Written evidence submitted by We Belong (RTS2965)

1. Background of We Belong

We Belong est. 2019[1] is the only UK-wide charity working with young migrants aged 16-25 with insecure immigration status. We Belong is run by young migrants, and our vision is for all of us to be treated equally in the society we are proud to call

home. We are working towards this in two main ways: supporting individuals to overcome barriers to things like university, so they can pursue their ambitions; and by campaigning for wider change to remove all barriers to social integration and opportunity.

Most of the young people we support migrated to the UK as children, predominantly from Commonwealth Nations, and are living in the UK with their families. They often come to us around the age of 18 when they want to progress to higher education, and discover they are ineligible for student finance[2]. For most of the young people we engage with, this will be the first time they become aware of their immigration status: some are undocumented (despite having grown up in the UK), and some have limited leave to remain. This is the beginning of the difficulties that these young migrants face, having to battle with their new identity as ‘migrants’ despite thinking of the UK as their home, engaging with the UK's complex  immigration system and not being afforded the same opportunities as their peers due to the negative rhetoric and stigma around migrants. It is estimated that there is over 330,000[3] children and young people living in the UK with precarious status, this includes those who were brought to the UK as children and those who were born in the UK.

Our organisation builds upon the Let Us Learn Campaign[4] (2014-2018), which was founded by We Belong's CEO Chrisann Jarrett MBE, after she was unable to take up her place to study law at LSE due to her immigration status. We Belong now provides information, support and guidance to young migrants as they navigate the immigration system; alongside mentoring, volunteering and other opportunities, to ensure they can fully participate in society. We aim to contribute to lasting systems change and we have a record of publishing research highlighting the impact of immigration policies on young people and facilitating dialogue with policymakers to ensure equal access to services. In the last five years, we have worked with over 10,000 long-term young migrants who must navigate a complex

immigration system. Restrictions on the availability of fee waivers mean that the majority of our beneficiaries face financial instability due to ever increasing and unpredictable immigration fees.

Overview of We Belong’s Submission

The Home Affairs Select Committee’s Inquiry into Routes to Settlement takes place amid significant political and policy uncertainty. Our organisation focuses on young people already in the UK, who have the legal right to be here predominantly on private life grounds, but our submission to HASC warns against extending punitive and prolonged settlement pathways for all migrants.

All the case studies included have been anonymised to protect the identity of the young people impacted (we can provide further information on request). This submission aims to provide a clear and evidence-based analysis of the impact of the current settlement routes; and the systemic barriers which create instability for those who have established their lives in the UK. It is our experience that this instability damages young people's mental health, social integration and social mobility. This has broader social and economic costs to society which will only be exacerbated the longer migrant families are locked into cycles of immigration control. fee waivers to settlement applications.

Section One: The Current Pathway to Settlement for those on Private Life

• Summary of the pathways to settlement for young people who have grown up in the UK.

Section Two: Impact on Social Integration

• Lengthy and expensive routes undermine integration, causing stigma and isolation.
• Families live in financial precarity, limiting ability to contribute to communities.
• Mental health impacts are severe: anxiety, depression, and even self-harm reported.
• Linking access to public funds with settlement rights risks deepening poverty and exclusion.

Section Three: The Impact of longer routes on Business and Employers and costs to Social Mobility.

• Repeated renewals and long Home Office delays (up to two years) disrupt education and employment.
• Section 3C leave creates uncertainty; lack of proof of status leads to lost job offers and delayed student loans.
• Employers face administrative burdens; young people experience stalled careers and financial hardship

Section Four: The impact of longer and stricter routes on migrant families already in the UK.

• Rising fees and lack of fee waivers for settlement trap families in cycles of debt.
• Many cannot afford settlement despite meeting all legal criteria.
• Fee waiver system is complex and inaccessible without legal support, increasing risk of falling out of status.

Section Five: Slippery Slope

• Proposals for “earned settlement” and retrospective changes erode trust and legal certainty.
• Framing immigration control as “national interest” legitimises harsher restrictions.
• Risks creating a two-tier citizenship system and normalising erosion of rights.

