Latest Posts

Political Asylum in the UK: International Protection in a Fractured World

The phrase “political asylum” retains a certain force in public language because it captures, in broad terms, the predicament of a person who cannot safely return home. In law, however, the position is more exacting. The question in the United Kingdom is whether the claimant is a refugee within the meaning of the Refugee Convention or, failing that, whether return would expose them to the level of harm required for humanitarian protection under Part 11 of the Immigration Rules. That is the point at which geopolitics ceases to be background and becomes legal risk.

That distinction matters acutely in the present climate. Chatham House has recently described an international order marked by fragmentation, multiplying conflict and increasingly fluid relationships between states, armed groups, and local power centres. The same period has seen sustained growth in forced displacement. Home Office statistics for the year ending September 2025 record 110,051 asylum claims in the United Kingdom, the highest annual figure on record, alongside 58,148 grants of refugee protection or other leave at initial decision.

The modern protection claim is therefore rarely confined to the classic picture of the opposition activist pursued by a hostile state. Those cases remain central. But contemporary asylum work also arises from ideological enforcement, militia rule, sectarian violence, gender-based repression, digital surveillance, punishment for identity, and the wider failure of state protection in environments where power is fractured or violently contested. The UK legal system is not asked to pass judgment on those conditions in the abstract. It is asked to decide whether, for this claimant, they create a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or a real risk of serious harm on return.

The legal architecture remains orthodox. GOV.UK states the core refugee test in familiar terms. A person must be unable to live safely in any part of their own country because they fear persecution there, the feared persecution must be connected to race, religion, nationality, political opinion or another recognised characteristic, and they must have failed to secure protection from the authorities of their own state. If refugee status is not made out, humanitarian protection remains in play. Part 11 provides for protection where there are substantial grounds for believing that removal would expose the claimant to serious harm, including unlawful killing, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, and serious and individual threat arising from indiscriminate violence in armed conflict.

Country conditions matter greatly within that structure, but they do not determine a claim on their own. The Home Office’s own country material illustrates the point. Its February 2026 Afghanistan note identifies the Taliban as the controlling authority of the state and records continuing risks affecting several Convention defined groups, including women and girls, journalists, former judges, human rights defenders, religious minorities and LGBT+ persons. Its January 2026 Iran materials address, among other things, Kurdish political groups, illegal exit, sexual orientation and gender identity or expression, and the significance of social media and sur place activity. Such material is indispensable, but it is only ever the beginning of the analysis. A claimant still has to show how those conditions intersect with their own life, history, profile and exposure.

That is why a weak claim so often fails at the level of particularity. General instability is not enough. General oppression is not enough. The legal enquiry remains individual. A person may come from a country in acute turmoil and still fail if the risk is described only in broad political terms. Equally, a person may come from a country not usually associated in public discourse with open conflict and still succeed because the risk on return is personal, targeted and legally recognisable. The Home Office’s credibility guidance reflects this discipline, requiring decision makers to assess the account, documentation, background and country evidence in the round and on an individual basis.

One feature of the present asylum landscape deserves particular attention. A substantial share of claims now begins with lawful entry. Home Office statistics for the year ending September 2025 record that 38% of asylum claimants had previously entered the United Kingdom on a visa or other leave. The asylum question therefore increasingly arises not only at the border, but after the arrival, sometimes after a period of study, work or other lawful residence. Part 11 expressly accommodates sur place claims, namely claims arising from events occurring since departure from the country of origin or from activities undertaken abroad. In practice, that may include political expression, online activity, association, or a later deterioration in country conditions that transforms an earlier intention to return into a present impossibility.

That does not diminish the significance of timing. Quite the reverse. GOV.UK states that a person should claim asylum on arrival or as soon as they think it would be unsafe to return, and warns that delay may make refusal more likely. The Rules now also contain express validity requirements, including that the claim be made in person and, for adults, be sufficiently particularised. Delay does not defeat a claim automatically, but it is seldom neutral. If risk arose later, that development must be explained carefully. If the fear existed earlier, the question of why protection was not sought sooner must be answered directly and persuasively. In well prepared cases, timing is part of the narrative. In badly prepared ones, it becomes a credibility problem in its own right.

