The Home Office has updated its Short Guide to Right to Rent following the expansion of e-passport gate access to individuals from Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the USA from 20 May.

Text:

It is useful for businesses to be aware of this guidance in order to help minimise the risk that any business visitors they have invited to the UK will encounter problems with renting accommodation during their stay.

While all people who are lawfully in the UK have a right to rent, visitors from these ‘low-risk’ countries will not have a Border Force endorsement in their passport as evidence of their date of entry and that they have been granted leave to enter the UK. This poses new challenges for landlords because those visitors will not therefore have an acceptable document which enables them to obtain a statutory excuse against a civil penalty for renting to someone who is not lawfully in the UK.

According to the new guidance, landlords will be able to establish the visitor’s right to rent status by checking their passport alongside any documentary evidence that they last entered the UK within the last six months. Examples of documents given in the guidance include originals or copies of boarding passes, tickets or booking confirmations for air, rail or sea travel to the UK in the last six months. Electronic documents are acceptable, as are copies including photocopies or electronic screenshots. The landlord will need to retain a copy of the evidence of arrival date, along with a copy of the person’s passport information pages to show that they have acted properly.

The acceptable documents for right to rent are set out in a statutory code of practice and the guidance aims to provide an interim solution until the code of practice is next updated. It would therefore be prudent for landlords to take and retain a copy of the Short Guide to Right to Rent, and to monitor for changes to the code of practice.

There is no right to rent check required where the rental is for a time-limited period of less than three months and it is clear that the accommodation is intended to be used as holiday accommodation, so landlords are not required to retain any documents in this situation.

Although citizens of these countries who enter the UK as visitors will only have six months’ leave to enter, landlords who have conducted a right to rent check in line with the guidance will have a statutory excuse for 12 months.

Businesses who invite visitors from these countries to the UK should be aware of the guidance and refer to it if any issues arise with securing their accommodation.

If you have any queries about these changes, please do get in touch with a member of the immigration team.

To read a short guide on right to rent click here.

Related Item(s): Immigration & Global Mobility

Author(s)/Speaker(s): Kathryn Denyer, Bronte Cullum,

Market-leading employment and immigration law specialist Lewis Silkin has been shortlisted for four awards in the Macallan ALB (Asian Legal Business) Hong Kong Law Awards 2019.

Text:

Lewis Silkin is shortlisted in the Labour and Employment Law Firm of the Year, Immigration Law Firm of the Year and Rising Law Firm of the Year categories. Additionally, Partner and Head of the Hong Kong office, Kathryn Weaver, is shortlisted for Woman Lawyer of the Year. Last year, Lewis Silkin won Immigration Law Firm of the Year.

Now in its 18th year, the ALB awards note the outstanding performance of both private practitioners and in-house teams in Hong Kong. ALB is rated as one of the leading providers of legal news and information in Asia Pacific and is part of Thomson Reuters. The awards ceremony will be held this year on Friday, 6 September 2019.

Lewis Silkin’s Hong Kong office offers high quality and cost-effective employment and immigration law support to businesses and individuals based in Hong Kong. The firm provides a full range of employment and immigration services including: employment litigation and dispute resolution, restructuring and employment tax advice, strategic immigration advice and visa application assistance, discrimination claims and workplace investigations, as well as data protection and other complex employment law and mobility services. 

In addition to its Hong Kong law practice, the firm supports multinationals with their employment and immigration law needs across the Asia Pacific region as the Hong Kong member of the Ius Laboris alliance  – the world’s leading alliance of specialist employment law firms.

Kathryn Weaver, Partner and Head of the Hong Kong office commented:

“We are delighted to have been shortlisted for these awards which recognise the growth of our practice and the work of our Hong Kong team. As a relatively new local law firm in Hong Kong, we have been delighted by the market’s response to our offering and the praise we have received for our commercial approach. This shortlisting builds on our desire to be known as the leading employment and immigration practice in Hong Kong.”

Antonia Grant, Partner and Head of APAC immigration, Lewis Silkin commented:

“We are delighted to be shortlisted once again for these awards. We were proud to receive the award for immigration law firm of the year last year and believe our shortlisting is further recognition of our strength in immigration law in the Hong Kong and wider Asia Pacific market.”

