Rule changes section 3C leave from 8 October

Section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 exists to make sure that a person who submits an application before their leave expires does not become an overstayer simply because the Home Office has not yet got round to deciding it. After all, applicants cannot control how long the Home Office takes to make a decision.

The Home Office takes the view that some applicants have been using section 3C to extend their stay in ways it did not intend. Statement of changes HC 584, laid on 3 September 2026, makes two changes to Part 1 of the Immigration Rules to close what it sees as ‘loopholes’. The first ties a fee waiver request to the route the applicant goes on to apply for. The second stops a variation application from resetting the deadline to enrol biometrics. Both come into force on 8 October 2026. 

Fee waivers: you must apply for what you said you would

Applicants and their advisers have always found ways to bridge a gap while circumstances change. One person may be waiting to secure a job and a certificate of sponsorship. Another may be waiting to reach ten years’ continuous lawful residence to qualify for indefinite leave to remain. Practitioners usually did this by making an application outside the rules and later varying it to the application the person always intended to make. Increasingly, applicants have used a fee waiver request instead, because it is free of charge.

Bridging a gap in order to maintain lawful leave is not necessarily disingenuous or inherently bad practice. An applicant may submit an application they genuinely qualify for, hoping it is not decided before they can vary it to the route they would prefer to be on.

There was also a dispute between the Home Office and practitioners (and amongst practitioners themselves!) as to whether using a fee waiver to bridge a gap was allowed where the applicant would make a fee waiver request and then submit a paid application that was not the application they said they would submit when requesting the fee waiver. Some practitioners thought that was fine and would preserve section 3C leave, while others, and the Home Office, argued that section 3C leave would only apply where the application eventually submitted was the one the fee waiver had been requested for.

The latest changes put the dispute to rest. The new paragraph 34G(5) provides that where an applicant requests a fee waiver and then applies for permission to stay on a route other than the one the request relates to, ‘the date of application is the date on which that application is submitted, not the date of the fee waiver request.’

Paragraph 34G(4) is revised accordingly. The date of application is the date of the fee waiver request only where the application that follows is for permission on the route that the waiver was requested for, and is either submitted within ten working days of receipt of the fee waiver decision or made as a paid application before that decision is received.

Biometrics: varying an application no longer resets the clock

The second change targets a different tactic. An applicant makes a human rights application, does not enrol their biometrics, and then varies the application (sometimes multiple times), on the basis that the biometric deadline resets every time. Delaying enrolment is useful because the Home Office will not take a decision on an application until biometrics have been enrolled.

The Home Office says this is also being used to ‘abusively’ extend permission under section 3C. A new paragraph 34BB(2A) provides that:

where an application to vary the previous application is made, the applicant must still comply with the requirement to submit biometrics within the period stated for the previous application for the application to be valid.

In other words, varying an application no longer gives an applicant a fresh biometrics deadline.

Conclusion

Section 3C leave remains an essential protection, and there are many entirely genuine reasons why applicants rely on it to buy themselves time. However, the Home Office is clearly keeping a close eye on what it perceives as loopholes in the system and is closing them.