On 9 July 2026, the Home Office published the Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules HC 259. Among the many changes is a targeted but important amendment to immigration bail and in-country applications for permission to stay. The relevant changes take effect on 3 August 2026.

This development is particularly important in light of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in R (Kaur & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1474, discussed in our earlier article, Immigration Bail and Switching In-Country After Kaur: Why Immigration Bail Blocks In-Country Applications. In that case, the Court of Appeal confirmed that being on immigration bail was, under the wording of the Rules as they then stood, an independent suitability bar to an in-country Skilled Worker application.

Statement of Changes HC 259 now changes that position for many routes. It does not remove the immigration bail bar altogether. However, it provides that where the ‘Exceptions for overstayers’ section of Part Suitability applies, an application should not be refused solely because the applicant is on immigration bail. The Home Office’s Explanatory Memorandum states that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure “that, where an applicant is eligible to apply under the Exception for Overstayers (SUI13.1), their application is not refused solely on the basis that they are on immigration bail and can instead be considered on its merits.”

1. Background: What Did Kaur Decide About Immigration Bail?

In Kaur, Ms Kaur had entered the UK as a Student, with her family as dependants. Shortly before her leave expired, she made a human rights application. That application was later refused and certified as clearly unfounded. Her section 3C leave  came to an end and she was granted immigration bail. She then applied from within the UK for permission to stay as a Skilled Worker. The Home Office refused the Skilled Worker application because she was on immigration bail at the date of application.

At the time, paragraph SW 2.2 of Appendix Skilled Worker required an applicant applying for permission to stay not to be in breach of immigration laws, subject to the paragraph 39E overstayer exception, and not to be on immigration bail. Ms Kaur argued that because her application had been made within the short overstayer period, paragraph 39E should protect her application from refusal.

The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. It held that paragraph 39E did not have a free-standing overriding effect. It could only operate where the substantive route-specific rule allowed it to operate. In Appendix Skilled Worker, paragraph 39E could disregard the short period of overstaying, but it did not override the separate requirement not to be on immigration bail.

The practical effect was clear: even where an applicant could rely on paragraph 39E, now SUI 13.1, being on immigration bail could still prevent an in-country application from succeeding under routes that contained a separate immigration bail bar.

2. What Has HC 259 Changed for Immigration Bail and In-Country Applications?

HC 259 amends numerous route-specific suitability provisions so that the immigration bail bar is now expressly subject to the ‘Exceptions for overstayers’ section of Part Suitability.

For example, Appendix Skilled Worker is amended so that an applicant applying for permission to stay must not be in breach of immigration laws, except where the Exceptions for overstayers section of Part Suitability applies, and must not be on immigration bail, except where the Exceptions for overstayers section of Part Suitability applies.

Similar amendments have been made across other routes, including Appendix Student, Appendix Child Student, Appendix Parent of a Child Student, Appendix Graduate, Appendix Skilled Worker, Appendix Global Business Mobility, Appendix Global Talent, Appendix High Potential Individual, Appendix Scale-up, Appendix Innovator Founder, Appendix International Sportsperson, various Temporary Work routes, Appendix Long Residence, Appendix Private Life and Appendix Settlement Family Life.

Appendix FM has also been amended, although its wording is slightly different because the partner route already contained exceptions linked to paragraph EX.1. The amended wording adds a further exception where the Exceptions for overstayers section of Part Suitability applies.

3. What Are the Exceptions for Overstayers Under SUI 13.1?

The relevant provision is now found in Part Suitability, SUI 13.1. It determines when a period of overstaying may be disregarded.

The most common situations are likely to be where:

• An application is made within 14 days of permission expiring, and there is a good reason beyond the control of the applicant or their representative why the application could not be made in time; or
• An application is made following the refusal or rejection of a previous in-time application, and within 14 days of the relevant refusal, rejection, expiry of section 3C leave, expiry of the time limit for an appeal or administrative review, or the conclusion, withdrawal, abandonment or lapse of an appeal or administrative review.

