Will My Past Block My Application?

How Part Suitability (Formerly Part 9) Decides Whether the Home Office Says No

Last updated: March 2026

Every immigration application has two tests. The first is whether you qualify — the right visa, the right documents, the right salary, the right relationship. Most people focus on this. The second test is whether the Home Office considers you suitable. This is where your past comes in.

You can meet every eligibility requirement perfectly and still be refused — because of a criminal conviction, a period of overstaying, a lie on a previous application, or something else in your immigration history that the Home Office considers a reason to say no. These are the suitability grounds, and they apply to almost every immigration route.

Since November 2025, the rules governing suitability have been consolidated into a new section called Part Suitability, replacing the old Part 9 (General Grounds for Refusal). If you’ve been reading about Part 9 elsewhere, you’re reading about the old law. The framework is similar, but the new rules are stricter in some important ways — particularly for family and private life applications, which used to have more generous treatment.

This guide explains the distinction that matters most in practice: the difference between a mandatory refusal ground (where the Home Office must refuse your application) and a discretionary one (where it may refuse, but doesn’t have to). Understanding which side of that line your issue falls on is usually the single most important thing you can know before you apply.

The Framework: Mandatory vs Discretionary

Part Suitability works on a simple principle. Some things are so serious that the Home Office has no choice: the application must be refused. Other things are serious enough to justify refusal, but the caseworker has discretion to consider the circumstances and may still grant the application.

Mandatory refusal — The caseworker has no discretion. If the ground applies, the application must be refused. It does not matter how strong the rest of your case is, how long you have been in the UK, or how sympathetic your circumstances are. The application fails.

Discretionary refusal — The caseworker can take the issue into account but is not required to refuse. How the discretion is exercised depends on the seriousness of the issue, any mitigating circumstances, and the overall picture. This is where the quality of your representations matters.

The distinction sounds academic. In practice, it is the difference between an application that has no realistic prospect of success and one that is difficult but winnable. Most people who come to us with “character issues” are in the discretionary category — which means the outcome depends on how the case is presented.

Criminality

This is the ground that frightens people most, and the one where the mandatory/discretionary distinction matters most.

Mandatory refusal

If you have been convicted of a criminal offence and received a custodial sentence of 12 months or more, your application must be refused. There is no time limit on this. It does not matter whether the conviction was 5 years ago or 30 years ago. It does not matter that you have been a model citizen since. Under the rules as written, the caseworker has no discretion to overlook it.

This is the harshest of the suitability grounds and the one that catches people who assumed their old conviction was “spent” or forgotten. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, which treats some convictions as spent after a period of time, does not apply to immigration decisions in the same way. A conviction that would not show up on a standard DBS check can still be a mandatory refusal ground for immigration purposes.

Is it really absolute? The rules say it is. The caseworker guidance says it is. But the Home Office retains a residual discretion to grant leave outside the Immigration Rules in exceptional circumstances, and there is at least one reported case where the Home Office conceded a judicial review rather than defend a mandatory refusal based on a very old overseas conviction. This is not a route you can plan on — but it means that even in the worst scenario, taking advice before giving up may be worthwhile.

Discretionary refusal

If your conviction resulted in a custodial sentence of less than 12 months, a non-custodial sentence, or an out-of-court disposal recorded on your criminal record, the Home Office may refuse your application. It does not have to.

This covers a very wide range of situations — from a community order for a minor offence years ago to a suspended sentence for something more serious. What matters in practice is the nature of the offence, how long ago it was, what has happened since, and whether there is a pattern. A single minor conviction from several years ago, with no further offending, is treated very differently from a recent pattern of offending.

The discretionary ground also covers persistent offending and offences causing serious harm, even where individual sentences were short. This is where representations matter — the caseworker needs a reason to exercise discretion in your favour, and that reason needs to be clearly set out in the application.

Deception and False Representations

Part Suitability draws an important distinction between deception and false representations. They sound similar. They are not treated the same way.

Deception is mandatory. If the Home Office is satisfied that you used deception in a current or previous application — meaning you deliberately lied or submitted false documents knowing they were false — the application must be refused. A finding of deception can also trigger cancellation of any existing leave, including leave extended by section 3C while an application is pending. This is one of the most damaging findings the Home Office can make.

False representations are discretionary. This covers situations where false information was submitted but without deliberate dishonesty — for example, an error by an adviser, an incorrect document submitted by a third party, or information that turns out to be wrong but was not knowingly false. The Home Office may refuse on this basis, but the caseworker has discretion. Crucially, false representations can be engaged even where the applicant did not know about the false information. This means you can be held responsible for your adviser’s mistakes or your sponsor’s errors.

The practical lesson: if you discover that something incorrect was submitted in a previous application, it is almost always better to disclose it proactively and explain what happened than to hope no one notices. An honest correction is much easier to work with than a deception finding.

Previous Breaches of Immigration Law

Overstaying, working without permission, breaching visa conditions — these are all immigration breaches, and they can all trigger suitability grounds. Whether refusal is mandatory or discretionary depends on timing and seriousness.

