One of the biggest changes introduced by 14 October is not so much the replacement of the Part 9 grounds for refusal with a new yet very similar “Part Suitability” but rather the way these rules will now apply in full to the following applications that previously enjoyed carve-outs and exceptions:
- Appendix FM
- Appendix Private Life
- Appendix Adult Dependent Relative
- Appendix Settlement Family Life
There are also other minor amendments, including incorporating the exceptions for overstayers currently found in paragraph 39E into Part Suitability.
These changes take effect from 11 November 2025. Aside from some very limited exceptions which will be discussed below, there are no provisions for considering an application under the old rules where an application is lodged before this date but decided after.
Part Suitability
As discussed above, many of the various carve outs for different application routes are now gone, replaced with this:
SUI 1.1. This Part applies to all routes under these rules, except:
(a) Appendix EU; and
(b) Appendix EU (Family Permit); and
(c) Part 11 (Asylum), except Part Suitability and
(d) Appendix Service Providers from Switzerland; and
(e) Appendix Settlement Protection.
The only other part of the rules exempt from the regime is Appendix Electronic Travel Authorisation.
Because the new appendix uses the simplified “permission” to refer to permission to enter and permission to stay (including settlement), there is a provision that stipulates that people with settlement are excluded from any rules that allow for permission to be cancelled (also known as curtailed):
SUI 1.4. Where a person has settlement and is in-country (not including at the UK border) their permission can only be cancelled on the grounds contained in section 76 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
The rest of Part Suitability is substantially identical to the current Part 9 rules, aside from the following changes.
Grounds for refusal on the basis of deception
The substance of these grounds has been retained under the new rules, with a minor amendment to the wording. At present, the grounds refer to refusal or cancellation of existing permission where the decision maker “can prove that it is more likely than not the applicant used deception”. This has been changed to “the decision maker is satisfied the applicant used deception”:
SUI 9.1. An application for entry clearance or permission must be refused where the decision maker is satisfied that the applicant used deception by:
(a) making false representations or providing false documents or false information in relation to the application (whether or not relevant to the application); or
(b) not disclosing relevant facts in relation to the application.
SUI 9.2. Permission extended under section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 may be cancelled where the decision maker is satisfied the applicant used deception by:
(a) making false representations or providing false documents or false information in relation to an application (whether or not relevant to the application); or
(b) not disclosing relevant facts in relation to an application.
Previous breach of immigration law
Under the current rules, the definition of “previously breached immigration laws” is found in the “Interpretation” section at para 6.1 of the rules and reads “a person previously breached immigration laws if they overstayed or used deception in relation to a previous application”, which means that, in my view at least, other breaches of immigration law such as breaching conditions of leave or being an illegal entrant aren’t technically caught by it.
The new mandatory and discretionary grounds for refusal on the basis of past breaches are identical to the current ones, only the term is now fully defined:
SUI 11.4. An applicant will be treated as having breached immigration laws if, aged 18 or over, they:
(a) overstayed their permission, unless an exception in SUI 11.5. or SUI 11.6. applied to that period of overstaying; or
(b) breached a condition attached to their permission, unless entry clearance or further permission has subsequently been granted in the knowledge of the breach; or
(a) were (or still are) an illegal entrant; or
(b) used deception in relation to a previous application (whether or not 19 successfully).
The “unless permission has been granted in the knowledge of the previous breach” exception still applies to a breach of conditions but not the other three breaches of immigration law in SUI 11.4.
That means that someone who is applying for settlement, for example, who had previously overstayed but was since granted leave, could potentially face a refusal of their application because of that past overstaying, though it’s too early to know how widely this power will be used in practice, as it remains a discretionary ground.
The other change is the simplification of the confusingly-drafted para 9.8.2 (“contrived in a significant way to frustrate the intention of the rules”), which under the new rules will read:
SUI 11.2. An application for entry clearance or permission to enter may be refused where:
(a) the applicant has previously breached immigration laws as defined in SUI 11.4; and
(b) the application was made outside the relevant time period in SUI 12.1; and
(c) the applicant has acted to frustrate immigration controls (see SUI 11.7.).
This is further defined as follows:
SUI 11.7. An applicant will be treated as having acted to frustrate immigration controls, if aged 18 or over, they (for example):
(a) failed to cooperate with the redocumentation, arrest or removal process; or
(b) used a false identity; or
(c) failed to report as required or absconded from immigration custody or bail; or
(d) obtained state or public authority benefits, tax credits, employment or goods or services they were not entitled to or accessed housing in the private rented sector; or
(e) used multiple identities; or
(f) participated in immigration related crime.