Type: Press Release

Related Item(s): Employment law in Hong Kong, Immigration law in Hong Kong, Asia Pacific Region, Immigration & Global Mobility

Author(s)/Speaker(s): Kathryn Weaver, Antonia Grant,

With Brexit day pushed back to 31 October and the fate of the UK’s future relationship with the EU still up in the air, it is understandable that many EU, EEA and Swiss citizens (‘‘EEA citizens’’) on this side of the English Channel remain uncertain about how to protect their rights in the UK.

Text:

If there’s a deal?

If the UK leaves the EU with a withdrawal agreement, a transition period will be in place until 31 December 2020. This means that EEA citizens and their families can continue to enter the UK under free movement principles until the transition period is over.

Under the EU Settlement Scheme, EEA citizens who enter the UK before the end of the transition period will be able to apply for either “settled status” or “pre-settled status” depending on how long they have been continuously resident in the UK. With limited exceptions, the deadline to apply will be 30 June 2021.

To acquire settled status, EEA citizens or their close family members will need to have been continuously resident here for five years by their application date. Settled status is also known as as Indefinite Leave to Remain or ILR.

To acquire pre-settled status, EU citizens will need to have entered the UK before 31 December 2020. Family members of EEA citizens with status under the scheme will need either to have entered the UK before 31 December 2020, or to have been in a relationship with the EEA citizen but living outside the UK on 31 December 2020. They must still be in the relationship at the time they apply. There will also be provisions to enable non-British citizen children born in the UK or abroad after 31 December 2020 to qualify for pre-settled status. When granted, family members will be given pre-settled status for five years. They can apply for settled status as soon as they have been continuously resident here for five years and do not need to wait to do this until their pre-settled status is due to expire.

Those with settled or pre-settled status will continue to have access to benefits like healthcare and pensions in the UK.

If there’s no deal?

Only EEA citizens who are already resident in the UK on 31 October 2019 will be eligible to apply under the EU Settlement Scheme. They and their family members who are resident in the UK by the date of exit will need to apply under the scheme by 31 December 2020 to protect their lawful immigration status in the UK. This is six months earlier than the deadline that would apply in a deal situation.

Family members who have a relationship with the EEA citizen by 31 October 2019 but are not living in the UK at that date, as well as children born abroad after exit, will need to apply under the EU Settlement Scheme by 29 March 2022. They must continue to have the relationship with the EEA citizen at the date they apply.

Family members who establish a relationship after 31 October 2019 with an EEA citizen who has status under the scheme will be eligible to make an application for pre-settled status until 31 December 2020.

After a no deal Brexit on 31 October 2019, EEA citizens and their family members will not be able to enter or stay in the UK under free movement principles anymore. Once free movement has ended, EEA citizens who lack an existing right of admission and fall outside of the Settlement Scheme will need to apply for European Temporary Leave to Remain for stays that are longer than three months.

European Temporary Leave to Remain will allow EEA citizens to stay in the UK for up to 36 months with no restrictions on their stay, meaning that they can visit, work and study here during this time without need for further approval. But this will not lead to Indefinite Leave to Remain or status under the Settlement Scheme: any EEA citizen who wants to stay in the UK for more than 36 months will need to apply under the post-Brexit immigration system which is due to be implemented from January 2021.

The government are being very clear that European Temporary Leave to Remain does not give any rights or promises under the new system as its parameters have not yet been set.

What can you do now?

EEA citizens and their family members who hold British citizenship or Indefinite Leave to Remain do not have to do anything to protect their rights after Brexit. However, those with Indefinite Leave to Remain may wish to apply under the EU Settlement Scheme as this would mean their status would only lapse after a continuous absence of five years from the UK, instead of two. Those with documents issued under the EEA Regulations must swap their entitlement directly for status under the EU Settlement Scheme by the relevant deadline.

For EEA citizens and their family members who currently call the UK home, obtaining settled or pre-settled status is something to start thinking about before the October rush. Employers should also consider their recruitment pipeline and whether to bring new EEA citizen recruits to the UK before exit date.

We have developed a suite of options to put individuals and employers in the best place to navigate Brexit, including tailored application support throughout the process. While the Settlement Scheme may seem straightforward, from experience we understand that the uniqueness of people’s different situations means that they don’t always fit neatly into the system and may want the reassurance of professional assistance. We can provide both employers and individuals with the peace of mind that their application complies with the law and hold their hands throughout the process.