Section Six: Recommendations

• Protect shorter routes for children and young people.
• Do not extend settlement routes for other groups.
• Safeguard rights of those already on the route; avoid retrospective changes.
• Review unaffordable fees and extend fee waivers to settlement applications. fee

Introduction

For the past eight years, our organisation has been a steadfast voice calling attention to the impact on young migrants of the Home Office’s long and arduous routes to settlement (permanent status). In 2020, members of our Core Group of Young People[5] presented powerful testimony[6] before the Home Affairs Select Committee, describing the profound toll the 10-year path to settlement and spiralling fees were taking on young people who call this country home.

After hearing their stories, the Committee went on to question the then Minister for Future Borders and Immigration, Rt. Hon. Kevin Foster[7], who acknowledged the impact excessive length and prohibitive costs had on these young lives. This marked a turning point in We Belong’s campaign—acceptance that the immigration system must no longer place disproportionate barriers before young migrants whose futures are firmly rooted in the UK. In 2022, after four years of campaigning for a shorter, more affordable route to settlement for young migrants, the government introduced legislation halving the route for child arrivals[8] (from 10 years to five). This enables young people who have grown up in the UK to have a more proportionate and affordable path to being officially recognised as settled here. At the time we believed this issue was resolved and we quickly saw the transformational impact the change had on many of the young people we support.  

Dishita, 24, a consultant to tech start-ups, says:

'When I found out that I could get my indefinite leave five years earlier, I actually cried, because it meant I could get on with my life. It was a life-changing moment. It meant that I could get properly started with both my career and personal goals, such as travel.'

Daniel, 26, a student who is about to start a training contract with a leading global law firm, says:

'Part of my training contract in year two is to be seconded abroad for six months, which I wouldn't have been able to do before I had indefinite leave. My career prospects are not limited now. And the fact I'll be eligible to apply for citizenship soon as well is massively freeing'

In May 2025, the Home Office published the Immigration White Paper- Restoring Control over the Immigration System[9], which continued to recognise the unique position of children and young people who have grown up in the UK. The paper explicitly acknowledged the need to reduce the barriers they face in securing settlement and citizenship, including prohibitive costs. This recognition represented an important policy shift towards a fairer and more inclusive system—one that better reflects the reality of life for those who have grown up in the UK and minimises the risk of causing what we have described as 'de-integration'[10]. The White Paper also references removing barriers to citizenship and addressing the costs for children and young people[11].

Since then, the political rhetoric has shifted significantly, and as an organisation we are no longer confident that the reassurances to safeguard children and young people can be relied upon. The Government has stated its intention to introduce a longer route to settlement which has been termed ‘earned settlement’, with a suggested default qualifying period of 10 years. In some cases, where individual applicants can demonstrate certain ‘contributions’ to the UK economy and society, they might be able to achieve settlement in a shorter qualifying period[12].

We believe these changes would damage social cohesion, leaving families and children in a legal limbo indefinitely. Although the Government’s proposals published 20th November state that the changes may not affect children and young people who have grown up in the UK[13], these protections have not been placed out of scope of the consultation, unlike the clear exclusions made for those already settled, Windrush Scheme Cases and EUSS status holders[14]. Instead, the current and future rights of these children and young people are left open to exploration through the consultation process. To date, there have been no assurances from the government that these changes will not be retrospective, thereby creating uncertainty for those already on the route, who can see their plans for the future slipping away.

We Belong (and our predecessor organisation Let us Learn) have produced a wealth of evidence demonstrating the devastating impact of long, arduous and expensive routes to settlement on young people and their families.

• Normality is a Luxury (2019)[15]

-          Interviewing 14 young people on Limited Leave to Remain (LLTR) who describe their experiences of a harsh, unforgiving immigration system which condemns even the hardest-working families to at least a decade of intense financial strain.

• Mental Health Check (2020)[16]

-          A review of the mental health implications of young people being on the ten-year route to settlement. The 15 young migrants interviewed for this research describe what it is like spending their 20s trying not to buckle under the ever-present, ever-escalating burden of Home Office fees.

• Deintegration Generation (2021)[17]

-          Young people detailed the pressures of the punishingly high fees impacting their sense of belonging and integration in the United Kingdom.

Section One

The Current Pathway to Settlement for young people on Private Life

The 10-year route to settlement (limited leave to remain) was introduced in 2012[18] by the then Conservative–Liberal Democrat Coalition, which reformed family migration and long residence rules. This framework set out the legal basis and eligibility criteria for individuals seeking settlement in the UK on the grounds of long residence or private life. The current framework is expensive and punishing.

