During their immigration application, many clients are concerned about a sensitive but realistic question: “If I have prior criminal records, will it impact my application? If I was forced to participate in a crime, would it still be possible to reverse the case?” Such situations are not infrequent in practice, especially in cases involving drugs and illegal labour.  The victim of modern slavery or human trafficking is a common defence for affected individuals to mitigate unfavourable decisions.

The case we’re discussing today, R v BMJ , is about applications for leave to appeal against convictions for multiple drug-related and associated offences as well as sentences imposed across three distinct sets of offences. The applicant sought to mitigate his criminal liability and avoid adverse immigration consequences by attempting to plead a victim of modern slavery or trafficking . While the defence was unsuccessful in this instance, it provides a valuable lesson for similar cases in the future.

Background of R v BMJ

The applicant has a criminal record involving multiple offences and was sentenced to imprisonment for his convictions, including possession with intent to supply Class A drugs, possession of criminal property, carrying a bladed article, failing to surrender to custody, drug supply offences, and driving offences.

In November 2022, the Single Competent Authority (SCA) issued a conclusive grounds decision recognising him as a “victim of modern slavery in the UK during approximately 2007/2008 – April 2021 for the specific purpose of criminal exploitation” The applicant has since applied for an extension of time in which to appeal against convictions and sentences, submitting fresh evidence linked to his trafficking victim status. The applicant argues that this new context undermines prior findings and justifies revisiting the original decisions.

The Court fully considered the relevant sentencing guidelines, prior defence materials, and new evidence, and concluded as follows:

Regarding the appeal against sentence, the applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that insufficient weight had been given to mitigating factors related to drug trafficking and debt. However, the Court found that the applicant did not credibly demonstrate that he was a victim of modern slavery or trafficking in connection with the offences at that time.

Appropriate reductions within the sentencing range had already been made, taking into account both the applicant’s prior convictions and the seriousness of the offences, rendering the sentence fair and proportionate.

The Court ruled out any abuse of process and found no other grounds that could affect the safety of the convictions; therefore, the application’s grounds were unarguable, and his applicant was refused.

Our thoughts

Authorities consider the conviction based on the following factors: 1) whether there is reason to believe that the individual is a victim of modern slavery or trafficking? 2) whether there is clear evidence of a credible common law defence of duress? 3) whether there is clear evidence of a statutory defence 4) whether it is in the public interest to prosecute the individual?

It is notable that, although the applicant was later referred through the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) process and ultimately recognised as a victim by the SCA, the Court did not rely solely on this finding. Instead, it examined the case as a whole.

Given the applicant’s inconsistent statements and lack of credibility, alongside prosecution evidence showing the applicant played an active role in drug distribution, the Court concluded that—while the applicant may have been in debt or under some pressure—there was no clear exploitative relationship linking the offences to trafficking. The applicant’s voluntary and leading involvement in the crimes was established. Even if the applicant qualified as a victim of trafficking or modern slavery, which could warrant some mitigation, the seriousness of the offences and the public interest justified prosecution.

This case highlights that in immigration matters involving criminal charges, especially serious crimes such as drug offences, claims of being a victim of human trafficking or modern slavery require strong, consistent evidence to influence both criminal liability and immigration outcomes. UK courts apply a high standard for such claims, and personal statements alone rarely succeed. Simple or late claims that conflict with the facts are usually rejected and can weaken the defence. Therefore, it is crucial that such claims should be supported by solid evidence.

For applicants with criminal records or facing serious charges, even if there are vulnerable circumstances such as being forced to commit crimes, prosecution may continue based on public interest. Such criminal records can seriously affect future immigration applications.

Applicants with these kinds of experiences shall seek professional legal advice early, which helps assess whether there are grounds to claim trafficking or Modern Slavery and allows for timely use of protection mechanisms, such as the NRM, to collect supporting evidence.

If you or your family members face similar complex situations, please contact Lisa Law today. Our professional team is ready to provide thorough assessments and strong support.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

As of 29 May 2025, the Home Office updated its Sponsorship duties guidance and Student and Child Student guidance. From 15 July 2025, further developments are anticipated in how entry clearance is granted for overseas applicants under work and study routes through eVisas. We previously covered how the government’s Immigration White Paper will affect international students more generally, and in this article we will go into more detail about sponsorship guidance as well as student and child student guidance.

We have summarised the key changes made in the new guidance below:

Sponsorship Duties

• Record-keeping requirements for Student sponsors are now consolidated within the main Student sponsor guidance;
• Retention rules clarified: documents must be kept until 1 year post-sponsorship, or until a compliance officer has signed off, whichever is earlier;
• Original passports must not be retained, unless for safekeeping for minors, and they can access passports with parents’/guardians’ consent;
• Sponsors must be aware of their data protection obligations under UK regulations;
• Sponsors must keep copies of specific documents of each sponsored student, including parental consent letters, which can be in paper or electronic form.

