From 11 November 2025, the UK Immigration Rules underwent one of their most consequential structural changes in recent years the replacement of Part 9 Grounds for Refusal with a new unified framework known as Part Suitability, introduced via HC 1333 Statement of Changes published on 14 October 2025.
This is not merely a renaming exercise. The shift fundamentally alters how the Home Office assesses character, conduct, and public interest across nearly every visa route and its impact is most acutely felt by those applying under family and private life routes.
What Is Part Suitability?
Part Suitability now serves as the “central reference point for all suitability-related refusal and cancellation grounds” operating through a SUI numbering system SUI 1.1 through SUI 39.1. It distinguishes between two types of decision: mandatory grounds, where an application must be refused with no caseworker discretion, and discretionary grounds, where an application may be refused based on the individual facts. Part Suitability applies to virtually all immigration routes, with limited exceptions including Appendix EU, Appendix EU (Family Permit), most of Part 11 (Asylum), Appendix Settlement Protection, and Appendix Electronic Travel Authorisation.
Mandatory Refusal Grounds
The mandatory grounds are absolutely no mitigating evidence, no discretion, no exceptions (except for ECHR compatibility). Under SUI 5.1, an application must be refused where an applicant has received a custodial sentence of 12 months or more for a criminal offence, whether in the UK or overseas, regardless of how long ago the conviction occurred. Mandatory refusal also applies where an applicant is subject to an exclusion or deportation order (SUI 2.1), where their presence is not conducive to the public good (SUI 3.1), or where they are persistent offenders showing particular disregard for the law or have committed offences causing serious harm (SUI 5.1(b)(c)). Where proven deception is established on the balance of probabilities through false representations, false documents, or failure to disclose material facts refusal under SUI 9.1 is also mandatory, triggering a 10-year re-entry ban.
Discretionary Refusal Grounds
Discretionary grounds under SUI 5.3 cover custodial sentences under 12 months, non-custodial sentences, and out-of-court disposals, where caseworkers retain the ability to weigh circumstances. Other discretionary grounds include involvement in a sham marriage (SUI 8.1), false representations without proven dishonest intent (SUI 10.1), outstanding NHS charges exceeding £500 (SUI 16.1), and unpaid Home Office litigation costs (SUI 17.1). The critical distinction between deception (mandatory, requires deliberate dishonesty per AA (Nigeria) EWCA Civ 773) and false representations (discretionary, covers innocent errors) remains legally significant and should always be carefully assessed before and during any application.
The Most Impactful Change: Family and Private Life Routes
Prior to 11 November 2025, Appendix FM applicants benefited from bespoke and comparatively generous suitability provisions. Crucially, the criminality thresholds at paragraphs9.4.1–9.4.4 of the old Part 9 did not apply to Appendix FM applicants meaning a sponsor’s or applicant’s conviction history was assessed under a softer regime. That flexibility is now gone. Part Suitability applies in full to Appendix FM (spouse, partner, parent, and child visas), Appendix Private Life, Appendix Adult Dependent Relative, and Appendix Settlement Family Life.
Most significantly, Appendix FM previously allowed that a custodial sentence of between 12 months and 4 years would not mandate refusal once 10 years had passed since the end of the sentence a critical escape valve for applicants with older convictions. That provision has been deleted entirely. There are no transitional arrangements, and applications submitted before 11 November 2025 but decided after that date are assessed under the new framework. The consequence is severe: a spouse visa applicant with a 10-year-old conviction carrying a 13-month sentence now faces mandatory refusal with no route-specific flexibility to fall back on.
The New Safeguarding Ground
A new mandatory refusal ground was also introduced specifically for Appendix FM entry clearance applications. Under SUI 6.1, an application must be refused if the decision-maker considers that an applicant’s parent or parent’s partner poses a risk to the applicant. This is a safeguarding measure with no equivalent in the old Part 9, and its implications for child-related family applications deserve close attention in practice.
Re-Entry Bans and Immigration Breaches
Under SUI 12.1, mandatory refusal periods for immigration breaches range from 12 months to 10 years depending on the nature of the breach, whether removal was at public expense, and whether the person departed voluntarily. Applicants who overstay but leave voluntarily at their own expense within 30 days (after 6 April 2017) may have the overstaying disregarded under SUI 13.1. The former paragraph 39E grace period permitting applications made within 14 days of visa expiry with good reason is preserved at SUI 13.1.
Human Rights Considerations and the ECHR
Decision-makers remain obliged to ensure refusals are compatible with the UK’s ECHR obligations. However, amendments to Appendix FM now limit the operation of GEN.3.2 the exceptional circumstances override in cases where mandatory suitability grounds are engaged. The threshold for an Article 8 override has always been high, and these amendments tighten it further. Applicants relying on private and family life arguments to defeat a suitability refusal will face a significantly harder battle than they would have pre-November 2025.
Practical Implications for Practitioners
Part Suitability creates an urgent obligation on practitioners to conduct thorough pre-application suitability audits reviewing criminal records including spent and overseas convictions, full immigration history, any previous deception findings, and outstanding NHS or litigation debts. Where mandatory grounds are engaged, the only realistic pathway is either demonstrating that the ECHR threshold is met, awaiting expiry of a re-entry ban period, or challenging a refusal by way of human rights appeal or judicial review. The absence of transitional provisions and the retrospective reach of the new criminality thresholds will inevitably generate litigation particularly from settled families facing separation where previously rehabilitated convictions were never expected to resurface as immigration barriers.