The majority of the young people we work with are eligible for Limited Leave to Remain (LLR), a form of temporary status granted to people whose family or private life in the UK engages Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights: The Right to Private Life[19].

Up until 2022[20], a young person who had arrived in the UK as a child and had spent half their life here could apply for LLR between the ages of 18 and 24. After ten years on LLR, they would then qualify for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), also known as settlement. The new criteria meant that, someone could arrive in the UK as a small child, attend primary and secondary school here, but still be regarded as a 'temporary migrant' by the Home Office, until they were in their late 20s or early 30s. (We Belong knows of many young people in this situation.).

Five-Year Route to Settlement for Young People:

The current process of regularisation for Limited Leave to Remain operates as follows:

• LLR must be renewed every 30 months. Each application costs £3,927[21]. Legal fees to help with an application would also need to be paid.
• If a young person cannot afford the fee, they can apply for a fee waiver. If the waiver is refused, they have 10 days to pay the full amount, or their status lapses, and they become unlawfully resident.
• Breaks in lawful status reset the 5-year clock, forcing young people to start from the beginning and significantly disrupting their long-term integration in the UK.
• Only after 5 years and two consecutive, on-time LLR applications can young people apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR).
• The ILR application fee is £3,229, and no fee waivers are available.
• One year after obtaining ILR, they may apply for British citizenship, which costs £1,605[22], also with no fee waivers available.

We Belong have consistently raised concerns about the Home Office’s policies and fee structure, which make it extremely difficult for many to achieve settlement. This is especially true for young people who migrated to the UK as children and have spent more of their lives here than in their country of birth.

Despite their strong social ties, integration, and private life claims, these young people must navigate a lengthy and expensive process to secure permanent status in the country they call home. The challenge is exacerbated by ongoing, unpredictable fee increases, which have resulted in an unaffordable fee structure for many young people, leaving them in a constant state of uncertainty and insecurity

Section Two

Impact on Social Integration

Lengthening routes to settlement is not an administrative tweak—it is a structural barrier to integration and a direct contradiction of the Government’s stated objectives. Politicians agree that migrants have a duty to integrate, yet these extended routes make this harder: they create barriers to integration; and, worse, can cause people who previously saw themselves as no different to their British peers, for the first time to feel set apart and stigmatised due to their immigration status. 

The Prime Minister warned of the importance of integration without which he believed that the nation would be ‘at risk of becoming an island of strangers’[23]. However, the more uncertain the path to settlement (due to length of time or unaffordable costs), the less able a young person is to fully contribute to their community and wider society.

The Government has detailed its plans for reform in the Immigration White Paper. The proposals would introduce: higher English Language Standards across visa routes; and a contribution points-based system which will consider whether applicants are working (and paying taxes)  and contributing to their local community, for example through volunteering. All of which they believe will encourage integration. In We Belong's experience, the young people we support are keen to contribute. However, we see daily how the immigration system puts barriers in their way to doing this, which we, as a small charity, spend a lot of our time and resources helping them to overcome. 

Many migrant families on the route to settlement are in survival mode - working long hours in multiple low-wage jobs to save for their next Home Office renewal. The drain on family finances caused by needing to save the equivalent of around £130 a month, every month for 10 years[24], for each adult family member going through the process, means many are living in insecure and poor-quality housing. In many cases, these challenges make it all but impossible for them to contribute to their local community or spend time volunteering.  The need to maintain lawful status - on which their lives in the UK are dependent - becomes the overriding priority, taking precedence over all else.

Case Study: Amir’s Story

Amir, 21, arrived in the UK at the age of five. Over the years, the immigration system has not only disrupted his sense of security but also deprived his family of financial stability and well-being. The family accumulated £27,000 in debt due to Home Office fees and legal costs.

Living in a one-bedroom flat, they could not afford an additional bed, forcing Amir’s mother to sleep on the floor for years. As a result, she now suffers from chronic back pain. The cramped living conditions have also impacted Shahmir’s younger sister, who was born in the UK. Her mobility is limited, and she cannot run or skip like other children her age, having grown up in such restricted space.

Case Study: Emmanuel’s Story
 

Emmanuel, 26, arrived in the UK at age 8. After eight years on limited leave, he is now eligible for settlement under the 2022 rule. Despite working full-time and a weekend job, his income barely covers his family’s Home Office fees and his wife’s university costs. Without a fee waiver, Emmanuel cannot afford indefinite leave. His story is not unique; it reflects a system that prioritises bureaucracy over belonging.