The system itself remains demanding, but not illusory. The year ending September 2025 saw an initial grant rate of 45%, with 75,354 refusals at initial decision and more than 62,000 cases still awaiting an initial outcome at period end. Those figures show a jurisdiction under pressure, but also one in which protection continues to be granted in substantial numbers where the legal threshold is met. The lesson for serious claimants is neither optimism nor defeatism. It is discipline.

At a professional level, the stronger claims tend to share certain characteristics. They identify the legal basis with precision. They distinguish persecution from general instability, and refugee status from humanitarian protection. They treat timing as part of the case rather than an inconvenient sidebar. They use current country material. They explain why the feared actor cannot be neutralised by state protection or internal relocation. Above all, they present the claimant’s account as an answer to a legal question rather than an appeal to sympathy.

That is why the phrase “political asylum in the UK” is both narrower and more valuable than it first appears. Narrower, because the law asks for something more exact than a general fear of a troubled country. More valuable, because where the facts truly support it, the asylum system remains one of the most important legal mechanisms by which international protection can be secured. In a period marked by fractured order, ideological repression and uneven state protection, that function has not diminished. It has become more exacting, and in some respects more important.

Frequently asked questions

To discuss the contents of this article, please contact Jayesh Jethwa or our wider Immigration team.

Read More

Illegal Working Enforcement in Restaurants and Hotels Surges: Legal Analysis for Hospitality Operators

By Jayesh Jethwa, Partner and Head of Corporate and Private Immigration at Quastels. Jayesh is recognised by The Legal 500 within Quastels’ Hospitality and Leisure offering and advises restaurants, hotels and other operators across the sector on sponsor licensing, right to work compliance and business immigration risk.

The recent reporting on immigration raids in restaurants has resonated because it describes something many hospitality operators already sense: illegal working enforcement is no longer a peripheral compliance issue. It is part of the operating climate of the sector. The Guardian article reports concern among restaurant owners and workers that raids have been experienced as intimidating and, at times, indiscriminate, while the Home Office maintains that its operations are intelligence-led and not based on race or ethnicity. Without suggesting any precise equivalence of legal regime, some hospitality operators will inevitably view this as closer in style to the kind of visible workplace immigration enforcement more commonly associated with ICE in the United States than to ordinary compliance activity. The politics of that comparison will be contested. The legal and commercial point is not. For restaurants, cafés, takeaways and hotels, immigration enforcement now sits materially closer to ordinary business risk than many operators have historically assumed.

The official figures bear that out. The Home Office’s March 2026 sector release records 12.832 illegal working visits in 2025 and 9,008 arrests arising from those visits. Of those visits, 3,559 took place in restaurants, takeaways, and cafés, the single largest sector category listed. The same release records 2,438 civil penalties issued to employers in 2025, with gross exposure of more than £130 million. Hospitality is not incidental to the current enforcement picture. It is one of its principal sites.

For serious operators, that should change the frame of the discussion. The relevant question is no longer whether enforcement is visible. It plainly is. The relevant question is whether the business would withstand scrutiny if scrutiny arrived tomorrow, during service, with incomplete information, anxious staff and a management team forced to explain its systems in real time. That is the point at which immigration law stops being an administrative topic and becomes a question of operational resilience.

Enforcement in hospitality is not only about fines

The statutory framework is familiar enough. Where an employer is found to have employed a person who does not have the right to work, and the employer cannot establish a statutory excuse, the Home Office may impose a civil penalty of up to £60,000 per illegal worker. Where the employer knew, or had reasonable cause to believe, that the worker was disqualified from working by reason of their immigration status, criminal liability may also arise. GOV.UK also states that the employer’s details may be published and that the penalty notice itself carries a 28-day response period.

