8 Things About UK Deportation Law That Changed in 2025–2026
And Why Most of What You Think You Know May Be Wrong
UK deportation law has changed more in the past twelve months than in the previous decade. Some of these changes are entirely new. Others correct things that people have been getting wrong for years — including, in some cases, other lawyers.
If you have a criminal record and you live in the UK on a visa, or if you are a family member of someone in that position, this guide sets out what you need to know now. Not what the law was last year. Not what someone told you in prison. What it actually is, today.
| This guide is based on the Immigration Rules, primary legislation, and Court of Appeal judgments current as at April 2026. The law in this area changes frequently. If any of the points below apply to your situation, get legal advice before making any application. |
1. Suspended Sentences Now Trigger Deportation
| New — From 26 March 2026This is the most significant change. If you have received a suspended sentence of 12 months or more, the consequences for your immigration status have changed dramatically. |
From 26 March 2026, a suspended sentence of 12 months or more triggers the same mandatory deportation duty as an immediate custodial sentence of the same length. This follows amendments to the UK Borders Act 2007 introduced by the Sentencing Act 2026.
There is an important distinction between how this change affects deportation and how it affects visa applications:
Deportation (Part 13): The mandatory deportation duty only applies to convictions on or after 22 March 2026. If your suspended sentence was imposed before that date, it does not trigger the deportation duty under the new rules. This is a critical distinction that some early commentary has got wrong.
Visa refusals (Part Suitability): The mandatory refusal ground under Part Suitability has been amended to include suspended sentences of 12 months or more alongside custodial sentences. Part Suitability has no transitional provisions. This means that a historic suspended sentence of 12 months or more — even one imposed years ago — could now trigger a mandatory refusal if you apply for a visa, an extension, or settlement.
The practical effect: someone who received a suspended sentence of 12 months five years ago and has been living in the UK lawfully may now face a mandatory refusal when they next apply to extend their visa or apply for settlement. If that sentence was imposed before 22 March 2026, they are not liable to deportation under the new duty — but they face a refusal of any future application under Part Suitability.
If you have ever received a suspended sentence of 12 months or more, you should take legal advice before making any immigration application.
2. Part 9 “Grounds for Refusal” No Longer Exists
| Changed — 11 November 2025If you have received advice referring to “Part 9” in the context of an application made or decided after 11 November 2025, that advice may be based on out-of-date rules. |
Part 9 of the Immigration Rules — which for years set out the general grounds on which the Home Office could refuse an application — was replaced in its entirety on 11 November 2025 by a new framework called Part Suitability. There were no transitional provisions. All applications decided after that date are governed by the new rules, regardless of when they were submitted.
The most significant practical change is this: under the old Part 9, a person sentenced to between 12 months and 4 years could generally apply to join family in the UK once 10 years had passed since serving their sentence. That time-based exception no longer exists. Under Part Suitability, a custodial sentence of 12 months or more — or, from 26 March 2026, a suspended sentence of the same length — triggers a mandatory refusal with no time limit and no exceptions based on rehabilitation or the passage of time.
This affects family visa applications, settlement applications, and most other immigration routes. If you were waiting for a time-based exception to expire before applying, the rules have changed under you.
3. Rehabilitation Alone Will Not Prevent Deportation
| Confirmed — Majera v SSHD, Court of Appeal, December 2025This was always the position, but many people — and some legal advisers — still get it wrong. |
The Court of Appeal confirmed in Majera v SSHD, handed down on 9 December 2025, that demonstrating rehabilitation will not normally be enough on its own to prevent deportation. Showing that you have not reoffended carries, in the court’s words, “little or no material weight.” Even positive evidence of reduced risk — probation reports, treatment programmes, stable employment — carries only “some weight” and will rarely be sufficient by itself.
The reason is that the public interest in deportation is not solely about whether you will reoffend. It includes deterrence — discouraging others from offending — and public confidence in the immigration system. A clean record since your offence addresses the risk of reoffending, but it does not address deterrence or public confidence.
This does not mean rehabilitation is irrelevant. It is one factor in the overall proportionality assessment. But if your legal strategy depends entirely on showing you have changed, Majera makes clear that is not enough.
4. Having a British Child Does Not Automatically Prevent Deportation
| Confirmed — HA (Iraq) [2022] UKSC 22, applied consistently 2024–2026Another persistent misunderstanding. A British child is a powerful factor. It is not a trump card. |
The existence of a British citizen child is an important consideration in any deportation case, and their best interests must be treated as a primary consideration under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. But “primary consideration” does not mean “decisive consideration.” The Supreme Court in HA (Iraq) confirmed that the test is whether deportation would be “unduly harsh” on the child — and that this is a high threshold.
“Unduly harsh” means something severe or bleak, going beyond what is merely uncomfortable, inconvenient, or difficult. The tribunal must assess the specific impact on the specific child. General arguments about separation or disruption are not sufficient without detailed, individualised evidence — school reports, medical evidence, evidence of the child’s relationship with the parent facing deportation, and evidence of what would actually happen to the child if the parent were removed.
Importantly, the nature of the parent’s offending is not factored into the “unduly harsh” assessment for children — the focus is solely on the effect on the child. That principle, from KO (Nigeria) [2018], remains good law.