Many families have No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF)[25] attached to their status, meaning they cannot access state benefits or housing support. Some may seek to have this condition lifted, providing a crucial safety net for themselves and their children amid rising living costs and Home Office fees. Yet, the fear of being perceived as a burden on society may deter families facing acute poverty on the 10-year route from accessing this support, as they worry it could jeopardise their settlement prospects. The Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood outlines the government’s proposals that now explicitly links access to public funds with settlement rights in a punitive way. The Labour Government has stated that ‘Those who have received benefits for less than 12 months would not qualify for settlement until 15 years after arrival. For those who have claimed benefits for more than 12 months, that would rise to 20 years.’[26]

The Tony Blair Institute stated in 2019 that integration protects multicultural communities ‘from populists determined to sow division’.[27] If that is the case, policies like increasing the length of time to settlement which mitigate against integration will only give fuel to the far right. The young people we work have described their time on the path to settlement as like walking a tight rope 'just hoping not to fall', or running on an apparently endless treadmill. For many, however motivated or public spirited they are, doing unpaid work or volunteering in local communities is not a realistic option.

A hallmark of the hostile environment policy[28] is that it is designed to make it more difficult for those without lawful immigration status to live and work in the UK. However, in practice long routes mean that those with lawful status repeatedly have to maintain and prove their status (to employers and universities) in order to maintain their rights to work and study. Our young migrant community have stated that repeated renewals, including often long waits before applications to the Home Office are processed, 'makes you feel like a prisoner in your own country'; and akin to 'being on probation'.

Below are some excerpts from the personal testimonies of the 15 young people interviewed in Mental Health Check 2020[29]: 

• 12 stated they felt insecure and were constantly worrying about their status.
• 11 noted they felt constantly feelings of sadness.
• 8 stated that they were isolated from their peers due to their insecure status
• 1 person had self-harmed, 1 person attempted suicide and 4 had thoughts of self-harm.

Five years on from that report, not much has changed. The 26 young people who took part in our 2025 focus groups described a profound sense of state-imposed unwantedness.

As one participant put it: “I grew more distant from that British identity. The 10‑year route really triggered those feelings. … The repeated renewals are ‘literal reminders that I don’t belong here’.”

Prolonged insecurity erodes trust and weakens social bonds. Families trapped in precarity cannot invest in their futures or participate fully in local communities — whether through volunteering, civic engagement, or cultural exchange. Over time, this creates fragmented communities and entrenches a two-tier society where lawful residents remain perpetual outsiders.

Section Three

The impact of longer routes on Business and Employers and costs to Social Mobility.

We Belong's expertise lies in the impact of the immigration process on young migrants, rather than on employers. However, we know from our experience of working with young migrants that having to repeatedly prove their lawful status (as each renewal period comes to an end) not only distorts their relationship with their employers - at a time when they are starting out in their careers - but creates an additional burden for the organisations that employ them.

If routes to settlement are extended, the burdens will only increase for both individuals and their employers.

The lengthy route to settlement is not only a bureaucratic issue — it is a barrier to social mobility. Going through the renewal process every 30 months leads to disruption of young lives often causing barriers to young people's education and employment.

As long as an applicant submits their renewal before their current leave expires, their rights — including the right to study, work, and access services — should continue automatically under Section 3C leave of the Immigration Act 1971[30] while their application is pending. In theory, this system should protect them from falling into the hostile environment. In practice, it does not. Proving one’s rights during a period of 3C leave is often a time-consuming process as the Home Office does not provide individuals with anything they can use to prove continuation of their legal rights.

The problems that arises under section 3C leave falls into two critical areas of young people’s lives: attending university and finding or maintaining employment.

The Home Office’s slow processing times have only increased the burden on employers and individuals: the average decision time in recent years has risen from six months to ten months, and we are aware of people waiting up to two years. This delay leaves young people in prolonged uncertainty and employers having to request repeated confirmation of their status. As it stands young people can provide a 'share code' to their employer proving right to work, but this is valid for only 90 days once generated. If their renewal has still not been decided by Home Office at the end of 90 days, the checking process must be repeated.