Our handy Frequently Asked Questions handbook on the EU Settlement Scheme compiles all of the current information about Brexit into one easy-to-read, up-to-date guide. Beyond that we also offer on-site or video training sessions to employers to inform large groups of employees as efficiently as possible, without the need for individual scheduling.

Individuals looking to gain tailored insight into their position after Brexit can also opt to receive on-site support by attending a one-to-one surgery. In these 30 minute sessions we can come to your office to assess the many variables that contribute to an application and reassure individuals of the best steps going forward. Many employers are electing to offer all three services to show their support to a valued group of employees going through uncertain times.

If you have any queries about the position that you, your family or your employees will be in after Brexit, please do get in touch with a member of the immigration team or your usual contact.

Related Item(s): BREXIT, Immigration & Global Mobility

Author(s)/Speaker(s): Naomi Hanrahan-Soar, Bronte Cullum,

The Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”), Hong Kong’s highest court, has ruled that it is unjustified indirect discrimination to refuse a male government employee access to spousal benefits for his husband and the ability to elect for joint assessment of salaries tax.

Text:

This decision has been issued a year after the same court gave its landmark ruling in the case of QT v Director of Immigration, allowing same-sex partners to apply for dependant visas.

What happened?

Leung Chun Kwong (Angus) commenced employment as an immigration officer with the Hong Kong government in 2003. He married his partner, Scott Adams, in 2014 in New Zealand – where same-sex marriage is legal.

Benefits Decision: After getting married, Angus confirmed to his employer that his marital status had changed and that his husband, Scott, should therefore be entitled to enjoy the medical and dental benefits which are extended to a civil servant’s spouse. He had previously notified them of his intention to get married. The government informed him (both before and after his wedding) that his same-sex marriage with Scott was not a marriage within the meaning of Hong Kong law, and therefore he was not entitled to spousal benefits.

Tax Decision: Angus also tried to file his income tax return online and elect to have his tax jointly assessed. However, he was unable to enter Scott’s name as they both had the same prefix, “Mr”. Angus raised the issue with the Inland Revenue Department, and they told Angus that although the definition of “marriage” under the Inland Revenue Ordinance does not expressly exclude same sex couples, it does make reference to a marriage between a “man” and a “wife”, where husband means a married man, and wife means a married woman. Consequently, parties in a same-sex marriage cannot be husband and wife.

Angus challenged both the Benefits Decision and Tax Decision. The Court of First Instance found in favour of Angus in relation to the Benefits Decision, but not the Tax Decision. The Commissioner for Civil Service appealed against this decision and Angus cross-appealed against the Tax Decision. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the government on both the appeal and cross-appeal. Angus therefore appealed to the CFA. He claimed that the government had breached both the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (which binds the government and public authorities and provides that all Hong Kong residents are equal before the law and that the law prohibits against discrimination on any ground).

Outcome of the case

The government accepted that the denial of spousal benefits to a same-sex married couple and their inability to elect for joint tax assessment constitutes indirect discrimination against same-sex couples on the ground of their sexual orientation, as they cannot get married lawfully under Hong Kong marriage laws, but only if this is not justified. In other words, the government’s argument rested on them being able to establish that the different treatment of same-sex couples was justifiable in these situations. They accepted that if they were unable to do this, it would constitute unlawful indirect discrimination.

The CFA considered the following questions in determining whether such differential treatment was justified.

Does the differential treatment pursue a legitimate aim?

Before considering the legitimate aim, the Court rejected the contention that the “prevailing views of the community on marriage are relevant to identifying a legitimate aim and justification of differential treatment”. The Court quoted with approval a comment made in another case – “the use of consensus as an interpretive tool is inherently problematic…the very application of a doctrine of consensus by a court required to adjudicate on fundamental rights begs important questions of legitimacy. How can resort to the will of the majority dictate the decisions of a court whose role is to interpret universal, indivisible human rights, especially minority rights?”.

The legitimate aim put forward by the government was articulated in various and slightly different ways. The main theme was to protect and/or not to undermine the concept and/or institution of marriage, and to protect the unique status of marriage, being the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others (“Legitimate Aim”).

Is the differential treatment rationally connected to the legitimate aim?

