Author: gsc-admin

London law firms Seddons and GSC Solicitors complete merger to launch £22m full-service firm Seddons GSC

Tuesday, 1st April 2025: West End law firm Seddons and City law firm GSC Solicitors have finalised their merger, which was first announced in early March. The newly merged firm, which will operate under the name Seddons GSC LLP, is a full-service law firm of more than 150 people, with a £22m annual turnover. The firm will be based in Seddons’ expanded London premises in Fitzrovia.

The strategic merger brings together each firm’s complementary expertise for an enhanced client offering and service. Seddons GSC will service clients across real estate, dispute resolution and intellectual property, commercial, private client and family matters, as a full-service law firm, advising clients based both in the UK and overseas.

The merger is accompanied by the launch of a new brand identity and website for Seddons GSC (www.seddons-gsc.com), to reflect the unity of the combined firms and showcase the expertise and talent at the firm. Seddons GSC will focus on delivering excellent service and value for its clients and leverage its increased strength and depth to be an employer of choice and offer enhanced opportunities to both existing members of the firm and potential future talent.

The firm’s 43 Partners will be led by Seddons’ Managing Partner Simon Ross, who becomes the Managing Partner of Seddons GSC, and Saleem Sheikh, who was Senior Partner of GSC Solicitors and becomes the Senior Partner of Seddons GSC.

Simon Ross, Managing Partner of Seddons GSC, comments:

“From the start we knew this merger would present a range of opportunities for both firms. Not only will it expand our offerings and ability to work with a wider variety of clients, but it will provide an exciting proposition for potential recruits. There was undeniable synergy between the values and cultures of our two firms, and that is easy to see in our new brand identity. Seddons GSC is now positioned to bring a compelling proposition to the wider market, and I have no doubt we have an exciting and successful future ahead.”

Saleem Sheikh, Senior Partner of Seddons GSC, said:

“What is clear about this merger is the increased level of depth it offers our longstanding clients both in the UK and internationally. This is a milestone moment, not only for our teams but also for the clients we have advised and supported over the years as we bring our strategic vision to life. I am confident that as Seddons GSC we will have a bright future and cultivate some incredible talent.”

Absence from the UK Under the EU Settlement Scheme

The EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) grants pre-settled status (limited leave) for five years or settled status (indefinite leave) based on continuous residence in the UK. Understanding how absences affect this status is crucial for EU/EEA/Swiss citizens and their family members.

Continuous Residence

To qualify for settled status, applicants must complete five years of continuous residence, meaning they:

  • Were in the UK before 31 December 2020 (unless a joining family member), and
  • Have not broken continuous residence with excessive absences.

Permitted Absences

During the five-year qualifying period, an individual can be absent for:

  • Up to six months in any rolling 12-month period for any reason.
  • One absence of up to 12 months for an “important reason” (e.g., study, work, illness, childbirth, or an overseas posting).

Covid-19 Absences

The Home Office adapted EUSS rules to account for Covid-19 disruptions:

  • Absences up to 12 months due to Covid-19 (illness, border closures, travel restrictions) do not break continuous residence.
  • Some longer absences may be accepted with justification and supporting evidence.
  • Any absence beyond 12 months pauses the qualifying period, extending the time required to reach five years.

Multiple Extended Absences

The scheme allows two extended absences – one for an important reason (up to 12 months) and one related to Covid-19 (which may exceed 12 months). However, absences beyond 12 months extend the qualifying period.

Absences After Settled Status Once granted settled status, a person can:

  • Spend up to five consecutive years outside the UK without losing status.
  • Swiss citizens and their family members can stay abroad for up to four years.

Breaking Continuous Residence

  • If continuous residence is broken, an applicant cannot qualify for settled status.
  • Pre-settled status holders may not lose status immediately, as the Home Office must assess proportionality before revoking it.

What Should You Do?

If you are unsure whether absences affect your status or need help securing settled status, GSC Solicitors LLP can provide expert legal guidance.

Contact us today to talk to our expert team.