Exceptions for overstayers
These provisions, currently found in para 39E of the rules, are being imported into Part Suitability wholesale:
SUI 13.1. An applicant will not be treated as an overstayer if:
(a) their application was made within 14 days of their previous permission expiring, and the decision maker considers that there was a good reason beyond the control of the applicant or their representative, provided in or with the application, why the application could not be made in-time; or
(b) the application was made:
(i) following the refusal or rejection of a previous application for permission which was made in-time; and
(ii) within 14 days of:
(1) the refusal or rejection of that previous application; or
(2) the expiry of any permission extended by section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971; or
(3) the expiry of the time-limit for making an in-time application for administrative review or appeal in relation to the previous application (where applicable); or
(4) any administrative review or appeal in relation to the previous application being concluded, withdrawn, abandoned or lapsing; or
(c) the period of overstaying was between 24 January 2020 and 31 August 2020; or
(d) the applicant has, or had, permission on the Hong Kong BN(O) route, and the period of overstaying was between 1 July 2020 and 31 January 2021: or
(e) the period of overstaying:
(i) is between 1 September 2020 and 28 February 2023; and
(ii) is covered by an exceptional assurance.SUI 13.2. For the purpose of SUI 13.1(e)(ii), “exceptional assurance” means a written notice given to a person by the Home Office stating that they would not be considered an overstayer for the period specified in the notice.
All of the above changes take effect from 11 November 2025, with no transitional provisions. That means that even if an application is lodged before this date, it will be considered under the new rules if it is decided on or after 11 November 2025.
Application to human rights applications
Although the changes to the grounds themselves are mostly minor, the impending application of all of these grounds to the human rights routes like Appendix FM, which previously benefited from more generous category-specific suitability rules, is unprecedented.
Before I go on to the minutiae of the category-specific changes, which mostly touch on exceptional circumstances but not in a way that will sufficiently reassure you, I just want to pause to consider what this means. To use the Appendix FM partner route as an example, if you are lodging an entry clearance application under the new rules, the following suitability grounds will now apply to you for the first time:
- Mandatory refusal for a conviction for which the applicant was imprisoned for at least 12 months, no matter how much time has passed since then
- Discretionary refusal for any other convictions, including out of court disposals, no matter how much time has passed since then
- Mandatory cancellation of permission where someone has been convicted of an offence with a sentence of over 12 months
- Mandatory re-entry bans for breaching immigration laws, including relevant overstaying (there are still exceptions for e.g. overstaying for less than 30 days)
- Discretionary refusal for current or previous breaches of immigration law for in-country applications
Appendix FM
Applications under Appendix FM, namely applications as a partner, parent or child of a British or settled person (or someone with another type of qualifying leave), will usually engage Article 8 ECHR. Accordingly, these routes contain provisions for waiving some of the requirements where someone doesn’t meet the rules.
GEN 3.1-3.2
GEN 3.1 of Appendix FM provides an exception for people who cannot meet the financial requirement, provided all other requirements of the rules are met, and allows for other sources of income to be taken into account. GEN 3.2 is a more general provision that allows an application to be granted when any of the other requirements are not met.
In both cases, the applicant has to show that there are “exceptional circumstances which would render refusal of entry clearance, or leave to enter or remain, a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, because such refusal would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant, their partner, a relevant child or another family member”. This is a high threshold and in practice, grants of leave under these provisions are rare.
The new rules amend these provisions so that an application can only be granted on the basis of these exceptional circumstances if the applicant doesn’t fall foul of particular Part Suitability provisions:
D-ECP.1.2A. Where paragraph GEN 3.2(3) applies but the applicant does not meet the suitability paragraphs SUI 2.1., SUI 2.3., SUI 4.1., SUI 5.1., in Part Suitability, the application on Appendix FM will be refused.
Those four grounds of refusal are as follows.
(1) SSHD personally directed the applicant to be excluded, exclusion order or deportation order:
SUI 2.1. An application for entry clearance or permission must be refused where:
(a) the Secretary of State has personally directed that the applicant be excluded from the UK; or
(b) the applicant is the subject of an exclusion order; or
(c) the applicant is the subject of a deportation order, or a decision to make a deportation order
(2) Excluded person under 8B(4) of the 1971 Act:
SUI 2.3. An application for entry clearance must be refused where the applicant is an excluded person, as defined by section 8B(4) of the Immigration Act 1971, and the person does not fall within section 8B(5A) or 8B(5B) of that Act.
(3) Exclusion from the Refugee Convention:
SUI 4.1. An application for entry clearance or permission must be refused where a decision maker:
(a) has at any time decided that paragraph 339AA (exclusion from Refugee Convention), 339AC (danger to the UK), 339D (exclusion from a grant of humanitarian protection) or 339GB (revocation of humanitarian protection on grounds of exclusion) of these rules applies to the applicant; or
(b) has decided that paragraph 339AA, 339AC, 339D or 339GB of these rules would apply, but for the fact that the person has not made a protection claim in the UK, or that the person has made a protection claim which was finally determined without reference to any of the relevant matters described in paragraphs 339AA, 339AC, 339D or 339GB.