But for restaurants and hotels, the real damage is often broader than the penalty notice. A raid can disrupt trading hours, alarm customers, unsettle managers, expose weaknesses in site-level oversight, destabilise relationships with landlords and lenders, and produce reputational harm entirely disproportionate to the duration of the visit itself. In a sector built on service, continuity and confidence, the commercial consequences of enforcement are rarely confined to the formal legal sanction.

That wider picture is one reason the current moment should be treated with seriousness. Illegal working enforcement in hospitality is not simply an immigration problem. It is a governance problem, a staffing problem, and in some cases, a brand problem.

The law is technical, and hospitality businesses are often exposed by inconsistency rather than bad faith

The present right to work regime is not conceptually obscure, but it is exacting in application. The Home Office employer guidance requires an employer to carry out one of the prescribed checks before employment begins and to retain the evidence properly in order to establish a statutory excuse. The current guidance, updated in 2025, also reflects the increasing importance of digital status and confirms that expired physical BRPs are not acceptable evidence of right to work.

In practice, hospitality businesses are rarely exposed because they have done nothing at all. They are exposed because one part of the business has done enough and another has not. One site follows the online checking process correctly. Another relies on a screenshot sent by text. One manager diarises follow-up checks for a time-limited worker. Another assumes that because the individual has proved reliable, the original position must still be in order. One group company centralises files. Another leaves them scattered across local inboxes and site managers’ phones.

The sector itself explains part of the difficulty. Staffing can be fast-moving. Recruitment can be decentralised. Weekend or evening hiring decisions are sometimes made under operational pressure. Group structures may leave legal employment in one company and day-to-day supervision in another. Sponsorship may sit with head office while local oversight sits elsewhere. None of that is inherently improper. All of it can create precisely the sort of fragmentation in which compliance becomes performative rather than real.

The law does not allow much room for performative compliance. It asks a narrower question: were the prescribed checks done, were they done in time, were the retained records sufficient, and can they now be produced.

Sponsor licence exposure is part of the same risk landscape

For hospitality operators who hold sponsor licences, the issue is not only illegal working viability. It is also licence integrity.

The Home Office announced in September 2025 that 1,948 sponsor licences were revoked between July 2024 and June 2025, more than double the previous 12 months. The reasons highlighted publicly included underpayment, failure to provide the jobs promised, and conduct said to facilitate abuse of the system. Whatever the variations between cases, the broader message is clear enough: sponsor compliance and illegal working enforcement are no longer separate conversations. They now sit within the same field of regulatory scrutiny.

In hospitality, that matters especially because sponsored recruitment is often operationally significant. Where a restaurant group, hotel business or leisure operator depends in part on sponsored workers, a compliance failure can do more than generate a penalty. It can unsettle the employer’s ability to recruit, to retain sponsored staff, and to reassure the Home Office that the organisation remains a sponsor fit to be trusted with sponsorship. A business that treats civil penalty risk and sponsor licence risk as unrelated is likely to discover, too late, that the Home Office does not.

The practical question is not whether enforcement is fair in the abstract. It is whether the business is ready for it in fact

There is no difficulty in acknowledging that the language surrounding enforcement can be politically charged. But operators need something more useful than rhetoric. They need to know what scrutiny would reveal if it happened now.

That enquiry is, in truth, more disciplined than many assume. It includes at least the following:

• Can the business show a consistent right to work checking process across all sites and legal entities.
• Can it produce its right to work records without delay.
• Can it identify who is responsible for follow-up checks and whether those checks have actually occurred.
• Can it show that sponsored workers are being employed in accordance with the roles, salaries and working patterns that sponsorship presupposes.
• Can it explain who, within the business, would manage a visit, engage with officers, preserve documents and seek legal advice.

The businesses best placed to absorb scrutiny are not always the largest operators or the most sophisticated on paper. They are usually the ones that have tested their own systems before enforcement tests them instead.

What restaurants and hotels should be doing now

The sensible response for the sector is not alarm. It is preparation.