Absences from the UK can impact EUSS status, but exceptions exist. Understanding these rules ensures compliance and protects residency rights. If you need support navigating the EU Settlement Scheme, contact GSC Solicitors LLP for tailored advice.

Home Office Extends eVisa Grace Period Until June 2025

The Home Office has announced an extension of the eVisa transition grace period, now set to end on 1 June 2025 instead of the previously scheduled 31 March 2025. This extension allows individuals with Biometric Residence Permits (BRPs) or EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) Biometric Residence Cards (BRCs) that expired on or after 31 December 2024 to continue using their documents for international travel until the new deadline.

Key Changes & Implications

From 2 June 2025, expired BRPs and EUSS BRCs will no longer be accepted as proof of immigration status for travel to the UK. The Home Office has confirmed that there will be no further extensions beyond this date.

The decision follows concerns over the initial deadline of 31 March 2025, which some feared could lead to disruption for individuals still transitioning to the new digital eVisa system. The grace period extension is intended to ensure a smoother transition, reducing the risk of individuals facing difficulties at border control.

Current Progress & eVisa Adoption

To date, the Home Office reports that over 4 million people have successfully transitioned to an eVisa by creating a UK Visas & Immigration (UKVI) account. However, an estimated 600,000 individuals are yet to switch from their physical immigration documents to the digital system.

Minister for Migration and Citizenship, Seema Malhotra, noted that while most individuals have successfully migrated to eVisas, the government remains committed to supporting those who have yet to take action. The extension is part of broader efforts to ensure a seamless transition to digital immigration status.

What Individuals Need to Do

The Home Office is urging those who have not yet accessed their eVisa to do so as soon as possible. Steps include:

  • Creating a UKVI account to access and manage immigration status.
  • Ensuring passports or travel documents are linked to the eVisa for smooth verification when travelling.
  • Generating a share code via the View and Prove service to provide evidence of immigration status to third parties, such as employers or landlords.

For individuals travelling internationally, the government advises carrying a valid travel document linked to the eVisa. Additional guidance can be found on gov.uk.

Ensuring a Smooth Transition

The Home Office continues to monitor the transition and work with stakeholders to ensure minimal disruption. Affected individuals should take immediate steps to access their eVisa before the final 1 June 2025 deadline.

For more information on immigration status and compliance, contact GSC Solicitors LLP. Our team can assist with legal guidance on UK immigration regulations and the eVisa transition process.

Conclusion

The extension of the eVisa grace period provides much-needed flexibility for individuals still transitioning to the digital system. However, with the final deadline set for 1 June 2025, those affected should ensure they take the necessary steps to update their status and avoid travel complications. The move to eVisas is part of the government’s broader strategy to create a more secure and streamlined digital immigration system for the UK.

If you need legal advice or assistance with the eVisa transition, GSC Solicitors LLP is here to help.

UK Creative Industries Oppose AI Copyright Exemption Proposal

A coalition of writers, musicians, filmmakers, and media organisations has rejected the UK government’s proposal to allow AI firms to train algorithms on copyrighted content without prior permission. The plan has sparked debate over balancing innovation and intellectual property rights.

Background

The Labour government proposed an opt-out system, allowing companies like OpenAI, Google, and Meta to use published works unless rights holders explicitly refuse. The policy aims to support AI development but has drawn criticism from the creative sector.

Creative Industry Response

The Creative Rights in AI Coalition (Crac), including the British Phonographic Industry, Motion Picture Association, and major media organisations, strongly opposes the exemption. They argue that AI developers should seek permission, negotiate licenses, and compensate creators.

Government’s Perspective

Technology Minister Chris Bryant supports the exemption, stating that a restrictive regime could force AI developers to train on UK content accessed abroad while limiting AI deployment within the country. The government launched a 10-week consultation to gather feedback.

Economic Impact

The creative industries contribute billions to the UK economy. Critics warn that unlicensed AI training could devalue creative work, reduce revenue, and harm economic growth. AI firms, however, argue that easing restrictions could drive innovation and attract investment.