Additional changes

• From 31 October 2025, successful applicants under the Student and Child Student routes will receive eVisas, rather than visa vignettes and BRPs;
• Student sponsor licences will no longer require renewal;
• Enhanced safeguarding and reporting duties for Child Student sponsors:
  • Required confirmation of living arrangements at the Confirmation of Acceptance of Studies (CAS) stage;
  • Detailed rules around permitted carers/guardians, travel arrangements, and permitted living arrangements;
  • Sponsors must report on the Sponsorship Management System non-permitted living arrangements within 10 working days, along with remedial steps.

eVisa rollout for entry clearance

The Home Office has confirmed that from 15 July 2025, applicants under study and work routes applying for entry clearance from abroad may no longer receive a physical visa vignette in their passport. Instead, they will need to:

• Create a UKVI account to access their digital eVisa before travelling; and
• Follow specific instructions, which will be given at the time of application submission.

Importantly, this does not yet apply to:

• Dependants of other visa routes; or
• Applicants in non-study/work routes, who will still receive a physical vignette.

At this stage, the guidance remains vague, using the term “may”, and does not confirm the operational changes or logistics involved.

Conclusion

These changes mark a continued shift towards digitisation, simplification, and enhanced compliance oversight. Sponsors, especially educational institutions, must now prepare for stricter safeguarding protocols around Child Student care and documentation. In addition, it would be prudent for them to review and adjust internal compliance policies and training procedures to align with the updated record-keeping and eVisa framework.

For overseas applicants, the gradual phasing out of visa vignettes signals a new era of digital-only travel clearance, though operational clarity is still awaited. Sponsors and employers should monitor updates closely to ensure students and workers arriving after July 2025 are aware of the new eVisa process and prepare accordingly.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Last week, the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) published its report on the Minimum Income Requirement (MIR) for family visas. The MAC proposed that the MIR should not be matched to the skilled worker route. They also suggested different calculations that could be used instead for family visa financial requirements and made recommendations to improve the way the MIR is evidenced.

The Report

The Human Impact of the MIR

The report concluded that the MIR, an income threshold which was first introduced in 2012 as £18,600 and in April 2024 was raised to £29,000, has implications for both economic wellbeing and family life, particularly affecting the ability of families to remain together as a family unit. The report considered evidence from organisations, lawyers and individuals and it was observed that the current threshold has led to extended periods of separation for couples, with adverse effects on mental health, relationships, and the development and wellbeing of children.

Problems with the Current Approach

The current MIR is linked to the 25th percentile of earnings for occupations eligible under the skilled worker route. The report highlighted that the use of a threshold based on economic migration benchmarks is misplaced for the partner route, which is designed for  enabling family reunification rather than assessing labour market contributions.

The correlation between sponsor income and the future earnings of the non-UK partner was found to be weak, meaning that assessing the applicant’s potential economic impact based solely on the sponsor’s earnings was limited. There are also connected gender-based discrimination issues, since female sponsors may have a higher demand of childcare responsibilities and lower earnings, however the applicant’s prospective income cannot currently be considered.

Proposed Alternatives and Flexibility

Many alternative financial indicators were considered to set an appropriate MIR. Approaches based on living standards were looked at, using measures such as the Minimum Income Standard derived from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Real Living Wage. These measures suggested that an income range between around £23,000 and £28,000 would more effectively support with the necessary living standards and protect families from falling into poverty.

Options based on the financial threshold needed to be ineligible for benefits (with references to Universal Credit eligibility or relative poverty measures) were also considered, with the report stating that such indicators provided a more realistic reflection of the minimum income required to live without dependence on state benefits.

A key conclusion was that a MIR set in the range of £23,000–£25,000 would better balance economic wellbeing and family life, and a higher threshold would reduce the number of applications and lower the cost of migration at the risk of increased hardship for families.

Evidencing income

The MAC’s overall conclusion was that it will be for the government to determine how to prioritise family versus fiscal considerations. The report identified challenges concerning the evidential requirements imposed on sponsors and applicants. The current requirement for sponsors to submit six months of UK payslips can intensify family separation, where a UK-based sponsor has to work here separated from their partner just to build up the right number of payslips.

The difficulties related to capturing self-employment income were highlighted in the report. In the current requirement, self-employment income must be demonstrated over a 12-month period and cannot be combined with cash savings, which was argued to be a rigid requirement. The report suggested that policies should be amended so that cash savings can be counted alongside both employment and self-employment income. This would allow great flexibility in evidencing financial capability, as many applicants have accumulated savings from prior earnings, and would avoid penalising those in self-employment who face timing issues related to tax return filing and income variability.

The report also recommended that the method of evidencing income should be simplified by enabling an approach in which the total income received over a six-month period is annualised, rather than relying on the current rule that multiplies the lowest earning month by a fixed factor. Such a change was suggested in order to protect applicants from adverse outcomes caused by short-term fluctuations in earnings.

Additional Recommendations and Areas for Reform

The report made a recommendation for the Home Office to consider more flexible rules that consider verifiable UK job offers from main applicants. This would allow a more accurate assessment of the actual household income instead of a sole reliance on the sponsor’s earnings. The report states about having different financial thresholds for individual and household income where one or both partners’ income is available to be assessed.