The government’s case faced great difficulty over the question of how the conferring of spousal benefits and permission to elect for joint assessment of salaries tax for same-sex couples would weaken or impinge on the institution of marriage.

The government’s position was that the Benefits Decision and the Tax Decision were rationally connected to protecting the Legitimate Aim. They relied upon the earlier judgment in the Court of Appeal that it would undermine the uniqueness of the status of marriage in society if same-sex couples could share in benefits or privileges that have long been exclusively associated with or enjoyed by married couples,.

The CFA rejected this reasoning on the basis that restricting these benefits on the ground that heterosexual marriage is the only form of marriage recognised in Hong Kong was circular and fallacious.

The CFA concluded that the government was unable to justify the differential treatment in respect of the Benefits and Tax Decisions, and made the following key observations:-

• “It cannot logically be argued that any person is encouraged to enter into an opposite-sex marriage in Hong Kong because a same-sex spouse is denied those benefits or to joint assessment to taxation”.
  
• Benefits Decision – The government has a published policy stating that they are an equal opportunities employer, their job advertisements state that the position is open to applications regardless of sexual orientation, and the government has adopted the Code of Practice against Discrimination in Employment on the Ground of Sexual Orientation. It is therefore difficult to see how the government could adhere to these policies dedicated to eliminate discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation, whilst denying married same-sex couples the same employment benefits that are available to married opposite-sex couples.
• Tax Decision – The Court pointed out that the Inland Revenue Ordinance recognises polygamous marriage in that it extends the definition of “marriage” to that between a man and his principle wife, suggesting that the right to elect for joint tax assessment did not serve the purpose of promoting the traditional concept of marriage either.

What does this mean for employers and employees?

The Tax Decision should benefit any same-sex couple wanting to elect for joint assessment of salaries tax.

The Benefits Decision, although only binding on the government and public authorities, should, in our view, be taken into consideration by private sector employers. Some multinational employers in Hong Kong already provide equal benefits to all employees irrespective of their sexual orientation and we anticipate that the Benefits Decision will make others follow suit. We would actively encourage all employers to review their policies and insurance schemes to ensure that they do not treat LGBTI+ employees differently to heterosexual employees.

This decision and the landmark decision of QT clearly demonstrate that the Hong Kong Courts are moving towards recognising equality of rights for same-sex couples. The next challenge relates to civil partnerships for same-sex couples, as MK (a Hong Kong woman) is currently applying for judicial review of the ban on civil partnerships in Hong Kong. We will report further on this case as it develops.

Leung Chun Kwong v Secretary for the Civil Service and Commissioner of Inland Revenue – judgment available here.

QT v Director of Immigration – judgment available here.

Related Item(s): Employment law in Hong Kong

Author(s)/Speaker(s): Catherine Leung,

Joanna Hunt has written an article for Lexis Nexis that discusses the extent to which the UK Immigration Rules can be seen as discriminatory against women.

Text:

To read the full article please visit the Lexis Nexis website.

Type: Press

Related Item(s): Sponsoring Migrant Workers, Gender Pay Gap Reporting, Immigration & Global Mobility

Author(s)/Speaker(s): Joanna Hunt,

On 24 June, the Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to review the £30,000 minimum salary threshold it proposed for sponsoring skilled workers in the post-Brexit immigration system, which is due to be rolled out from 1 January 2021. This move has been welcomed by the hospitality industry as an opportunity to ensure it can sponsor medium skilled workers from 2021 without having to pay substantially above market rates.

Text:

In its September 2018 report on EEA migration to the UK, the MAC recommended that occupations at Level 3 of the Regulated Qualifications Framework (RQF), or A-level equivalent, should be eligible for sponsorship under the Tier 2 immigration route for skilled workers once the UK has left the EU. The current threshold for eligible occupations is RQF level 6, or degree level equivalent.

The change would allow an additional 142 occupations to become eligible for sponsorship, with a view to heading off potential skill shortages in occupations currently filled by workers from the EEA or their family members. Many occupations in the hospitality industry will be included in the expanded list of eligible occupations, including:

• hospitality managers, customer service managers and supervisors
• hotel and accommodation managers and proprietors
• restaurant and catering managers and proprietors
• publicans and managers of licensed premises
• chefs outside those that are currently included on the shortage occupation list
• catering and bar managers
• waiters and waitresses

However, the MAC also recommended that the current minimum salary thresholds of £30,000 for experienced workers and £20,800 for new entrants should remain unchanged, in order to place upward pressure on earnings.