Industry and Public Reaction

High-profile artists, including Paul McCartney, Kate Bush, and Stephen Fry, have signed a petition urging stronger copyright protections. Critics compare the exemption to requiring shop owners to opt out of theft rather than preventing it.

Parliamentary Debate

The proposal has faced scrutiny in Parliament, with some MPs arguing that it favours tech industry lobbying. Others insist a balance must be struck between AI advancement and safeguarding intellectual property rights.

How GSC Solicitors Can Help

As AI and copyright laws evolve, GSC Solicitors LLP provides expert legal guidance to content creators, publishers, and media businesses. We help clients protect their intellectual assets and navigate legal challenges in the digital era. If AI developments impact your copyright or media rights, our team is here to assist.

Conclusion

The debate over AI and copyright law continues, with significant implications for creators, businesses, and the economy. While AI firms push for greater data access, the creative sector demands stronger protections to uphold intellectual property rights. The outcome of this consultation will shape the future of AI development and copyright enforcement in the UK.

London law firms Seddons and GSC Solicitors to merge, creating full-service firm

Thursday, 6th March 2025

West End law firm Seddons and City law firm GSC Solicitors,  are pleased to announce that they have agreed to merge, with completion to take place on 1 April 2025. The merger will create a full-service law firm of over 150 people. On completion, the merged firm will be known as Seddons GSC LLP,  and will move into Seddons’ expanded London premises.

Seddons is a 31-partner law firm based in Fitzrovia, with particular expertise in real estate, corporate, dispute resolution, private client and family law. GSC Solicitors, with over 53 years of history, specialises in corporate, commercial, real estate, dispute resolution and intellectual property work. The merger will bring together each firm’s complementary expertise to create a full-service law firm. Seddons GSC will leverage its combined strength and depth to seek growth across all practice areas.

The Partners of GSC Solicitors will become Partners in the merged firm creating a combined partnership of 43 Partners. Simon Ross will continue as Managing Partner of Seddons GSC, working with Saleem Sheikh, Senior Partner of GSC Solicitors, who will assume the position of Senior Partner of Seddons GSC.

Simon Ross, Managing Partner of Seddons, comments:

“The merger of Seddons and GSC Solicitors is exciting news for our people and clients. It was apparent from our first discussions that a real synergy exists between our firms. We both regard culture as key, putting people first, whilst ensuring that our clients can experience the best possible service delivered in a timely and cost-effective way.

Together, we will take advantage of new exciting opportunities and provide our existing clients with an enhanced level of service and expertise. The merger strengthens our combined offering to both our existing client bases, and provides the perfect platform for our future growth.

We look forward to working with our new colleagues to create an exciting and successful future together.”

Saleem Sheikh, Senior Partner of GSC Solicitors, said:

“This merger marks an exciting new chapter for both GSC Solicitors and Seddons.   Our firms have a deep-rooted commitment to excellence, innovation, and client service, making this partnership a natural fit.

By joining forces, we are enhancing our ability to serve our clients with an even greater depth of expertise and a broader range of legal services.  This is a milestone moment, not only for our teams but also for the clients we have advised and supported over the years.

Together as Seddons GSC, we are well-positioned to drive future growth, strengthen our market presence, and build on our shared legacy of providing outstanding legal services.  I look forward to working with Simon, our new colleagues, and our valued clients as we embark on this exciting journey.”

High Court Dismisses Challenge to Refusal to Relocate Diego Garcia Refugee to the UK

The High Court has dismissed a legal challenge brought by KP, a Sri Lankan national seeking relocation to the UK after being excluded from an asylum arrangement for refugees on Diego Garcia. Despite being recognised as in need of international protection, KP was denied entry due to his criminal convictions. The case, R (KP) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs & Anor [2025] EWHC 370 (Admin), underscores the complexities of balancing humanitarian considerations with public safety concerns.

