The Weekly Round Up: Immigration and Asylum Bill, good character guidance and the rights of children of same-sex couples
6 July 2026
In the news
On Tuesday, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood introduced the Immigration and Asylum Bill to Parliament. The Bill reforms the interpretation of the right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), changes the Modern Slavery regime, establishes a new Independent Immigration Appeals Authority and provides for the recovery of asylum support costs.
According to the accompanying Explanatory Notes, the Bill aims to establish “a firm but fair immigration system” by bringing into effect the Restoring Order and Control reforms announced in November 2025.
The Bill defines ‘family life’ for the purposes of Article 8 of the ECHR as “normally limited to their core cohabiting family” (clause 18(4)).
Section 117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is also amended in the Bill to provide that it will only be unreasonable to expect a child to leave the UK where the child would: (1) receive no education in the new country; (2) face very significant obstacles to integration; or (3) experience a very significant and long-lasting adverse effect as a result of the relocation (clause 19(7)).
The Bill further provides that delays in disclosing modern slavery experiences and material inconsistencies in the information provided will damage a person’s credibility as a victim of modern slavery (clause 36).
It also establishes a body corporate called the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority to determine all types of immigration appeal (clause 1). While senior adjudicators must have practised law for at least two years or have experience in law-related activities, there is no such requirement for executive adjudicators (clause 2).
Additionally, the Bill introduces a new power for the Secretary of State to require people who have received asylum support to contribute to the costs of providing support (clause 23).
In other news
- Nearly nine years after the murder of investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, proceedings began before Malta’s Criminal Court against Yorgen Fenech, the businessman accused of ordering her murder. A previous public inquiry held the Maltese State responsible for the circumstances that led to Caruana Galizia’s assassination, describing an “atmosphere of impunity” that spread “like an octopus” from the Office of the Prime Minister to regulatory institutions and the police. The inquiry found that the murder of Caruana Galizia was intrinsically linked to her investigative work, including her reporting on allegations of administrative abuses and the Panama Papers.
- In a landmark ruling, the US Supreme Court held that children born in the US to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens under the 14th Amendment. The Court ruled that President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to deny birthright citizenship was unlawful.
- On Wednesday, Amnesty International published a report which found that the Sudanese paramilitary Rapid Support Forces had committed crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing during its campaign to seize El Fasher in North Darfur state in Sudan. According to the report, “children where not incidental victims of this violence, they were at its centre”: boys were forcibly recruited, girls were raped, and children were killed while fleeing.
In the courts
Alibiari, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 1623
On Tuesday, the High Court ruled that Home Office guidance on the assessment of whether a person is of good character for the purposes of deciding whether to grant an application for naturalisation as a British citizen was lawful.
Lewis LJ held that the Home Secretary was entitled to take the view that a person’s entry to the UK illegally or arrival without the necessary entry clearance and having made a dangerous journey “normally” demonstrates that the person lacks good character [34]. Lewis LJ noted that illegal entry indicates “a willingness to break or disregard the law”, and irregular arrival demonstrates “a willingness to make dangerous journeys and to use criminal gangs” [34].
The Court dismissed the argument that the guidance treated all cases of illegal entry or irregular arrival as a negative factor and as such failed to recognise that a refugee may not bear any moral responsibility in certain cases. The Court held that the absence of any express references to exceptional circumstances that would meet the requirement for naturalisation did not render the policy misleading when “read fairly and as a whole” [42].
Lewis LJ also noted that if a person who is forced to flee from his country of origin because of a fear of persecution, travels through other countries where he may claim asylum before illegally entering or irregularly arriving in the UK, “he is not doing so because he fears persecution” [53].
The Court also dismissed the claims that the policy discriminated against refugees, contrary to Article 14, read with Article 8, of the ECHR (Ground 2) [48-64], and that the Secretary of State had failed to comply with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (Ground 3) [67-75].
The case concerned Version 6 of the Home Office’s policy Nationality: good character requirement, which was replaced by Version 7 on 30 April 2026 [9].
A.P. AND R.P. v. Poland (App no 1298/19) [2026] ECHR
On Thursday, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Polish authorities’ refusal to grant identity documents to the child of a same-sex couple was a violation of the child’s right to respect for his private life, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the ECHR.
The Court emphasised that a child’s legal position must be safeguarded irrespective of the family structure into which they are born [145]. While recognising that support of the traditional family is in itself legitimate, the Court rejected the Polish Government’s reliance on the need to protect public order and safeguard the traditional family model. The Court reiterated that the concept of family is an evolving one and that protecting families in the traditional way should not call into question the need to protect the children of same-sex couples [145].
The case concerned R. P., the child of a same-sex couple who were both Polish nationals living in the UK in a civil partnership. R. P. acquired Polish citizenship at birth through his biological mother and was therefore entitled to Polish identity documents. However, he was prevented from obtaining those documents because the Polish authorities refused to register his birth certificate on the grounds that it listed two women as his parents.
The Court held that the Polish authorities’ refusal to recognise the legal parent-child relationship already established in the UK had impacted R. P.’s personal identity and had left him in a position of legal uncertainty [137]. The Court emphasised that it was only because the family was subsequently able to confirm R. P.’s British citizenship that he was not effectively rendered stateless [84].
The Court also found that R. P. had suffered discrimination contrary to Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the ECHR on the grounds that the authorities had made a distinction based solely or decisively on considerations relating to his birth into a same-sex family and his parents’ sexual orientation [160].
