The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA) has released a comprehensive briefing paper challenging the Government’s proposed “earned settlement” policy, characterizing the plans as having little to no precedent in either British immigration history or international practice.
The 12-page analysis, authored by Professor Bernard Ryan of the University of Leicester’s Migration Law faculty on ILPA’s behalf, with input from numerous immigration law practitioners and academics, identifies the proposed ten-year baseline qualifying period for settlement and indefinite leave to remain (ILR) as unprecedented for the United Kingdom and substantially longer than requirements in most comparable nations.
The briefing document states: “In the European Union, the Long-Term Residents Directive (2003) requires Member States to grant long-term resident status to third-country nationals after five years’ lawful residence. In Australia and the United States, nearly half of those obtaining rights of permanent residence β through family connections, skills or otherwise β do so from the outset, without any qualifying period of residence. Canada provides for permanent residence from the outset for family members and many skilled workers, and after one year’s employment in other cases. In New Zealand, permanent residence can be obtained from family and work and family categories after two years’ residence.”
International comparisons reveal that among European nations, only Switzerland maintains a comparable ten-year residence requirement, while Denmark applies a somewhat shorter eight-year standard qualifying period for non-European Economic Area nationals.
The government’s earned settlement framework, initially outlined in November’s policy paper titled “A Fairer Pathway to Settlement,” proposes that the ten-year baseline could be shortened to three years in specific circumstances, such as for higher-income earners, but potentially extended to fifteen years for individuals in lower-skilled employment sectors. ILPA’s analysis emphasizes: “There is no precedent we know of, either in past practice, or in comparable countries, for the extensive variability in qualifying periods as is contemplated in the earned settlement plans.”
Particularly concerning is the treatment of refugees, who would face a twenty-year residence requirement under the proposals. The briefing paper contrasts this with international standards: “In the EU, the 2003 Long-Term Residence Directive was extended to beneficiaries of international protection in 2011, which entitles them to long-term resident status after five years’ residence. β¦ In Ireland – which is not covered by the EU Directive – since 8 December 2025, individuals granted international protection have been eligible to apply for citizenship after five years’ post-recognition residence. In Canada, all protected persons β Convention refugees and others granted humanitarian protection β are eligible for permanent visas, without a qualifying period. The same is the position in New Zealand for those recognised as refugees and protected persons. In the United States, individuals granted asylum after entry are eligible to apply for a lawful permanent residence after one year’s physical presence.”
The analysis also scrutinizes the proposed mandatory minimum earnings thresholds, noting that the plans would introduce, “for the first time,” a requirement for applicants to demonstrate annual earnings of at least Β£12,570 over multiple years as a prerequisite for settlement. The briefing suggests this measure “has the potential to exclude many individuals from permanent residence,” including those residing in households with adequate overall financial resources but lacking individual income meeting the specified threshold.
The paper draws attention to parallels between the current voluntary contributions component of the settlement process and similar “active citizenship” initiatives proposed by the Labour government in 2008, which suggested additional residence requirements for individuals not meeting certain civic participation standards. Those earlier plans were ultimately abandoned following substantial opposition from the voluntary sector, which expressed “deep unease” about the proposals. ILPA’s briefing questions why this concept should prove more viable in its current iteration.
Significant concerns are raised regarding the Government’s intention to apply the plans retrospectively, which the briefing argues would contradict the consistent approach maintained over the past fifteen years of protecting individuals already residing in the UK from changes affecting their visa categories.
The paper illustrates this established practice through numerous historical examples. When the qualifying period for partner visas was extended from two to five years in 2012, and subsequently when the minimum income requirement was increased, individuals already within these routes were permitted to continue under previous thresholds. Similar protections were implemented across work-related routes, including modifications to salary requirements for skilled workers and investment thresholds for investor visas, where those already admitted were allowed to extend their stay and qualify for settlement under earlier regulations. According to the briefing, these examples demonstrate a longstanding policy practice of avoiding retrospective disadvantage an approach from which the current proposals represent a significant departure.
News Source: Electronic Immigration Network
Lawsentis is regulated by the Immigration Advice Authority (IAA) at Level 3. If you need professional immigration advice or assistance with settlement applications, ILR matters, or any immigration concern, contact us today.