Background KP, an ethnic Tamil from Sri Lanka, has a history of mental health issues, self-harm, and suicide attempts while on Diego Garcia. The British Indian Ocean Territory acknowledged that he had been subjected to torture and sexual abuse by Sri Lankan military personnel. Despite this, KP was excluded from a November 2024 decision that granted 61 other asylum seekers leave to enter the UK due to his prior criminal convictions, including arson, sexual assault, and a recent conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

Given the impossibility of leaving him on Diego Garcia indefinitely, the UK government explored relocating him to a third country. A plan to transfer him to Montserrat’s HMP Brades was abandoned in January 2025 due to the short remainder of his sentence. The government continued to engage with other potential host countries, though KP’s criminal history posed a significant barrier to securing agreement.

A medico-legal report from February 2025 highlighted KP’s ongoing struggles with post-traumatic stress disorder and the detrimental impact of his indefinite detention. His continued presence in a detention-like environment was exacerbating his mental health issues and increasing the risk of serious harm or suicide.

Judicial Review Proceedings KP challenged the decision to exclude him from relocation to the UK, arguing that the government had failed to adequately consider his vulnerabilities and the risks he faced on Diego Garcia. The High Court reviewed the case under the heightened scrutiny standard for rationality, examining both procedural and substantive aspects of the government’s decision-making.

While the court acknowledged concerns regarding the feasibility of relocating KP to a third country, it ultimately concluded that the UK government’s refusal to admit him was legally justified. The court emphasised that:

  1. The government had made reasonable efforts to identify a third country willing to accept KP, with discussions ongoing with multiple nations.
  2. The risks to KP’s health and safety were acknowledged, but there was no absolute obligation to eliminate such risks entirely.
  3. The decision to exclude KP from entry to the UK was made within a broad margin of discretion afforded to the government, particularly given concerns about public safety and confidence in the immigration system.

The court found that relocating KP to the UK could undermine the UK’s commitments to tackling violence against women and girls, as well as pose risks to public safety. The judgment stressed that ministerial discretion in such high-profile cases should be given substantial deference.

Conclusion The judicial review was ultimately dismissed, though the court granted permission for the challenge to proceed in recognition of the case’s complexity. While KP’s legal options for challenging his exclusion from the UK may be limited, the case remains fluid. If no safe third country is found to accept him in the near future, the government’s position may become untenable, potentially leading to renewed legal challenges and a different outcome.

Navigating the UK’s Housing Shortage: Planning Challenges and Legal Solutions

The UK government has set an ambitious target of 1.5 million new homes in England over the next five years, yet recent data highlights a record-low rate of planning approvals. With planning permissions declining and developers facing economic and regulatory uncertainties, the path to achieving these targets remains challenging.

Planning Obstacles and Market Challenges

Recent statistics show that planning approvals are at their lowest level since records began in 1979, with only 31,562 housing projects granted permission in the year to June 2024. Developers are becoming more cautious due to:

  • High property prices and mortgage rates discouraging new home buyers.
  • Housing associations focusing on existing stock rather than new builds.
  • Investor concerns over tax and regulatory changes, reducing funding for new developments.
  • Planning system delays and opposition from local activists, slowing approvals.

While the government is exploring planning reforms such as “planning passports” to streamline approvals, these measures will take time to implement and their impact remains uncertain.

How GSC Solicitors Can Help

At GSC Solicitors LLP, we provide comprehensive legal support for real estate, planning, and property development matters. Our expertise spans planning applications, development projects, commercial and residential transactions, and property disputes. We work closely with developers, investors, and businesses to navigate complex legal requirements and overcome planning challenges.

Our team is well-versed in the evolving regulatory landscape, helping clients stay ahead of policy changes and secure successful outcomes in planning and real estate matters.

The Future of Housing and Planning

With planning reforms on the horizon and housing supply struggling to meet demand, developers, investors, and local authorities must be proactive in adapting to changes. Understanding planning laws, leveraging legal expertise, and strategically engaging with policymakers will be crucial in shaping the future of UK housing.

For expert legal guidance on planning law and real estate development, contact GSC Solicitors LLP today.