Education: Attending University

Our predecessor organisation, Let Us Learn, successfully campaigned for fairer access to higher education and intervened in the landmark Supreme Court Case R v Tigere[31] , leading to changes in Student Finance Regulations. As a result of the Tigere ruling, young migrants who have gone through the British education system and had three years or more on Limited Leave to Remain can now qualify for home fees and access student loans under what is known as the Long Residence Criteria[32].

Because of this change, we typically begin working with young people around age 18, at the crucial moment when they are applying to university and preparing for their future careers. As university degrees average three years, it is likely that these students who are on the limited leave to remain path to settlement will have to renew their status at least once during their degree. This impacts not only their enrolment every year but also can delay the release of their student loans, leading to disruptions in study and at times their ability to graduate.

“During my final year studying law in 2017, I had to renew my leave to remain and ended up on section 3C leave for ten months. Throughout that time, the university kept asking me to prove my immigration status, but I couldn’t — my residence card had expired, and the Home Office provides no confirmation for pending applications. Despite my explanations, I was told I wouldn’t receive my graduation certificate until I could show proof of my leave.’- NC

Employment barriers

Since 2019, we have recorded numerous cases of lost employment opportunities and financial hardship among our members directly linked to problems proving lawful status while on section 3C leave. Young people faced structural disadvantages delaying their ability to contribute fully to society and the economy.

In 2024, We Belong submitted evidence in the successful case R v SSHD[33] where it was ruled that the Secretary of State's failure to provide evidence of 3C leave led to serious hardships for a significant number of people - including loss of job offers, suspension from employment, problems with renting and accessing higher education. Post-judgment, the Home Office has failed in providing consistent proof to those on 3C leave even with the development of eVisas which the Government has stated will make it ‘quicker and easier to prove status at the UK border and share your status with third parties like employers and landlords’.[34] It is our understanding that the Home Office plans to appeal this decision.

However, as Case Study D will highlight, eVisas have not made it easier to prove status.

Case Study D:

D is a 23-year-old aspiring athlete who received his status in April 2025 and registered on the eVisa platform, which should provide all the information related to his status, including confirmation that he is lawfully able to work, study, and travel.

However, seven months later, due to a Home Office error, he has been unable to access his eVisa and, most importantly, cannot generate 'share codes'. As a result, he had to forfeit the opportunity to travel abroad for a sports competition.

Fortunately, he remains with the same employer, who has been understanding of his circumstances. Despite an intervention from his MP, the Home Office has provided no clear timeline for resolving this technical issue. D feels stuck and unable to move forward.

Case studies

a. Anu, 24.
During the six-month period she was on section 3C leave after graduating, Anu felt unable to apply for graduate-level jobs that matched her ambitions:

“In that time, I couldn't apply for any other jobs because I knew they would ask for evidence of my right to work here, and I wouldn't be able to provide that and would have to explain the whole process, just basically saying it's with the Home Office. So in order to avoid all of that, I just continued temping.”

b. Mary.
Mary had recently applied for a new job but, while waiting for the Home Office to return her papers, was unable to prove her lawful residence to a potential employer:

“So this is very much up in the air, which is making me more stressed in comparison to a year ago, when I was stressed about raising money for the application. I was stressed then. I’m more stressed now.”

c. Misan’s family.
Misan’s father lost his job and could not apply for another because his documents were with the Home Office. The family was left reliant on one income:

“We had one income for a family of four. We had to pay rent, our application to remain lawful, lawyers’ fees, and all the other costs for four people. My mum ended up in financial debt, which prolonged everything.”

Our report, Deintegration Generation (pages 30-31), highlights further examples of this structural problem. One case involved the younger brother of a We Belong colleague who was offered a new teaching assistant job while on section 3C leave. Once he explained that his papers were with the Home Office, the offer was withdrawn. Fortunately, his previous employer agreed to retain him, but many others are not as fortunate.

Seyi, 24, who came to the UK at age nine, began a new job a month into what became a 10-month wait for a Home Office decision. He described the impact of being treated with suspicion despite his lawful status:

“From that moment, I could feel a sense that I was a burden. I was really scared I might get fired for something that I have no control over.” He added that he felt “ashamed to even look at anyone” in HR after repeated questioning about his immigration status, fearing that he would become “the clown, the joke.”

