March 2026 saw important changes to detention powers pending deportation, new UK transit visa requirements for certain nationals and a Court of Appeal decision on the Home Secretary’s ability to withdraw an erroneous grant of indefinite leave to remain.
Section 44 of <span class="news-text_italic-underline">The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025</span>, concerning detention and the exercise of functions pending deportation, came into force on 5 March 2026 insofar as not already commenced. The provision amends paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to <span class="news-text_italic-underline">The Immigration Act 1971</span> to clarify that a person not detained pursuant to a court sentence or order may be detained under the authority of the Secretary of State while consideration is given to whether to make a deportation order and where a decision is taken to do so, pending the making of that order.
The amendments introduce express notification requirements. Detention may occur only if the Secretary of State has notified the person in writing that consideration is being given to the making of a deportation order, or, where no such notice has been given, has notified them in writing that a decision has been made to make a deportation order. Certain amendments are to be treated as always having had effect.
<span class="news-text_italic-underline">The Immigration (Passenger Transit Visa) (Amendment) Order 2026</span> took effect on 6 March 2026. It amends Schedule 1 to <span class="news-text_italic-underline">The Immigration (Passenger Transit Visa) Order 2014</span> by adding Nicaragua and St Lucia to the list of countries and territories whose nationals or citizens require a transit visa to pass through the UK. Nationals of these states should ensure appropriate visas are obtained before travel that involves transiting the UK.
In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">R (on the application of YC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 285</span>, the Court of Appeal considered whether the Secretary of State has an implied power to withdraw, cancel, vary or correct a grant of indefinite leave to remain (“<span class="news-text_medium">ILR</span>”) communicated by letter where the grant was issued in error.
The appellant had received a letter dated 13 November 2023 granting ILR due to a clerical mistake within the Home Office, arising from the use of an incorrect letter template. The parties accepted that the appellant had neither applied for ILR nor qualified for it under <span class="news-text_italic-underline">The Immigration Rules</span>. The Upper Tribunal found an implied power under <span class="news-text_italic-underline">The Immigration Act 1971</span> to withdraw the erroneous grant, subject to limitations. The Court of Appeal indicated that any implied power to withdraw a favourable determination communicated as a result of clerical error may only be exercised where the error is obvious and correction is undertaken promptly.
A competing view highlighted a constitutional constraint: where Parliament has conferred a limited express power relevant to the same subject matter, the Secretary of State cannot rely on an implied incidental power to circumvent those limits. It was accepted that there is no express statutory power to withdraw a grant of ILR either at all or retroactively; section 76 of <span class="news-text_italic-underline">The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002</span> provides only for prospective revocation in defined circumstances. The decision underscores the need for careful analysis of any purported withdrawal of ILR and the timeliness and clarity of any Home Office correction.
Section 41 of <span class="news-text_italic-underline">The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025</span> repealed certain provisions of <span class="news-text_italic-underline">The Illegal Migration Act 2023</span>, reflecting the Government’s stated policy not to commence the majority of that Act due to concerns about inhibiting asylum decision-making, increasing backlogs and intensifying pressure on asylum accommodation. Section 17 of the 2025 Act created a specific offence targeting the online advertising of unlawful immigration services, aligning enforcement powers with contemporary methods of service promotion.
Practitioners should review detention decisions taken in contemplation of deportation to ensure compliance with the new notification requirements and consider the retrospective effect of designated amendments. Where ILR has been issued and later withdrawn as an error, advisers should assess whether the mistake was obvious, whether the Home Office acted promptly and whether any purported withdrawal overreaches the limits of any implied power in light of the absence of an express statutory mechanism for retrospective withdrawal.
