worker Visas increased from £26,200 to £38,700.  Later that month, the annual minimum income requirement for spouse/partner visas was increased from £18,600 to £29,000. Further planned increases were not implemented by the new Labour Government, which instead announced the commissioning of a review of the income threshold by the Migration Advisory Committee.

Another review by the Migration Advisory Committee resulted in the replacement of the Shortage Occupation List with the Immigration Salary List, a shorter list focusing on roles subject to a labour shortage in the UK. The maximum civil penalty for employers in breach of illegal working rules was tripled for both initial and subsequent breaches to £45,000 and £60,000 respectively. The substantial increase to the Immigration Health Surcharge came into effect in February 2024 and the Home Office additionally raised the fees for payable in respect of various immigration applications, including applications under Appendix FM.

E-visa and Electronic Travel Authorisation implementation

From 31 October 2024, the Home Office ceased issuing Biometric Residence Permits to individuals whose applications for leave have recently been granted. With all BRPs expiring on 31 December 2024, the Home Office oversaw the implementation of the e-visa and ETA scheme. Status holders reported encountering various issues with accessing their e-visa accounts. The Home Office recognised some of these concerns with an eleventh-hour announcement of a transitional arrangement enabling status-holders to be able to use their expired BRPs to enter the UK until at least 31 March 2025.

Court judgements

In June, the High Court held the Home Secretary’s failure to provide digital proof of status to Section 3C leave holders to be unlawful.

The case of R (Refugee and Migrant Forum of Essex and London (RAMFEL) & Anor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 1374 (Admin) has the potential to remedy the issues faced by a multitude of people in the UK who are awaiting a decision on their leave application when they require to prove their status and resultant right to work in the UK. The decision is currently under appeal, with the Court of Appeal hearing due to be heard in the summer of 2025.

Tribunal developments

On 1 November 2024,  the Asylum chamber of the First-Tier Tribunal published a new Practice Direction without notice. Part 1 of the of the Practice Direction affirmed the requirement of the Tribunal that parties involved in appeals adopt an “issues -based approach”, identifying and focusing on the principal issues of an appeal throughout the progress of the same.

The Practice Direction additionally asserted the commitment of the Tribunal to “procedural rigour”, emphasising the necessity of adherence to Procedure Rules, Practice Directions, Practice Statements and directions issued by the Tribunal. Part 3 of the Practice Direction introduced updated requirements in relation to the preparation of documents prepared in support of appeals to be submitted to the Tribunal. These changes substituted the objective evidence bundle previously relied upon for country information in appeals to a schedule containing the salient country evidence points practitioners wish to rely upon. Additionally, the Tribunal restricted the length of expert reports and appeal skeleton arguments to be submitted in support of appeals, as well as the length of respondent reviews.

Written by Anna Knox, Latta & Co. Solicitors