Waiting times would likely increase if the Home Office were to prolong the route to settlement creating cycles of inefficiency and repeated applications. During these long periods of uncertainty, young migrants must rely on employers, universities and service providers to recognise their lawful status - recognition that is often inconsistent, grudging or absent. There is an expectation from government that migrants be self-sufficient and not a burden, yet the Home Office presides over a system which places hurdles in their way every two-and-a-half years, undermining their ability to build secure lives. 3C leave, intended as a protection, has become a point of vulnerability that exposes all who hold leave to remain to discrimination, lost opportunities and financial strain.

Section Four

The impact of longer routes and stricter requirements for settlement on migrant households already in the UK.

The current routes are onerous, uncertain and costly. Extending the length will make settlement impossible for some to achieve as it increases the risk of falling out of status which, however briefly, re-starts the 10-year clock all over again. 

During We Belong's recent focus groups, a number of young people had experienced this, including Nadia, 25, who arrived in the UK age 10. Nadia had been due to make what would have been her final limited leave to remain application but, after being let down by her lawyers, missed the application deadline. Instead of being just months away from settlement, Nina is now back at the start of the limited leave to remain process. The mistake cost her not just her job at a world-leading chemical company but also the university scholarship her employer had offered her. Nadia says: 'I honestly dream of going back to work, having a career again. I know I've lost my scholarship. I know there's no going back on that. But at least to be able to make an honest living.'

There is already a strict criterion for settlement. Currently, if an applicant succeeds in reaching this finishing line, they must show evidence of lawful residence across the 10-year route (or 5-year route for those who arrived as children). In addition to this evidential requirement, applicants also must pay for and pass the Life in the UK Test[35]. If applicable they must then pay for and pass the English Language Test, unless they are exempt due to issues of incapacity or if they are a citizen of a predominantly English-speaking country[36]. Once these criteria are met, they must then pay £2,885 for their Indefinite Leave to Remain application for which there is no fee waiver. The criteria are not only strict, but they have also been intentionally developed to ensure that there is a high barrier to entry for settlement.

Fees and economic pressure

The UK maintains substantially higher visa and immigration fees compared with its European neighbours. Section 68 of the Immigration Act 2014 gives the Government authority to set and vary immigration and nationality application fees. Successive governments have stated that these fees are set at “appropriate levels to contribute adequately towards the costs of running the migration and borders system.”[37]

Current Fees for Leave to Remain and Settlement:

Between 2014-2025, the fees for Leave to Remain over the years have increased by 553% and the cost for settlement has tripled since 2014.

Indefinite leave to remain application fees over the years (2014-2025)[38]

On the five-year route to settlement one applicant would have to pay £7,855 in leave to remain fees before they are eligible for settlement. A family of four would have to pay £31,420[39].

Concerningly, fees have risen annually at rates significantly above inflation, while salaries have not kept pace. As a result, the current fee structure has become prohibitively expensive leading to several systemic problems:

• Settlement is out of reach: Many individuals eligible for settlement cannot afford to apply due to the absence of fee waivers for Indefinite Leave to Remain, leaving them trapped indefinitely on limited leave.
• Families falling into debt: due to the prohibitive fees, families must make agonising trade-offs, often going without basic necessities and reliant on sub-standard and insecure living arrangements.
• Fee waivers are inaccessible without legal advice: those who may be able to secure a fee waiver cannot do so without legal advice which is in short supply. Additionally, increasing reliance on fee waivers is arguably counterintuitive— the Home Office presides over a system so unaffordable that it must regularly waive fees to allow people to secure or maintain their lawful status.

Settlement is out of reach:

Young people who have grown up in the UK but lack the financial resources, despite meeting all the legal and cultural integration requirements for settlement, cannot apply. Since implementing the June 2022 legislative changes which reduced the qualifying period for permanent residence for child arrivals from 10 years to five years, we have gathered evidence of the systematic barriers faces by young people when trying to attain their new rights. The 68 impact stories we have collated through our Out of the Loop Campaign launched in 2024[40] highlighted that the prohibitive cost and lack of fee waiver for settlement applications leave young people stuck in an indefinite cycle of renewing their limited leave to remain as this is the only application where they can apply for a fee waiver. Since the launch of the campaign, We Belong has actively engaged with civil servants, contributed to government consultation responses where we have provided evidence on the impact of the lack of a fee waiver for ILR applications and has worked to address this barrier to settlement.