Upper Tribunal Dismisses Judicial Review in Case of Parents Seeking Reunification with Young Children

The Upper Tribunal has dismissed a judicial review in the case of R (EK & Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (JR-2024-LON-002556), involving a Turkish Kurdish family separated during a Channel crossing attempt. Despite the parents’ efforts to reunite with their young children, aged nine and six, who arrived in the UK, the tribunal ruled against the judicial review, emphasising public interest considerations and the potential implications for future cases.

Background

The family was separated during a Channel crossing in July 2024, with the children entering the UK while the parents remained in France. On 21 August 2024, the parents applied for entry clearance to reunite with their children. Delays in processing led to judicial review proceedings initiated on 30 September 2024, arguing breaches of Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Section 55 duty regarding children’s welfare.

Initially, the Upper Tribunal granted an interim order, but the Home Office successfully challenged this, with the Court of Appeal setting it aside on 20 December 2024. Shortly after, on 30 December 2024, the Home Office issued refusals of entry clearance, citing concerns over creating a precedent that could encourage smugglers to exploit children as a means for parents to gain entry.

Judicial Review Proceedings

In January 2025, the parents sought to withdraw the judicial review, arguing that the appeal before the First-tier Tribunal rendered the case academic. However, the Home Office opposed the withdrawal, accusing the parents’ legal team of strategic manipulation to avoid a negative ruling and arguing that the case raised significant public interest issues.

The tribunal refused consent to withdraw the judicial review, agreeing that the case involved important public interest questions and could inform ongoing family law proceedings concerning the children’s best interests.

Tribunal’s Decision

The tribunal ultimately dismissed the judicial review, relying heavily on the Court of Appeal’s prior findings. It determined that:

  • Article 8 (Right to Family Life): The tribunal found no breach of Article 8, as the Home Office’s decision prioritised public interest concerns, particularly the risk of encouraging dangerous smuggling practices.
  • Article 3 (Prohibition of Inhuman or Degrading Treatment): The distress experienced by the children did not meet the Article 3 threshold. The tribunal emphasised that reunification could feasibly occur in France, reducing the severity of the separation’s impact.

The tribunal also acknowledged the speculative nature of some Home Office arguments but ultimately accepted the government’s position that allowing the parents entry could incentivise harmful migration practices.

Implications and Conclusion

This case underscores the Home Office’s commitment to a firm stance on immigration controls, even at the risk of prolonged family separations. The tribunal’s decision highlights the tension between safeguarding public interest and upholding human rights, particularly the rights of children.

While the family may now have a clearer path to reunification in France, the prolonged separation raises concerns about the emotional and psychological toll on the young children involved. The case also sets a precedent regarding the government’s approach to similar family reunification claims, especially in contexts involving irregular migration.

Practitioners should closely monitor developments in this area, particularly the pending appeals before the First-tier Tribunal, which may further clarify the legal landscape concerning family reunification and the rights of children under the ECHR.

Need Expert Immigration Advice?

For personalised guidance and expert legal advice on immigration matters, including complex family reunification cases, contact GSC Solicitors. Our experienced immigration lawyers are dedicated to helping families navigate the legal process and achieve the best possible outcomes.

Court of Appeal Returns Deprivation Appeal to Upper Tribunal

The Court of Appeal has ruled on the latest deprivation case, Secretary of State for the Home Department v Daci [2025] EWCA Civ 18, allowing the Home Secretary’s appeal but remitting the case to the Upper Tribunal to consider the Article 8 rights of the appellant. This case follows two other recent appeals by the Home Secretary in deprivation matters, marking a significant legal development in citizenship law.

Background

Mr. Daci, an Albanian national, arrived in the UK as a 17-year-old asylum seeker in 1998, using a false Kosovan identity. He was granted indefinite leave to remain as a refugee in 1999 and later naturalised as a British citizen under the false identity in 2004. However, in 2020, the Home Office discovered his true identity, leading to a deprivation of citizenship notice in 2021 under Section 40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981.

Tribunal Decisions and Appeal

  • First-Tier Tribunal (April 2022): Allowed Mr. Daci’s appeal against deprivation.
  • Upper Tribunal (August 2023): Set aside the FTT decision but again ruled in Daci’s favour, citing improper exercise of discretion by the Home Secretary.
  • Court of Appeal (2025): Overturned the Upper Tribunal’s decision, ruling that the Home Secretary had provided adequate reasons for exercising discretion but remitted the case for Article 8 ECHR considerations.