5. EU Nationals No Longer Have the EU Proportionality Test for Post-Brexit Offending
| New — Molnar v SSHD [2026] EWCA Civ 31, February 2026This resolves a question that has been open since Brexit. The answer is not good news for EU nationals with criminal records. |
EU and EEA nationals with settled or pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme were previously entitled to a more protective proportionality assessment when facing deportation — derived from the Citizens’ Rights Directive. The EU proportionality test is different from, and more favourable than, the Article 8 ECHR proportionality test applied in standard UK deportation cases.
The Court of Appeal confirmed in Molnar and Vargova v SSHD [2026] EWCA Civ 31, handed down on 3 February 2026, that this EU proportionality protection no longer applies where the relevant criminal offending occurred after 31 December 2020 — the end of the Brexit transition period.
If your offending was after that date, your case will be assessed under standard UK domestic deportation law. Article 8 human rights arguments remain available, but the EU law framework — which offered stronger protection, particularly for long-resident EU nationals — no longer applies.
If your offending straddled the transition date (some conduct before 31 December 2020, some after), the position is more complex and you should take specific advice. EU law proportionality arguments should still be preserved in appeals where there is any pre-2021 conduct dimension.
6. Spent Convictions Must Still Be Disclosed in Immigration Applications
| Always the Law — But Still Widely MisunderstoodThe Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not protect you in immigration applications the way it does in employment. |
The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 allows certain convictions to become “spent” after a period of time, meaning you do not have to disclose them to employers or in most official contexts. Many people assume this extends to immigration and nationality applications. It does not.
You are required to disclose all convictions — including spent ones — when applying for visas, indefinite leave to remain, or British citizenship. The Home Office can and does consider all past convictions regardless of when they occurred. The updated good character guidance, in force from February 2025, makes this explicit.
Failure to disclose a conviction, even unintentionally, can result in refusal of your application. It can also be treated as deception, which triggers a mandatory refusal under Part Suitability and a potential 10-year re-entry ban. The safest approach is always to disclose everything and let a solicitor advise on how to present it, rather than hoping a spent conviction will not be discovered.
7. There Is No Maximum Time Limit on Immigration Detention
| Always the Law — But Frequently MisquotedUnlike many European countries, the UK has no statutory cap on how long you can be detained. |
There is a persistent belief — sometimes repeated by other detainees, sometimes by well-meaning support workers — that immigration detention has a maximum time limit of 12 months, or 6 months, or some other specific period. This is wrong. The UK has no statutory maximum period of immigration detention.
What does exist is a set of legal principles — known as the Hardial Singh principles — that constrain detention. Detention must only be for a period that is reasonable in all the circumstances. There must be a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable timeframe. And the Home Office must act with reasonable diligence and expedition to effect removal.
In practice, this means detention can be challenged if there is no realistic prospect of removal, if the Home Office is not actively progressing removal, or if you are particularly vulnerable. You have the right to apply for bail at any time, and there is an automatic bail hearing after four months of detention.
If you or someone you know is in immigration detention, Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) at biduk.org provides free legal representation at bail hearings. You should also seek legal advice on whether the detention itself is lawful.
8. For Sentences of 4 Years or More, the Exceptions Alone Are Not Enough
| Always the Law — The Most Commonly Misunderstood Point in DeportationIf you received a sentence of 4 years or more, meeting the family life or private life exceptions does not prevent deportation. You must show something more. |
Section 117C(6) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 provides that where a foreign criminal has been sentenced to 4 years or more, deportation is in the public interest unless there are “very compelling circumstances, over and above” the exceptions that would normally apply.
This means that even if you can show a genuine family life with a British partner and children (Exception 2), or that you have been lawfully resident for most of your life, are socially and culturally integrated, and would face very significant obstacles to life in the country of return (Exception 1) — that is not enough. You must demonstrate something that goes well beyond those exceptions. The Court of Appeal in Majera, handed down in December 2025, described this as requiring circumstances “of an especially compelling kind.”
This is not an impossible threshold. There are cases where it has been met — typically involving a combination of extremely long residence, deep family ties, genuine rehabilitation, and very serious obstacles to return. But it is the highest bar in the deportation framework, and the cases that succeed are genuinely exceptional.
If your sentence was 4 years or more and you are being advised that your family circumstances alone will prevent deportation, you should seek a second opinion.
What This Means for You
If you have a criminal record and you live in the UK on a visa, the landscape has shifted. The introduction of Part Suitability, the extension to suspended sentences, and the Court of Appeal’s confirmation of the limited weight of rehabilitation have collectively tightened the framework at every stage — from initial visa applications through to deportation appeals.
The common thread is that the Home Office and the courts are applying these rules more strictly, with fewer exceptions and less room for assumptions based on the passage of time or good behaviour alone.
This does not mean every case is hopeless. It means every case needs proper preparation, honest advice, and a clear understanding of what the current rules actually say — not what they said last year, and not what someone told you they say.
| Affected by Any of These Changes?If you have a criminal record — including a suspended sentence, a spent conviction, or an offence from years ago — and you are planning an immigration application or facing deportation proceedings, get advice before you act. The rules have changed, and assumptions based on the old rules could cost you your application or your right to remain in the UK. Book a free 15-minute consultation. No obligation. Just honest advice about where you stand. |