Case study: Michaela’s Story

Michaela, 25, arrived in the UK at age 10, with her two siblings, who were then aged 8 and 4. All three have held limited leave for seven years and are eligible for settlement under the new rules. Michaela's parents recently told them they will no longer be able to contribute towards the cost of the three children's Home Office applications, which means Michaela and her middle sister, Olivia, will need to pay not just their fees but those of their brother, David, who is in his second year at university. Michaela recently completed a master's degree and is doing a minimum wage job while she applies for graduate entry positions; Olivia is also in low-wage employment.

If fee waivers remain unavailable for settlement applications, Michaela says she and her siblings will be stuck on the limited leave to remain loop indefinitely, as it will take many years before they can hope to save enough to cover their fees. The pressure of having to save up such large sums and the prospect of making multiple repeat fee waivers and limited leave applications in the meantime is taking its toll on the two older siblings' mental health.

Families falling into debt:

We have come across cases of multi-status households, where all family members all started the route to settlement - however due to the prohibitive fees, the parents made the difficult decision to renew their application and not the children’s. This is because the parents are the main bread winners and so economically it makes sense to maintain their status so that they can continue to work and provide for their children and most importantly continue to save up for the looming Home Office fees. Families are having to make difficult trade-offs impacting children and young adults later in life.

The increase in fees has left families in debt with some taking out loans, often from unauthorised lenders, to maintain status. We have recently support Amber through our legal advice clinic:

Case Study: Amber

Amber has four children (4yrs, 10 yrs, 13yrs and 15yrs ), all eligible for settlement. Amber was able to pay for her settlement fees and has saved up £8,000 to contribute to her four children’s status. Despite her working hard to save up for the fees, she fell short of the settlement fees by £4,916. Amber is unable to apply for a fee waiver as none exists for settlement. In theory, Amber has the option of renewing her children’s status under leave to remain with a fee waiver. However, this is not possible in practice as Amber will not be able to meet the fee waiver criterion due to the money she saved to pay for her children's settlement applications. 

The paradox of the fee waiver system is that working households are penalised for “earning too much” to qualify for a fee waiver, yet “earning too little” to afford the high application costs. Amber understands that settlement will be the only status which grants her children security in the UK. To prevent her children from falling out of status Amber borrowed the outstanding settlement fee from a family friend, she is now in debt with no way of paying back. 

The Fee Waiver System is Inaccessible without Legal Support:

According to the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, fee waivers are an important safeguard for those seeking to make human rights-based application to enter or remain in the UK.[41] However, as detailed in our 2024 submission to the ICIBI’s Inspection on the Fee Waiver Scheme, the current fee waiver system is restrictive and is inaccessible without legal support.

Eligibility criteria[42]

You may be eligible for a fee waiver if:

• You’re a partner, parent or dependent child of someone who has a family visa or has

permission to stay in the UK on the basis of their private life

• You’ve got ‘Discretionary Leave’ or ‘Leave outside the Immigration Rules’ on human

rights grounds where you were refused refugee status or humanitarian protection -

check your Biometric Residence Permit to see what you’ve got

• you have permission to stay in the UK because you’re a victim of modern slavery or

human trafficking

You can apply for a fee waiver if you cannot afford to pay the fee because you:

• do not have a place to live in the UK and you cannot afford one

• have a place to live but cannot afford essential living costs like food or heating

• have a very low income and paying the fee would harm your child’s wellbeing

An application for a fee waiver must be submitted online and is separate to the application for status renewal. The average waiting time for the Home Office to make decisions on fee waivers is four months or longer depending on internal delays or additional evidential requirements from the applicant. A decision may include the following:

1. A grant of a full fee waiver : this means that the applicant can then submit their immigration application without payment of the fees. They must use the code provided by the Home Office in the payment section of the application. This code must be used within 10 working days of the grant of the fee waiver.
2. A grant of a partial fee waiver: this means that the applicant has been assessed as being able to pay the fee but not the Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS). A code will be issued which must be used within 10 working days as above.
3. Fee waiver is refused: this means that the Home Office does not find the applicant eligible for a fee waiver, they will be expected to pay the full fees. The applicant is then given 10 working days to submit their leave to remain application.

