In this video, barrister Adam Pipe explains the important changes in SUI.11–12 of Part Suitability, covering the new Immigration Rules on previous breaches of immigration law. He highlights how Part Suitability, which took effect on 11 November 2025, centralises suitability grounds across most routes, including Family and Private Life applications.
Auto-generated using YouTube's transcript and OpenAI (accuracy cannot be guaranteed)
Hi and welcome to this latest immigration law update video. In this video, I wanted to look at a section of Part Suitability. Part Suitability came in on the 11th of November 2025 and replaced the previous Part 9 general grounds of refusal. I've recently done a webinar looking at the whole of Part Suitability. If you missed that webinar, it's available for download on the Four Legal website and I'll put the link for you to download it below in the description to this video.
I want to look at a particular section today of Part Suitability. So let's just open section two, which is grounds for refusal or cancellation of entry clearance or permission. And if we scroll through Part Suitability, we come to SUI section 11, which deals with previous breaches of immigration law grounds. So these are grounds for refusal because of previous breaches of immigration law. Let's have a look first at 11.1.
It says an application for entry clearance or permission to enter must be refused. So must—it's a mandatory ground—if the applicant has previously breached immigration laws as defined in 11.4. So 11.4 sets out the meaning in the rules of previous breached immigration laws, and the application was made within the relevant time period in SUI 12.1. We'll look at the table in 12.1 in a moment, but that's essentially the re-entry ban period. So what 11.1 is saying is it is a mandatory refusal. If you apply for entry clearance or permission to enter when you've previously breached immigration laws and you're subject to a re-entry ban, you can't apply within that re-entry ban period.
Let's have a look at 11.2. An application for entry clearance or permission to enter may—so look at the difference. The first one's a must. The second one is a may. It's a discretionary provision. So, as well as looking at the provisions, the Secretary of State still has to consider her discretion.
May be refused where: a, the applicant has previously breached immigration laws as defined in 11.4; b, the application was made outside the relevant time period. So, obviously, if you make it within the time period, you're going to be subject to 11.1, the mandatory refusal within the re-entry ban period. So 11.2 is when you apply after the re-entry ban; and c, the applicant has acted to frustrate immigration controls.
Now that may ring some bells because that is what this is—the replacement provision for the old rule 3201, which was subsequently replaced by 9.8.2. Now the old version of the rules, I'm just looking at my other screen, said where the applicant had previously contrived in a significant way to frustrate the intention of the rules. It's a bit more simple and perhaps a lower bar actually.
C now of 11.4 says the applicant has acted to frustrate immigration controls, and it refers you to 11.7. The key case on 3201 I still think has some relevance is PS India. So do have a look at PS India. I'll put a link to that in the video description.
11.3 is a bit of a worrying provision. I've had multiple messages about this provision since the 11th of November. It says, "An application for permission may be refused where the applicant is or has been in breach of immigration laws as defined in 11.4." So again, it's a discretionary provision, but it provides for refusal where your client has previously breached immigration laws.
So, for example, this could be applied potentially. So, you're applying for settlement. You've had a previous breach of immigration laws. You've been subsequently granted leave. Now you're applying for settlement. Technically, this rule could be invoked. One would hope the Secretary of State wouldn't in those situations because you've previously been granted leave after the breach. But it is a concerning provision.
11.3, I've looked in the guidance. There's not a lot of explanation in relation to that. So just be aware of 11.3 and, in your representations, if your client has had a previous breach of immigration laws, make sure you address why they shouldn't be refused under this provision, without making too much of it because you don't want to give the Secretary of State ideas, I suppose.
11.4—so we've referred to 11.4 a few times now. An applicant will be treated as having breached immigration laws if, aged 18 or over, they overstayed their permission, and there's some exceptions here. There's an exception in 11.5 and an exception in 11.6.
Breached a condition attached to their permission, unless entry clearance or further permission has subsequently been granted in the knowledge of the breach. So, if you've overstayed, you're caught by this. If you breached a condition, you're caught by this unless you've been granted subsequent leave.
C, were or still are an illegal entrant; or D, used deception in relation to a previous application, whether or not successfully. So A mentions 11.5 and 11.6 as exceptions. There's some specific exceptions in relation to 90 days before overstaying before 6th of April 2017, 30 days or less after 6th of April 2017, and 13.1 applied to a pre-PER period of overstaying. 13.1 is now the replacement for 39E of the Immigration Rules.
There's also an exception in 11.6. I think this covers judicial reviews in-time ones where a decision is withdrawn, quashed, or reconsidered by direction of a court or tribunal, unless the legal challenge which led to the reconsideration was brought more than three months after the date of the decision to refuse or cancel. So if you make an in-time JR and it's successful, that won't count against you in terms of that period of overstaying, 11.6.
When we looked at acting to frustrate immigration controls, the rule referred to 11.7. So 11.7 sets out the definition. An applicant will be treated as having acted to frustrate immigration controls if, aged 18 or over, they—and look at the brackets in parentheses, it says for example. So this is not an exhaustive list; these are just examples: failed to cooperate with red documentation, arrest, or removal process; used a false identity; failed to report as required or absconded; obtained state or public authority benefits, tax credits, etc., when you were not entitled; used multiple identities; or participated in immigration-related crime.
Finally, 11.8 states permission, including that extended under section 3C, may be cancelled where the person has failed to comply with the conditions of their permission, and that very, very much does what it says on the tin.
We've talked about re-entry bans, and the reference there was to 12.1. So 12.1 sets out the re-entry ban period. Your options are 12 months if you left voluntarily at your own expense; 2 years if you left voluntarily at public expense within 6 months of a notice of removal; or 5 years if it was more than 6 months after the notice of removal. There's another 5-year period. D, I just want to touch on the 10-year periods. So, two potential 10-year periods: if you were removed at public expense, there's a 10-year re-entry ban. And if you've used deception in an application, and for visits, this applies to applications for entry clearance only. That's a 10-year re-entry ban period.
So these are really important provisions that will affect people in their applications, and you need to be aware of and specifically address the provisions. Remember, under the general grounds, the suitability grounds of refusal, the burden is on the Secretary of State or the entry clearance officer. But as I say, I covered all of this in a recent webinar. So do have a look at that and download that if you need to go over this in more detail, but make sure you're addressing the new Part Suitability, which applies to all applications and decisions from the 11th of November. There is no transitional period. So it applies to everything from the 11th of November 2025.
I hope that was helpful to you. Thanks a lot.