That means reviewing right to work systems at site level rather than assuming that head office policy alone is enough. It means checking that online right to work checks are actually being done where required, that files are centrally retrievable, and that time-limited permissions are diarised and followed up. It means ensuring that sponsor licence records, salary records and Appendix D materials are in order. It means knowing which members of management understand the legal position and which only assume that someone else does.

For some operators, this will require no more than tightening systems and retraining managers. For others, especially those with decentralised operations or recent growth, it may require a more searching internal audit. In a sector where margins are often tight and management bandwidth is finite, that can feel unwelcome. It is still less expensive than trying to reconstruct compliance in the aftermath of a raid or civil penalty notice.

This is now a sector issue, not an edge case

The significance of the current enforcement climate lies in repetition. Hospitality is appearing in the data too often for anyone to treat this as marginal. Where a sector accounts for the largest category of illegal working visits in the Home Office’s own breakdown, the prudent course is not to hope the problem belongs elsewhere. It is to assume the sector is in view and to act accordingly.

That is the practical lesson to draw from the recent reporting. The Guardian piece may read as a story about anxiety, politics or enforcement style. For hospitality businesses, it should also be read as something more prosaic and more urgent: a reminder than immigration compliance has become part of the discipline of running the business well.

Frequently asked questions

For restaurants, hotels and hospitality operators, immigration compliance is increasingly an issue of operational resilience as much as legal risk. Where the position is already live, or where a business would benefit from testing its systems before enforcement does it instead, early legal review is often worthwhile.

To discuss the contents of this article, please contact Jayesh Jethwa or our wider Immigration team.

Read More

Home Office Digital Compliance Checks for Sponsor Licence Applications: How UK Employers Should Prepare

A sponsor licence application is often treated as a document exercise. In practice, it is frequently something more exacting. The Home Office may decide that the application should not be determined on papers alone and may instead subject the business to a digital compliance inspection. For employers seeking to sponsor Skilled Workers or other sponsored personnel, this remains one of the least understood parts of the process and one of the points at which the otherwise viable applications begin to weaken. The current sponsor licensing guidance expressly provides for digital compliance inspections, involving remote verification of trading presence and remote interviews with the applicant or sponsor and, where relevant, sponsored workers.

This matters because the businesses more exposed are not always those with weak businesses. More often, they are genuine businesses with underdeveloped compliance systems, poor internal ownership of sponsorship duties, or an application filed before the organisation is operationally ready to answer scrutiny. The legal issue is not simply whether the business exists. It is whether the Home Office is satisfied that the organisation is genuine, trading, capable of complying with sponsor duties and proposing to sponsor genuine roles. Appendix A and the sponsor licensing guidance make that clear.

Why this issue matters now

The sponsor licensing environment has become more demanding, and the documentary burden has not stood still. Appendix A, updated on 9 April 2025, continues to require specified supporting documents and makes clear that mandatory omissions can lead to rejection, while failures to provide other The sponsor licensing environment has become more demanding, and the documentary burden has not stood still. Appendix A, updated on 9 April 2025, continues to require specified supporting documents and makes clear that mandatory omissions can lead to rejection, while failures to provide other required materials can lead to refusal. The broader licensing guidance also confirms that caseworkers assess not only documents, but previous dealings, civil penalty history, company information, genuineness and, where appropriate, whether a compliance visit should take place. equired materials can lead to refusal. The broader licensing guidance also confirms that caseworkers assess not only documents, but previous dealings, civil penalty history, company information, genuineness and, where appropriate, whether a compliance visit should take place.

Alongside that, the current Appendix D record-keeping guidance was updated on 6 March 2026 and introduced a new record-keeping duty requiring sponsors to keep evidence that they have made sponsored workers aware of their employment rights in the UK. That is an important signal. It points to a continuing shift away from sponsorship as a narrow visa mechanism and towards sponsorship as a broader compliance regime. Businesses applying now need to be prepared not only to show that they can recruit, but that they can sponsor responsibly.

For that reason, a digital compliance check is not merely an administrative inconvenience. It is often the point at which the Home Office tests whether the application is supported by a real compliance culture rather than a borrowed set of documents.