This suggestion proved controversial for both the cabinet, and for businesses, who argued that the minimum salary was simply unaffordable and would massively restrict their ability to recruit. According to recruitment company Reed, the average hospitality and catering salary in the UK is 26,199 – with many regional roles paying much less. More broadly, 60 per cent of jobs at RQF level 3 to 5 pay less than £30,000.

To the relief of business, when Javid published his White Paper on the UK’s future skills-based immigration system in December last year, he agreed with the MAC’s suggestion to expand the list of occupations eligible for sponsorship but also promised to consult widely on the minimum salary threshold. The further commission to the MAC forms part of this commitment.

“The salary thresholds should help control migration, ensuring that it is reduced to sustainable levels, whilst ensuring we can attract the talented people we need for the UK to continue to prosper,” said Javid. “Salary thresholds should also see skilled migrants continue to make a positive contribution to public finances.”

Javid asked the MAC to consider especially how the government should formulate its thresholds, whether this should be based on a single minimum salary threshold, an approach which focuses on only the market rate for a particular role, or – as is currently the case – a combination of the two.

The Committee must also advise the government of any threshold’s impact on annual net migration, the resident workforce, migrant workers, employers, the labour market’s ability to adjust – including sector-focused analysis where appropriate – and the short, medium and long-term effects on public finances and the economy.

Javid also emphasised the importance of any changes to the immigration system serving the best interests of the UK as a whole, and whether the proposed salary thresholds are applicable for the UK as a whole or whether there is a need for greater regional variation.

Other considerations include the exceptions to salary thresholds, such as whether inclusion on a Shortage Occupation List should qualify occupations for lower thresholds and what impact salary thresholds might have on sectors that are important to the economy but which might not necessarily pay wages which reflect that value.

The MAC has also been tasked with considering what exceptions should exist for recent graduates, whether part-time workers should benefit from a pro-rata salary threshold, and to what extent non-cash remuneration – such as equity shares and benefits in kind – should count towards salary thresholds.

In accepting the commission, Professor Alan Manning, Chair of the MAC said “These proposals are the biggest change to our immigration system in a generation, so it’s right that we consider all of the evidence before finalising them”.

The next step will be for the MAC to issue a call for evidence from businesses and other stakeholders. This will be announced on the MAC’s webpages shortly and hospitality businesses are encouraged to respond, either individually or through a sector body. The views and data gathered from the call for evidence will then be considered, alongside statistical and research-based evidence. The MAC’s final report and recommendations are due to be published in January 2020, after which time the government will decide whether to adopt these in full or in part.

Related Item(s): Hospitality & Leisure, Retail, Hospitality & Leisure, BREXIT, Immigration & Global Mobility

Author(s)/Speaker(s): Kathryn Denyer, Bronte Cullum,

Naomi Hanrahan-Soar and Kathryn Denyer provide an update for LexisNexis on the start-up and innovator visa endorsing bodies, and whether they are in a position to endorse.

Text:

To read the full article please visit the LexisNexis website.

Type: Press

Related Item(s): Immigration & Global Mobility

Author(s)/Speaker(s): Naomi Hanrahan-Soar, Kathryn Denyer,

CEO Ian Jeffery is to step down in Autumn 2019.

Text:

Lewis Silkin LLP has today announced that long serving Chief Executive Ian Jeffery will step down on 30 September this year.

The firm will be moving forward under a new leadership structure, with the creation of the new roles of Joint Managing Partner, in line with the firm’s business strategy to focus on its core markets: Creators, Makers & Innovators – supporting creative, innovative and brand-focused businesses; and Employment, Immigration & Reward – supporting the HR legal and related needs of major UK and international businesses.

Giles Crown and Richard Miskella have been appointed to the new role of Joint Managing Partner, with a brief to work together on the overall leadership of the firm as well as the individual leadership of their respective divisions. Giles is currently the Divisional Managing Partner for the firm’s Creators, Makers and Innovators (CMI) division. Richard was recently appointed as Divisional Managing Partner for the firm’s Employment, Immigration and Reward (EIR) division.