There are also specific historic exceptions relating to periods of overstaying during certain COVID-19 and exceptional assurance periods, and certain Hong Kong BN(O) route circumstances.

For further background on the relationship between overstaying, section 3C leave and paragraph 39E, see our earlier articles on overstaying and applying for further leave to remain and Long Residence ILR, section 3C and paragraph 39E.

4. Does This Mean Kaur Has Been Overturned by HC 259?

No. Kaur has not been overturned. The Court of Appeal’s interpretation of the Rules as they stood at the time remains important. The Court decided that paragraph 39E did not itself override a separate immigration bail bar. That remains a correct analysis of the Immigration Rules at the time.

What HC 259 does is change the wording of many route-specific Rules. The amended Rules now create the substantive “anchor” that was missing in Kaur, and which will lead to different outcomes now. In other words, the Rules now expressly say that the immigration bail bar does not apply where the Exceptions for overstayers section of Part Suitability applies.

For applications made or decided under the amended Rules, the Kaur problem should therefore not be relevant. However, the situation remains relevant for applications prior to 3 August 2026.

5. Does Immigration Bail Still Matter After HC 259?

Yes. Immigration bail still matters. The change to the Rules is limited.

An applicant who is on immigration bail will not automatically be able to make a successful in-country application. The new exception only assists where the applicant can bring themselves within SUI 13.1. If the applicant is on immigration bail but does not fall within the Exceptions for overstayers, the immigration bail bar would still prevent most applications from succeeding.

Applicants must also meet all the other validity, eligibility and suitability requirements of their route. For example, a Skilled Worker applicant will still need a valid Certificate of Sponsorship, a genuine eligible role, the required salary, English language ability, and compliance with all other route-specific requirements. HC 259 does not waive those requirements.

Nor does the change restore a person’s previous immigration permission. Home Office guidance confirms that where an application is made after permission has expired, section 3C leave does not apply, the applicant remains an overstayer while the application is pending, and previous conditions are not reinstated. Such an applicant has no permission to work, rent privately or access benefits and social care while an application is pending.

For more general background on the immigration bail framework, see our guide to applying for immigration bail.

6. A Kaur-Type Scenario After 3 August 2026

The practical significance of the change can be seen by taking a Kaur-type example.

An applicant makes an in-time application before their leave expires. That application is refused. Their section 3C leave ends. They are placed on immigration bail. Within 14 days, they submit a Skilled Worker application.

Before HC 259, the Home Office could refuse the Skilled Worker application because the applicant was on immigration bail, even if the short period of overstaying fell within paragraph 39E or SUI 13.1. That was the result in Kaur.

From 3 August 2026, under the amended Appendix Skilled Worker wording, if the applicant falls within SUI 13.1, the application should not be refused solely because the applicant is on immigration bail. It should be considered on its merits.

This is a significant and welcome change for applicants and advisers. It reduces the harsh impact of the previous position, where a person could make an application within the recognised overstayer exception but still be refused because the Home Office had placed them on immigration bail.

7. Timing and Transitional Issues for the HC 259 Changes

The relevant HC 259 amendments take effect on 3 August 2026. Applicants affected by immigration bail should take advice before assuming that the amended Rules will apply to their case. This is particularly important where an application has already been refused, where a decision is pending, or where there is a very short window in which to make a new application.

Where a refusal has already been issued under the old Rules, HC 259 will not necessarily undo that refusal automatically. Depending on the circumstances, it may be necessary to consider administrative review,  judicial review, a request for reconsideration, or a fresh application.

Where an application is pending around the implementation date, careful advice will be needed on which version of the Rules applies and whether any steps should be taken before a decision is made.

8. Practical Points for Applicants and Advisers on Immigration Bail, SUI 13.1 and Section 3C Leave

The first and most important point is that applicants should make sure to avoid overstaying wherever possible. An in-time application remains the safest way to preserve lawful status and, where applicable, section 3C leave.

