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

SLSC publishes 37th report of session 2024–26

The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) has published its 37th report of session 2024–26. Two instruments were drawn to the special attention of the House: the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 1298) and the Advertising (Less Healthy Food and Drink) (Brand Advertising Exemption) Regulations 2025, SI 2025/1011. The Immigration Statement, laid on 4 September 2025, introduced a suspension on visa applications under the refugee family reunion route, which previously allowed individuals granted refugee status in the UK to apply to bring their partner and dependent children without conditions. The SLSC expressed concerns about the Home Office's policymaking process, highlighting the lack of impact estimates and uncertainty over whether the suspension is temporary or permanent. SI 2025/1011, laid on 10 September 2025, introduces an explicit exemption from restrictions on advertising less healthy food and drink products for brand advertising, intended to provide clarity to the Advertising Standards Authority ahead of the restrictions taking effect on 5 January 2026.

Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations confirm 32% increase to ISC fees

The draft Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2025 (‘2025 Regulations’) have been laid before Parliament. The 2025 Regulations will amend the Immigration Skills Charge Regulations 2017, SI 2017/499 to increase the Immigration Skills Charge (ISC) by 32%. This is a change that was previously announced in the Immigration White Paper. The ISC is a fee paid by employers sponsoring workers in the Skilled Worker and Senior or Specialist Worker routes. The Explanatory Memorandum to the draft Regulations states that the rise is the first since the charge was introduced in 2017, and is to take into account of inflation since then. It also states that ‘Money raised from the Immigration Skills Charge is transferred to the Consolidated Fund for use in funding skills training, and to the Devolved Governments’. The 2025 Regulations also add a number of Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes to the list of SOC 2020 codes which are exempt from payment. This is to reflect the move from using SOC 2010 codes to SOC 2020 codes in April 2024. The ISC increases, which take effect for Certificates of Sponsorship issued on and after 16 December 2025, are set out below.

Immigration weekly highlights—16 October 2025

Welcome to the 16 October 2025 highlights from the Immigration team, which provides links to key news stories from the last week, as well as a round-up of new and updated content in Immigration.

Brook House inquiry response compatible with Convention rights—R (D1914) v Home Secretary

Public Law analysis: This case concerned an application for judicial review brought by three claimants (D1914, AAA and AVY) challenging the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s response to the Brook House Inquiry report. The claimants argued that the Secretary of State had failed to adequately implement the inquiry’s 33 recommendations following on from the scandal identified in 2017 of mistreatment of detainees at the Brook House Immigration Removal centre. However, Mrs Justice Lang refused the application on determining that the Secretary of State had not failed to discharge the investigative or systems duties imposed by article 3 of the European Convention of Human rights contrary to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1988, in not fully implementing all the recommendations of an inquiry which investigated mistreatment at an immigration removal centre. The recommendations had been substantially met, or were in the process of being met, and any decisions not to accept certain recommendations were a reasonable exercise of her executive discretion. Further the court held the Secretary of State had not breached any provision of the Inquiries Act 2005. Written by Tim Baldwin, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.