Child Settlement Visa UK: Part 8 Immigration Rule Changes from 26 March 2026

Part 8 of the Immigration Rules – children with parents settled in the UK

The immigration rules for family visas come in two parts: Appendix Family Members (Appendix FM) and Part 8. 

This blog is about Part 8, which contains inter alia the rules for children with a parent or parents who hold(s) either settlement or British citizenship. (The typical expression for this is “present and settled in the UK”.)

On 26th March, with the latest Statement of Changes, these rules are going to change, as we explain below.

Under the “old rules” a child (ie a person under 18) could apply to enter the UK with indefinite leave to enter in certain circumstances. (Indefinite leave to enter is immediate settlement, ie the child would enter the UK with settlement already granted.) 

The circumstances were these: for example, both parents were present and settled in the UK – or, more rarely, both parents were being granted present and settled status in the UK. 

And, for other examples, where only one parent held (or will hold) present and settled status, where the other parent is dead, or where the one parent has sole responsibility for the child’s upbringing. 

But there was another part of the rule (called 297(i)(f)) which said that the child could be granted indefinite leave to enter where “one parent or a relative is present and settled in the United Kingdom [or is being so granted] … and there are serious and compelling family or other considerations which make exclusion of the child undesirable”. This is all the rule said; it did not say anything about the other parent. So the other parent might be outside the UK, they might be in the UK with some sort of immigration status or other, or they might even be in the UK illegally. 

This matter came into focus recently with a case in the Court of Appeal called “Kone”. Ms Kone wanted to take advantage of rule 297(i)(f) and eventually she succeeded but the Home Office was evidently unwilling to grant her indefinite leave. They were so unwilling that they even wanted to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision but the court (appropriately we thought) refused permission.

The issue was this: the Home Office thought for some obscure reason that she should not be entitled to indefinite leave to enter, and that she should only be entitled to limited leave to enter (which she was in fact granted), because her father was a British citizen but her mother was in the UK with limited leave. This was despite the fact that the rule (which had incidentally been written by the Home Office) contained no such provision. You might think that it was rather strange that the higher courts were prepared to entertain this appeal at all – well, we did at any rate 

The Home Office was now evidently thoroughly embittered, and in the most recent statement of changes they have changed rule 297(i)(f) so that it will state as follows: “one parent or a close relative is present and settled in the United Kingdom [or is so being granted] … their other parent does not have (and is not being granted) limited leave in the UK and there are serious and compelling reasons to grant the applicant settlement”.

This throws a very different complexion on things. Someone in Ms Kone’s situation would now be in difficulties, as their other parent holds limited leave, and they would not qualify for indefinite leave to enter. 

If you think that all this and all this jiggery-pokery are confusing you may be right.

So, to summarise the most relevant points about indefinite leave to enter for a child from 26th March onwards: 

• If both parents are present and settled in the UK, or will be, an application for indefinite leave to enter may be possible.
• If one parent is present and settled in the UK and the other parent does not hold limited leave, and there are special and compelling circumstances, an application for indefinite leave to enter may be possible. 
• But if one parent is present and settled in the UK and the other parent has limited leave an application for indefinite leave to enter is not possible.

Now of course this is all about indefinite leave to enter. Depending on what sort of limited leave a parent holds it may be possible for the child to apply for limited leave to enter – as indeed we saw from the “Kone” case. So, for example, if the other parent holds limited leave under Appendix FM it may be possible for the child to apply for limited leave to enter under Appendix FM as the parent’s dependant.

Part 8 of the Immigration Rules is in any case a confusing area, and to be frank it is a real mess and it desperately needs to be tidied up – and we would not be the first to point this out. 

Anyway, if you are affected by these provisions we at GSN Immigration will do our best to advise you.

Oliver Westmoreland

Senior Immigration Lawyer