With Michael Burd remaining as Chair of the firm, the leadership team will carry out a phased handover of responsibilities over the summer and anticipates making a small number of further appointments in its professional management team to position the firm for continued success in the years ahead.

Ian Jeffery will be continuing as a partner at the firm after September 30, with focus areas including the development of new legal service ventures.

Ian Jeffery, outgoing CEO of Lewis Silkin, commented:

“With Lewis Silkin in great shape and full of potential for the future, I believe that after fifteen years of firmwide leadership responsibility, a planned transition this year is in the interests of both the firm and myself, allowing a refreshed leadership team to refine and deliver the business plan for the next three years and giving me the opportunity to focus on venture opportunities in an exciting period for the legal industry and our markets”.

Michael Burd, Chair of Lewis Silkin, added:

“We are truly grateful for the efforts Ian has put in over many years to drive our achievements as a firm. Lewis Silkin has enjoyed sustained growth and success during his tenure with particularly strong performance over recent years. I believe that these results follow from our clear strategy, the prominent brand we have in our key markets, and the huge range of talent and commitment we are lucky to enjoy across the whole of our business. I and the rest of the firm are looking forward to continuing to build on this success and working with Giles and Richard in their new roles as Joint Managing Partners.”

Richard Miskella has been with Lewis Silkin for more than 16 years, having joined from a magic circle firm as an Associate in 2002. He became a partner in 2009 and was named ‘lawyer of the year’ in the 2019 Legal Business Awards. Richard was appointed Divisional Managing Partner of Lewis Silkin’s Employment, Immigration and Reward division in April 2019.

Giles Crown has been with Lewis Silkin for 18 years, having been in-house counsel for advertising group TBWA (part of Omnicom). He is a Committee Member of the Branded Content Marketing Association and on the British Brands Group’s legal section, as well as being a member of the Creative Industries Council Marcoms Group. He is joint author and editor of the leading textbook ‘Advertising Law & Regulation’ (2nd Ed.).

About Lewis Silkin LLP

Lewis Silkin LLP (www.lewissilkin.com / @LewisSilkin) is a commercial law firm with offices in London, Oxford, Cardiff, Dublin and Hong Kong.

For further information, please contact:

Tal Donahue, Etienne Bataillé or Hannah Simpson at Infinite Global

Tel: 020 7269 1430

Email: lewissilkin@infiniteglobal.com

Type: Press Release

Contributor(s): Ian Jeffery, Michael Burd, Giles Crown, Richard Miskella

In an article for freemovement, Joanna Hunt asks, why can’t politicians get over the idea of an Australian-style immigration system?

Text:

To read the full article please visit the freemovement website.

Type: Press

Related Item(s): Immigration & Global Mobility

Author(s)/Speaker(s): Joanna Hunt,

Since 20 May 2019 citizens of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand Singapore, South Korea and USA have been able to use e-passport gates at airports in Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, the East Midlands, Edinburgh, Gatwick, Glasgow, Heathrow, London City, Luton, Manchester and Stansted, as well as the Eurostar terminals at Brussels and Paris.

Text:

Travellers must hold a biometric or ‘chipped’ passport and be aged 18 or over, or aged 12 to 17 and accompanied by an adult.

Standard visitors and those who hold UK entry clearance will be encouraged to use the e-gates and do not need to see an immigration officer to have their passport stamped on arrival. Where a standard visitor or UK entry clearance holder arrives at a port that does not have e-gates, they will be seen by an immigration officer, but will not have their passport stamped.

HR staff carrying out right to work checks for new employees of these nationalities will no longer see a stamp in the person’s passport confirming their date of arrival. Subsequent entries to the UK will also not be recorded using a stamp, so those who intend to apply for settlement in the UK in the future should ensure they keep a spreadsheet or other record of their entries and exits to track their absences.

It should be noted that the following individuals cannot use an e-gate and will still need to see an immigration officer to have their passport stamped in all cases:

• Tier 5 creative and sporting concession Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS) holders
• Short Term Students
• Permitted Paid Engagement visitors
• Individuals who are coming to join their EEA family member in the UK

If you have any queries about these changes, please do get in touch with a member of the immigration team.

Type: Press

Related Item(s): Immigration & Global Mobility

Author(s)/Speaker(s): Kathryn Denyer,