The report also addressed the Adequate Maintenance Requirement (AM), but only from the perspective of partner visas, not other family routes. The report stated that the AM test, originally intended to offer a fairer alternative for applicants in vulnerable circumstances, relies on outdated benefits benchmarks, because Income Support is not a current basis and is being phased out altogether in 2026.

Universal Credit replaced Income Support but involves a number of different components so is not a like for like replacement for Income Support. Various options were presented to update the AM test, including having a new fixed requirement or simply having just the adequate accommodation test, since for the partner route most applicants who receive a qualifying benefit would meet the AM adequate maintenance test anyway.

The report called for improved data collection and standardisation of information, because there were large gaps in the data collected by the Home Office when the MAC came to write this report. MAC opposed to maintaining the current financial requirement aligned with the skilled worker route and has proposed a number of alternative calculation options.

The report makes some useful pragmatic recommendations and pushes for the parent route to allow applications from people who would also be eligible for the partner route, to reduce the harm currently caused to children by family separation. However, some of the financial requirement calculations in the report are not necessarily lower than the current threshold (particularly if the option of ‘household’ income requirements was taken up.

My thoughts

I do believe that changes should be made to financial requirements, as the current financial requirements should reflect the current living standards and national living wage in the UK.

I also believe that changes should be made as to the way the MIR is evidenced. This is to make it easier for applicants to meet the financial requirements.

I do agree that cash savings should be counted alongside both employment and self-employment income. This would allow flexibility in evidencing financial capability, as many applicants have accumulated savings from prior earnings. This would also avoid penalising those in self-employment who face timing issues related to tax return filing and income variability.

If the government accepts the MAC’s proposals for the minimum income requirement, this could result in reduced thresholds for family visas and make it easier to meet the minimum income requirement.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

In May 2025, the UK government announced a number of significant changes designed to reduce legal immigration through their Immigration White Paper. Among the areas targeted were study visas, which have come under increase pressure in recent times. International students should pay attention to these changes.

The Labour government have continued to clamp down on immigration, with the Immigration White Paper aiming to reduce the UK’s reliance on foreign labour in favour of upskilling its domestic workforce.

Part of the concern around student visas is the fear that they are open to exploitation, and the idea that students who have no interest in completing their course will use them to stay in the UK or to claim asylum. The white paper also references the fact that of 30% of asylum claims come from visa holders, and of that 30%, almost half of these come from students.

Let’s take a more detailed look at how those on student visas could be impacted by the recent announcements.

Shortening of the Graduate Visa Route

One significant change which was announced is the shortening of the Graduate Visa Route from 2 years to 18 months. This means that a student who graduates from university will now only have 18 months to find work and switch to a long-term work visa such as the Skilled Worker Visa. It is expected that PHD students on the Graduate Visa will continue to be able to stay in the UK for three years post-graduation, however this is not yet confirmed.

The government have also announced plans to introduce a levy on higher education provider income from international students, which will be reinvested into the “higher education and skills system”. No detail has yet been provided as to what this levy will be, but further details are set to be announced in the Autumn budget.

The announced change follows an increase in the number of graduates who are staying on as part of the Graduate Visa route from less than 100,000 in 2022 to 250,000 in 2024.

Tightened Sponsor Compliance Rules

The Immigration White Paper also contains a number of proposals set to impact student sponsors. At the moment, a sponsor will fail its Basic Compliance Assessment (BCA) if they do not have:

• a visa refusal rate of less than 10%
• a course enrolment rate of at least 90% and
• a course completion rate of at least 85%.

Sponsors which fail at least one of these metrics can have their sponsorship licences revoked. They can also be temporarily removed from the Register of Student Sponsors for up to two years.

What new sponsor compliance rules have been proposed?

• Raise the minimum pass rate for each of the BCA metrics by five percentage points
• Simultaneously implement a new Red-Amber-Green banding system to rate the BCA performance of each sponsor and to increase transparency around which are failing
• Introduce new interventions for sponsors who are close to failing their metrics. This will include placing them on a bespoke action plan designed to improve their compliance. They will also have limits imposed on the number of new international students they can recruit while they are subject to those plans
• And finally, to require all sponsors wishing to use recruitment agents for overseas students to sign up to the Agent Quality Framework. This is designed to maintain the highest standards of agent management, and ensure that institutions cannot simply outsource their responsibility to ensure that the individuals whose visas they are sponsoring are genuinely coming to the UK to study.

How can Lisa’s Law help you?

At Lisa’s Law, we specialise in assisting students with visa applications, ensuring you meet all requirements and have the best chance of success. Our team will help you navigate the process, from the initial application to maintaining your status while studying in the UK.

Whether you’re an undergraduate starting your academic journey, a postgraduate advancing your career prospects, or a graduate extending your stay to explore professional pathways, our team offers clear, expert advice tailored to your circumstances.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio