Enforcement

Enforcement

This topic looks at the mechanisms by which the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) seeks to effect or facilitate a person's removal, deportation or departure from the UK.

Administrative removal

Administrative removal will (except in some limited historical circumstances) be relevant where deportation does not apply and:

•
the person requires leave to enter or remain in the UK but does not have it, or
•
the person is a family member of the above

If a person is subject to administrative removal procedures they will face a mandatory re-entry ban of between one and ten years, depending on the particular circumstances. For more information see Practice Note: Grounds for refusal and cancellation of permission—Previous breaches of immigration law—entry clearance and permission to enter—mandatory bans.

Practice Note: Administrative removal provides an overview of who is liable for administrative removal, how liability is notified, timeframes for removal and options for challenging removal decisions. It covers what factors must be taken into account when making a decision to remove a person and the additional procedural safeguards that apply when the SSHD is considering removing children from the

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Immigration News

Budget 2025—key Immigration announcements

In the Budget 2025, on 26 November 2025, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP confirmed the introduction of a levy on higher education providers’ income from international students. This charge had been previously anticipated in the May 2025 Immigration White Paper. It will apply from the academic year 2028–29. The rate is £925 per international student per year of study, but each university will have an allowance for the first 220 international students per year, who are exempt from the charge. The document states that the income raised will be fully reinvested in higher education and skills, specifically to fund maintenance grants for disadvantaged students on priority courses. The government will keep the rate under review, and future decisions on how proceeds are used will be announced at the next Spending Review. Another immigration-related announcement is that the Fair Work Agency, which will launch in April 2026, will have a dedicated ‘hidden economy’ team. Its role will be to tackle sectors which see significant breaches of employment law, illegal working, and tax evasion. The team’s initial focus will be on hand car washes, then expanding to other high-risk sectors. It will work jointly with HMRC, law enforcement, and local authorities to enforce compliance.

Ten-year migrant pathway may be ‘catastrophic’ for employers

Law360: The government's plan to extend routes to settlement in Britain for migrants to up to 20 years could have 'catastrophic consequences' for sponsoring employers and risks tying vulnerable workers to bad bosses for a decade, experts have warned.

Concerns raised over ETA risks to eVisa holders returning to the UK

The3million and the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA) have jointly written to the Home Office in relation to the forthcoming full enforcement of the Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) scheme for non-visa nationals from 25 February 2026. The letter notes that approximately 10 million UK residents hold their immigration status in the form of an electronic visa (eVisa), and the letter sets out concerns arising from reports of travellers experiencing difficulties when carriers conduct digital status checks before boarding.

Sponsor licence revocation and ‘genuine roles’ (Prestige Social Care)

Immigration analysis: In R (on the application of) Prestige Social Care Services Ltd v Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘Prestige Social Care Services Ltd’), the High Court considers, for the first time in a fully reasoned judgment applying the post 2024 Sponsor Guidance, whether Annex C1 Ground (z) (‘non genuine roles’) always requires dishonesty or other reprehensible conduct, and how that ground interacts with Annex C2(a)–0(b), C1.44 (‘genuine vacancy’) and section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981). His Honour Judge Tindal holds that the examples of non genuine roles in Ground (z) and paras C1.46–C1.47 do entail dishonesty or other reprehensible conduct and so attract the Balajigari v SSHD/Prestwick Care Ltd v SSHD fairness safeguards, but that outside those examples, UKVI can treat a role as non genuine where, focusing on the vacancy rather than the worker, it lacks one or more of the C1.44 characteristics, even without dishonesty, subject to ordinary public law fairness para [55]. The court finds the Home Office’s reliance on Ground (z) irrational on the specific facts (Ms K’s inability to drive), but upholds revocation under Annex C2(a) and (b) and refuses relief under SCA 1981, s 31(2A), applying the Court of Appeal’s approach in R (Bradbury) v Brecon Beacons NPA and R (Gathercole) v Suffolk CC [90]–[98]. The claim is dismissed, permission to appeal refused and costs of £18,000 awarded to the Secretary of State paras [99]–[100]. Written by Nazib Ullah, partner at Internations Legal LLP.