Second, if a refusal has been received and the applicant is placed on immigration bail, immediate advice should be sought. The 14-day periods in SUI 13.1 are short and strict. Evidence may also be needed to show why an exception applies.

Third, applicants must not assume that an application made within 14 days restores their right to work. Without continuing section 3C leave or another basis for permission, an application made after permission has expired does not reinstate previous conditions while the application is pending.

Fourth, advisers should check the wording of the relevant route. HC 259 amends many routes, but the immigration bail exception is not a universal free-standing rule. The relevant Appendix must still be checked carefully.

Finally, in cases where SUI 13.1 does not apply, it may still be necessary to consider whether the grant of immigration bail can or should be challenged. Kaur remains a warning that any such challenge must be brought promptly and cannot usually be raised later as a collateral challenge to a subsequent refusal.

Applicants and advisers considering challenge options may also wish to review our main UK immigration appeals  service page.

9. Final Thoughts

HC 259 represents a significant shift in the relationship between immigration bail and in-country applications. The amendment directly addresses the harsh consequence identified in Kaur: that an applicant could fall within the short overstayer exception but still be refused solely because they had been placed on immigration bail.

From 3 August 2026, many applicants who are on immigration bail but who fall within SUI 13.1 should have their applications considered on their merits rather than refused automatically on the bail point. However, the change is not a cure-all. The applicant must still fall within the Exceptions for overstayers, must meet all other requirements of the relevant route, and must understand that a late application does not restore previous immigration conditions.

For migrants and advisers dealing with immigration bail and in-country applications, the key lessons remain the same: plan ahead, preserve lawful status wherever possible, act quickly after any refusal, and take specialist advice before making a further application from within the UK.

10. Contact Our Immigration Barristers

Our immigration barristers advise individuals, families and businesses on refusal decisions, immigration bail, administrative review, judicial review, applications under the Exceptions for overstayers and in-country switching strategy.

For expert advice on how Statement of Changes HC 259 and the new Immigration Rules in place from 3 August 2026 may affect your immigration position or options, contact our immigration barristers on 0203 617 9173 or complete our enquiry form.

11. Frequently Asked Questions

Can a person on immigration bail make an in-country application after HC 259?

Potentially, yes, but only if the route-specific Rules permit it and the applicant falls within the Exceptions for overstayers section of Part Suitability. HC 259 does not create a general right for all people on immigration bail to apply from within the UK.

Does the 14-day overstayer exception now overcome the immigration bail bar?

For many amended routes, yes. That is the key change introduced by HC 259. If SUI 13.1 applies, the application should not be refused solely because the applicant is on immigration bail.

Does HC 259 mean Kaur was wrongly decided?

No. Kaur interpreted the Rules as they stood at the time. HC 259 changes the Rules going forward. The Court of Appeal’s reasoning remains relevant to applications and refusals governed by the old wording.

Does an application made under SUI 13.1 give the applicant section 3C leave?

No. Home Office guidance confirms that section 3C leave does not apply to applications made after permission has expired. The applicant remains an overstayer while the application is pending and previous conditions are not reinstated.

Can an applicant work while waiting for a decision on a post-expiry application?

Not unless they have some other lawful basis to work. A person who applies after their permission has expired does not regain their previous work rights simply because the application falls within SUI 13.1.

Does HC 259 remove the immigration bail bar altogether?

No. HC 259 limits the effect of the immigration bail bar in many amended routes where SUI 13.1 applies, but it does not remove the bar altogether.

Does HC 259 apply to all immigration routes?

No. The relevant route-specific Appendix must still be checked. The immigration bail exception is not a universal free-standing rule.

What should an applicant do after a refusal if they are placed on immigration bail?

They should seek advice quickly. The 14-day periods in SUI 13.1 are short and strict, and evidence may be needed to show why an exception applies.