What a digital compliance check actually is

The sponsor licensing guidance describes a digital compliance inspection as a compliance check carried out by verifying a sponsor or applicant’s trading presence digitally. Interviews are conducted through remote video conferencing and may include anyone falling within the relevant definition of the sponsor or applicant, as well as sponsored workers. The process may also involve the applicant or sponsor being required to present evidence before, during or after the interview.

That description matters for 2 reasons.

The first is that a digital inspection is not a diluted inspection. The fact that it takes place remotely does not diminish its seriousness. It remains a compliance intervention directed at the central questions of genuineness, operational readiness and the ability to meet sponsor duties.

The second it that the inspection is not confined to the papers originally filed with the application. It may range across wider evidence of trading presence, systems, personnel, recruitment, right to work compliance and internal understanding of sponsorship obligations.

Businesses often underestimate both points. They prepare as though they are attending a brief call to discuss the application. The better view is that they are being tested on whether the application can withstand a compliance conversation in real time.

Why the Home Office may choose digital scrutiny

The public materials do not provide an exhaustive list of triggers, and the more sensitive risk profiling remains internal. What the published guidance does show, however, is that caseworkers consider a broad range of issues before grant, including previous applications, refusals, civil penalty history, company and insolvency checks, genuine employment checks, key personnel checks and compliance visit referral criteria. It also confirms that digital compliance inspections sit within the pre-grant inspections sit within the pre-grant inspection toolkit.

In practice, digital scrutiny is more likely where the business is newly formed, recently active, unfamiliar to the Home Office, operating in a higher risk sector, proposing roles that require closer genuineness scrutiny, or presenting a documentary picture that is sufficient to keep the application alive but not yet sufficient to produce confidence. None of this means the application is doomed. It does mean the case has moved beyond paper adequacy.

The real question the Home Office is asking

At a formal level, the Home Office is checking whether the business in genuine, lawfully operating and capable of complying with its sponsor duties. At a practical level, the enquiry is more pointed. The Home Office is testing whether the business can withstand scrutiny without contradiction.

That is why digital compliance interviews often become difficult in predictable ways. The application form may have been prepared carefully, but the authorising officer cannot explain the recruitment need with confidence. The business may exist, but the trading narrative sounds thin. The proposed role may be genuine, but the business cannot explain who will supervise it, where the worker will sit, or how salary and duties fit within the current structure. The organisation may have right to work processes in theory, but no one present can describe how they operate in practice.

Sponsor work is often lost at that point. Not because the business is illegitimate, but because the Home Office detects that the internal operating picture is weaker than the application suggested.

What employers should have ready before the interview

The starting point remains the application itself. Appendix A says most organisations will need to send a minimum of 4 documents or combinations of documents with the application, and the Home Office may also conduct online checks in place of requiring some documents physically. The business should assume that anything stated in the application or accompanying material may be revisited in the digital inspection.

But the business should be prepared well beyond the submission bundle.

It should be able to show a coherent trading presence. That may include company information, premises evidence, contracts, invoices, payroll records, corporate bank evidence, website and client information, organisational charts and role justifications. The exact mix will depend on the business, but the point is constant: the Home Office is not merely checking whether the company is incorporated. It is looking for a business that appears real, operating and sponsor-ready.

It should also be able to explain the proposed role with precision. Sponsor licensing guidance makes clear that genuineness of employment remains part of the assessment. That means the employer should be ready to explain why the role exists, why sponsorship is needed, how the role fits into the business, who will manage the worker and how the role related to current operations.

Just as importantly, the business should be able to demonstrate operational knowledge of sponsor duties. That includes right to work checking, record-keeping, reporting, salary evidence, monitoring of attendance where relevant, and the ability to produce files if asked. Appendix D remains central here, and the March 2026 update is a reminder that the record-keeping burden is still developing.