Mandatory refusal

If your application is made within the re-entry ban period that applies to your breach, refusal is mandatory. The ban periods depend on how you left the UK and the circumstances of your overstaying:

12 months — if you left voluntarily, at your own expense, and not at a time when removal directions were in force
2 years — if you left voluntarily at your own expense but when removal directions were in force
5 years — if you were removed or deported from the UK at public expense
10 years — if you were deported or removed and used deception in a previous application

Discretionary refusal

Outside the re-entry ban periods, past immigration breaches become a discretionary ground for refusal. But “discretionary” does not mean “forgotten.” The Home Office can still refuse if you previously contrived to frustrate the intention of the rules, or if there are aggravating factors such as using a false identity, failing to report, or absconding.

This is particularly relevant for people applying for settlement on the 10-year route. A common and costly assumption is that overstaying before the 10-year qualifying period started is automatically disregarded. It is not. If your overstaying involved illegal working, absconding, or any form of deception, the Home Office may still consider it when assessing your suitability — even if it happened more than a decade ago. We explain this in more detail in our guide to the good character requirement in settlement applications.

Non-Conducive to the Public Good

The broadest suitability ground is the “non-conducive” provision, which allows the Home Office to refuse an application where your presence in the UK is not considered conducive to the public good. This is the catch-all. It can be applied on the basis of character, conduct, associations, or other reasons not covered by the more specific grounds.

In practice, the non-conducive ground is most commonly used in cases involving national security concerns, involvement in extremism, or where the Home Office considers someone’s presence to be against the public interest for reasons that do not fit neatly into the criminality or deception categories. It is discretionary in most cases, but mandatory where the Secretary of State has personally directed that someone’s exclusion or removal is conducive to the public good.

What Changed in November 2025

The replacement of Part 9 with Part Suitability was not simply a renaming exercise. The most significant change is that Part Suitability now applies to family and private life routes — Appendix FM, Appendix Private Life, Appendix Adult Dependent Relative, and Appendix Settlement Family Life — which previously had more generous treatment under their own suitability provisions.

Under the old rules, an applicant under Appendix FM who fell foul of a Part 9 ground could still succeed if refusal would breach their human rights under Article 8 of the European Convention. The GEN.3.2 “safety valve” allowed caseworkers to grant applications where refusal would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant or their family.

Part Suitability narrows this. While human rights obligations still apply in principle, the amendments to Appendix FM limit when GEN.3.2 can override a suitability refusal. The practical effect is that applicants with character or conduct issues on family and private life routes now face a harder path than they did before November 2025.

If you applied or were refused under the old Part 9 rules, different provisions may apply to your case. If you are applying now, you need to understand the Part Suitability framework as it currently stands.

What This Means in Practice

If your issue is mandatory: The starting point is that the application will be refused if you apply. That does not necessarily mean you have no options — but it means the options are narrow, complex, and usually involve arguments outside the Immigration Rules (human rights, judicial review, or representations for leave outside the rules). You need specialist advice before spending money on an application.

If your issue is discretionary: The application is not doomed, but it needs to be handled carefully. The caseworker needs to understand what happened, when, why, and what has changed since. A bare application with no representations, or representations that try to hide or minimise the issue, is the most common way discretionary cases turn into refusals. The most effective approach is honest, well-evidenced, and structured to show the caseworker why discretion should be exercised in your favour.

If you are not sure which category you fall into: This is the most important reason to take advice before you apply. The difference between a mandatory ground and a discretionary one can come down to the length of a sentence (12 months is the threshold), the precise wording of a previous refusal letter, or whether something counts as “deception” rather than “false representations.” The financial consequences of getting this wrong are severe — a refused ILR application costs £2,885 in non-refundable fees alone, and a refusal on suitability grounds will complicate every future application.

Part Suitability and Earned Settlement

If you are planning to apply for settlement, Part Suitability does not exist in isolation. The proposed earned settlement system expected from April 2026 introduces its own penalties for past immigration breaches and character issues — penalties that are applied on top of the suitability requirements, not instead of them.

Under the proposed system, the same criminal conviction that triggers a discretionary suitability ground could also add years to your qualifying period for settlement. And the same overstaying history that makes your suitability assessment difficult could result in a baseline of 15, 20, or even 30 years before you qualify for ILR. We explain the earned settlement proposals in detail in our guide to Earned Settlement ILR from 2026.

The interaction between Part Suitability and earned settlement means that for anyone with past issues, the decisions you make now — including when to apply, what to disclose, and how to present your history — may determine not just whether this application succeeds, but how long your entire route to settlement takes.

When You Need Advice

If you have a clean immigration history and no criminal record, Part Suitability is unlikely to affect your application. You still need to meet the eligibility requirements for your route, but suitability should not be a barrier.

You should take advice before applying if:

You have any criminal conviction, however old or minor
You have ever overstayed, worked without permission, or breached visa conditions
A previous application was refused, particularly if the refusal mentioned deception or false representations
You are unsure whether something in your past would count as a suitability issue
You are applying for settlement and have any concerns about the good character requirement
You applied or were refused under the old Part 9 rules and want to understand how Part Suitability affects your next application

The cost of advice before you apply is almost always less than the cost of a refused application. A non-refundable ILR fee of £2,885, a refusal on your record, and the stress and delay of starting again — these are the consequences of guessing when you should have asked.

Worried about a suitability issue? We can review your immigration history, identify whether any suitability grounds apply, and advise on the safest way to proceed. Book a free 15-minute consultation. No obligation. No pressure.

This guide explains how Part Suitability generally applies. It is not a substitute for advice on your specific facts. The interaction between suitability grounds, route-specific rules, and human rights obligations is complex, and the outcome of any application depends on individual circumstances. If you have any concerns about suitability, take advice before applying.