(4) Criminality:
SUI 5.1. An application for entry clearance or permission must be refused where the applicant:
(a) has been convicted of a criminal offence in the UK or overseas for which they have received a custodial sentence of 12 months or more; or
(b) is a persistent offender who shows a particular disregard for the law; or
(c) has committed a criminal offence, or offences, which caused serious harm.
These exclusions also apply to applications that rely on EX.1 (relationship with a qualifying child or insurmountable obstacles to the couple living outside the UK), as the relevant paragraphs dealing with those applications have been amended in line with the above.
The effect of this appears to be that where any Part Suitability mandatory grounds for refusal are engaged, the only way your application can still succeed is if the “exceptional circumstances” exemption under GEN 3.2 applies, as long as the relevant ground is not one of the four excluded suitability grounds listed above.
Transitional provisions
All of these changes take effect on 11 November 2025, though all of the relevant category-specific changes in Appendix FM do have transitional provisions that mean that an application will be considered under the previous rules if lodged on 10 November 2025 or earlier.
This is slightly confusing, as the Part Suitability changes take effect on 11 November 2025 without any transitional provisions.
Case study
Frank is a US national who was convicted of an offence 20 years ago for which he received a custodial sentence of 14 months.
On 10 November 2025, he lodges an entry clearance application to join his British husband in the UK. All the other requirements of the route (other than potentially suitability) are met. His application is decided on 22 January 2026.
When his application is decided, the decision maker will look at the Appendix FM rules as they were on 10 November 2025, other than a few minor differences that don’t have transitional provisions, such as references to para 39E now referring to Part Suitability, which do not make substantive changes to suitability.
Under the previous suitability rules, found in Section S-EC: Suitability of Appendix FM, he would qualify for entry clearance because his sentence was for more than 12 months but less than four years, and more than 10 years have passed since. So, looking at just Appendix FM as it was on 10 November 2025, the application should be granted.
However, the decision maker will presumably also have to also look at Part Suitability, as there are no transitional provisions for when that takes effect on 11 November 2025, and the first section of Part Suitability says that it applies at all applications without any carve out for Appendix FM. Under Part Suitability, he must be refused under SUI 5.1(a) because of his sentence of over 12 months.
Assuming that there is a point to the transitional provisions, there are two possible options for what they were intended to do:
(1) The Home Office intended for anyone who applies under Appendix FM before 11 November to have their application decided under the old suitability rules, without reference to Part Suitability, and they just didn’t notice that Part Suitability will apply to all applications decided after 11 November because they thought preserving the old Appendix FM suitability rules for people like Frank would be enough.
In that case, Frank’s application would succeed, as long as those instructions were communicated to the relevant decision makers.
(2) The Home Office intended Part Suitability to apply to Appendix FM applications lodged before 11 November so what they wanted to preserve through their transitional provisions for people like Frank is the original definition of GEN 3.2, which in this case and for anyone who applies before 11 November, will be capable of waiving all requirements of Part Suitability, including the four grounds that can never be waived for anyone applying under the new rules.
The effect of this is that Frank faces a mandatory refusal under SUI 5.1(a) unless he can show that there are exceptional circumstances that would “render refusal of entry clearance, or leave to enter or remain, a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, because such refusal would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant, their partner, a relevant child or another family member”.
If Frank includes strong evidence to this effect, the application may be granted. Otherwise, the application would be refused.
Rules as written, the correct interpretation must be (2), otherwise the Home Office would have applied transitional provisions not just to the various changes to Appendix FM but also to the repeal of the first section of Part 9, which deals with which routes it applies to. But this might just be an oversight.
Article 8 compatibility
There are still human rights considerations to be taken into account, even beyond the fact that Appendix FM is, at least in theory, drafted in a way as to be compliant with Article 8. There will undoubtedly be cases where the new rules mandate a refusal but where that refusal would nevertheless breach the applicant’s human rights and thus should still succeed.
There are no provisions, for example, for someone currently in the UK as a partner under Appendix FM who has a historic conviction and who would now presumably be subject to a mandatory refusal at the extension stage. It is difficult to imagine someone with a conviction for which they were sentenced to 13 months’ imprisonment in the 1970s, and who has lived in the UK for seven years with their British spouse and minor British children, being required to leave the UK because they no longer qualify under the new rules at the extension stage.
When the current version of the Part 9 suitability rules came into effect, they only applied to non-human rights applications like work and study routes, so the people who were suddenly excluded from further grants of leave or settlement had limited avenues to challenge these decisions. That is not the case with applications founded on Article 8 ECHR rights like the applications under Appendix FM.