Appendix D is not a post-grant problem

One of the more serious mistakes applicants make is to treat Appendix D as something to worry about only after grant. The better view if that Appendix D reflects the Home Office’s picture of what a compliant sponsor should already be capable of maintaining.

The current guidance requires sponsors to hold evidence of right to work, recruitment, salary, skill level and additional route-specific information. The March 2026 version added a new duty to keep evidence that sponsored workers have been made aware of their employment rights in the UK. A business applying for a licence should therefore assume that it may be asked, directly or indirectly, whether its internal systems can satisfy Appendix D from the point of grant onwards.

That is particularly important for first-time sponsors and growth business. They often focus heavily on getting the licence and not enough on how the sponsored worker will actually be onboarded, monitored and documented once the licence is granted. A digital compliance check brings that weakness into view early.

Who should attend the digital compliance interview

This is a strategic decision, not merely an administrative one.

The Home Office guidance indicates that interviews may involve relevant sponsor representatives and may also include sponsored workers. In a pre-licence context, that will usually mean the key personnel or those who actually understand the business and the role in question. The wrong people in the room can damage an otherwise sound application.

The authorising officer should certainly understand the application and the sponsor obligations. But where the practical knowledge sits elsewhere, for example with a founder, finance lead, operational manager or HR lead, that should be considered in advance. It is not enough for the person attending to know that the application was filed. They need to be able to speak convincingly about the business, the role, the reporting structure and the compliance systems.

The interview should also be treated as a single narrative exercise. If multiple people are involved, they should not sound as though they are describing different organisations.

The most common weaknesses

The same weaknesses recur with some regularity.

The business is genuine, but the role has been framed too broadly and does not yet feel rooted in the trading reality of the organisation.

The company is operational, but the evidence of active trading is thin or badly organised.

They key personnel named in the application do not understand the sponsor duties well enough to answer ordinary questions without hesitation.

The right to work exists on paper but not in a form that anyone can explain operationally.

The application has been prepared by an external adviser, but the internal business knowledge has not been prepared to match it.

None of those problems is dramatic. All of them can be fatal in effect. Sponsor licensing is rarely refused because the business has no documents at all. It is more often refused because the documents and the interview do not produce a convincing whole.

A digital compliance check is also a rehearsal for life as a sponsor

That is why this topic matters beyond the application stage.

The internal compliance visits guidance makes clear that, once a licence is held, sponsor compliance visits involve file checks, right to work checks, worker checks and route-specific assessments. Digital pre-grant scrutiny should therefore be approached not only as a hurdle to licence grant, but as an early test of whether the business is becoming the sort of sponsor the Home Office expects to supervise. Businesses that prepare properly for the digital compliance stage often do 2 things well. They improve the immediate prospects of grant, and they reduce the risk of more serious problems after grant.

That makes this a particularly valuable area for legal support. The issue is not merely whether the application bundle can be submitted. It is whether the organisation can present as a credible sponsor under questioning.

What a serious preparation exercise looks like

A serious preparation exercise begins by auditing the application against the business as it actually exists. It then moves to the interview position. That means testing who will attend, what they know, what they can evidence, and where the application narrative may need reinforcement.

It also means reviewing the role itself, the reporting line, the trading picture, the HR systems, the right to work process and the Appendix D document architecture. If the application is for a start-up or newly active business, it is especially important to ensure that the evidence of genuine trading and genuine operational need is being put forward with enough discipline.

This is why digital compliance checks are fertile ground for sponsor licence work. The legal issue is narrow enough to rank well, but commercially meaningful enough to produce serious instructions.

Conclusion

The businesses most likely to succeed are not always the largest or the oldest. They are often the ones that understand a simple point: a sponsor licence application is not only an application for permission to sponsor. It is also an application to be trusted with sponsorship.

A digital compliance inspection is where that question is tested.

If a sponsor licence application is live, or if a digital compliance check has been raised or is anticipated, early preparation usually makes a material difference to how the business presents under scrutiny.

If you would like to discuss the contents of this article, please contact Jayesh Jethwa or our wider Corporate Immigration team.

Read More