Please note, if a fee waiver application is refused, there is no right to appeal. There is no provision for the applicant to make a new fee waiver application. For those who are renewing their status on the route to settlement, this provides them with a short window within which to gather the outstanding funds, if they cannot do so their current leave expires, and there will be a break in their immigration status, which restarts the clock. 

As mentioned above, in 2025, we hosted four focus groups with 26 young people to understand the impact of precarious immigration status on their lives. A significant number of participants described losing the status they had held for many years due to unaffordable fees. Once someone falls out of status, the clock restarts.

'All the 15 years I've been here has been wiped out. I'm having to start completely from zero. ' – Focus Group Participant

The process of applying for a fee waiver is complex and cuts to legal aid means that there is no legal support available. For young people like Faith (see below), this complex process made it impossible for her to complete the application on her own, leading to her falling out of status.

Case Study: Faith’s Story

Faith, 24, who has lived in the UK since she was 10, previously worked full-time while completing a diploma apprenticeship. with the help of her private fee-paying solicitor, she successfully obtained her first and second LLTR.

In preparing for her third LLTR, Faith repeatedly contacted her solicitor for help but received delayed responses. By the time the solicitor responded, her LLTR had expired, she was advised to apply for a fee waiver within the 14 days as due to financial hardship, she had expressed her inability to fund her third LLTR application. She was unaware that the fee waiver application was separate from her visa application and that the former needed to be submitted first.

Overwhelmed and without proper guidance, Faith struggled to complete the fee waiver application, missing the deadline. Due to this, she lost her job and is currently without legal status. After five years with LLR, Faith must restart the process. We Belong is currently assisting her in regularising her status.

Section 5

Slippery Slope:

Our community of young people who have grown up in the UK have stated that they are the ‘least secure citizens,’ noting a high level of distrust for politicians. They also highlighted an inability to distinguish between the immigration policies of political parties in protecting the rights of migrants who have made the UK their home. Their fears echo national concerns: on the 11th November, Kier Starmer cautioned that the resurgence of ‘racist rhetoric’ and ‘toxic division’ in politics leaving people afraid in their own country[43]. The proposals to reform and lengthen the route to settlement creates a slippery slope, paving the way for successive governments to further erode the rights of migrants and constantly change the goalposts.

The UK prides itself on the rule of law, which requires that residents and citizens know where they stand in relation to the law. Retrospectively changing the rules for people who entered the UK on specific terms undermines this principle and makes the law appear as a bad-faith actor. Such instability gives licence to future governments to go even further. Once the precedent is set, the erosion of rights becomes normalised.

The Government has explicitly framed its plans to tighten immigration routes and lengthen settlement periods as being in the “national interest.[44]” While this language may appear pragmatic, it is deeply problematic because it reinforces a narrative that the rights of migrants are conditional, and negotiable based on shifting political priorities. Framing immigration control as a matter of national interest legitimises exceptional measures and creates fertile ground for future governments to justify even harsher restrictions under the same pretext. This adds to the slippery slope: once rights are positioned as subordinate to an undefined “national interest,” the principle of legal certainty is eroded, and the rule of law becomes vulnerable to political expediency.

We have already seen rights revoked in recent years. The Windrush Scandal[45] sent shockwaves throughout our community, exemplifying that no one is safe from immigration control—not even citizens. This was compounded by the stripping of British-born Shamima Begum’s citizenship[46]. While her case may seem exceptional, the broader powers introduced in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 allow the Home Secretary to remove citizenship without prior notice in cases of national security or public interest[47]. These powers disproportionately impact people from global majority countries who are dual nationals and those who have gone through the immigration system, secured settlement, and later naturalised as British citizens.

This creates a two-tier citizenship system and increases the risk of being unsettled. The tightening of immigration routes and policies has been framed by leading politicians as a matter of public interest, but in reality, it destabilises the legal framework and erodes trust in government.

Recommendations:

1. The Government should maintain and protect shorter routes to settlement for children and young people who have grown up in the UK.
2. The Government should not increase the routes to settlement for other groups: the current lengthy routes to settlement are riddled with uncertainty and impact social integration.
3. The Government should maintain and protect settlement routes for those already in the UK. Applying earned settlement proposals retrospectively would create significant legal uncertainty and hardship for people who have long relied on existing rules.
4. The Government should review the impact of leave to reman fees: they are set at an unaffordable level, driving families out of lawful status.
5. The Government should extend fee waivers to indefinite leave to remain applications.

Dec 2025