Key Legal Issues

The Court of Appeal assessed three critical legal points:

  1. Discretion Under Section 40(3): The court found that the Home Secretary had properly exercised discretion and provided sufficient reasoning in the deprivation decision.
  2. Lawfulness & Proportionality: The decision aligned with Home Office policy and was deemed not disproportionate.
  3. Article 8 ECHR Claim: Since the Upper Tribunal had not considered Mr. Daci’s human rights arguments, the Court of Appeal remitted this issue for further review.

Implications for Future Cases

This ruling, alongside recent decisions in Chaudhry v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 16, provides further clarity on how courts handle deprivation cases under Section 40(3). Given the Home Office’s renewed focus on deprivation appeals, legal practitioners should stay updated on emerging case law, particularly on the reliance of Article 8 arguments in these appeals.

Looking Ahead

With two deprivation cases now returned to the tribunal and a potential Supreme Court challenge in Kolicaj, the trajectory of deprivation appeals remains uncertain. The recent ICIBI inspection highlights growing Home Office frustrations, especially as nearly 25% of deprivation appeals succeeded in 2022. Practitioners should closely monitor these developments and prepare for possible shifts in legal interpretations.

For expert legal insights on citizenship and deprivation cases, stay informed with our latest updates.

Good Character Guidance Amended to Block Refugees from Naturalisation

Recent amendments to the Home Office’s Good Character guidance have introduced significant barriers for refugees seeking naturalisation as British citizens. These changes, which took effect from 10 February 2025, are already preventing a substantial number of refugees from securing British citizenship based on their mode of entry into the UK. While described as a “clarification” rather than a change, the updated guidance is having severe consequences for those affected.

Key Changes in the Guidance For UK Naturalisation

Illegal Entry and Naturalisation

The revised guidance explicitly states that from 10 February 2025, any person applying for British citizenship who previously entered the UK illegally will normally be refused, irrespective of how much time has passed since their entry.

  • Before 10 February 2025: Illegal entry will still be considered, but applications will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
  • From 10 February 2025: Any applicant with a history of illegal entry will face an automatic presumption of refusal.

Currently, the policy allows the Home Office to refuse citizenship applications where illegal entry occurred within the past ten years. The new guidance extends this restriction indefinitely, effectively banning affected individuals from ever becoming British citizens.

Arrival via Dangerous Journeys

A further addition to the guidance specifies that individuals who arrived without valid entry clearance via a dangerous journey will normally be refused citizenship.

  • A dangerous journey includes travel by small boat, hidden in a vehicle, or other covert methods.
  • This does not apply to those arriving via commercial airlines as passengers.

This provision disproportionately affects refugees, as many have no safe and legal routes to reach the UK and must resort to such journeys to claim asylum.

Impact on Refugees and the Naturalisation Process

The naturalisation process in the UK is already costly and does not include a formal right of appeal in case of refusal. The guidance states that refusals will “normally” occur, allowing some room for discretion. However, this change will likely deter many eligible individuals from even attempting to apply.

Data suggests that 62% of Labour voters support refugees being able to naturalise regardless of their method of arrival. Yet, this policy change, which lacks broad political support, serves to further isolate and exclude refugees from full participation in British society.

Connection to the Illegal Migration Act 2023

The Home Office appears to be positioning this change as a replacement for the citizenship ban contained within the Illegal Migration Act 2023. That ban was widely criticised for explicitly targeting refugees, and the new guidance echoes those exclusions by penalising individuals who arrive via dangerous journeys.

Historically, some guidance has suggested that certain categories of individuals—such as victims of trafficking—could have their cases considered more leniently. However, the new changes make no such distinctions explicit, leaving substantial uncertainty for refugees who may have been forced to travel illegally.

Violation of the Refugee Convention

The new guidance appears to conflict with Article 31 of the Refugee Convention, which protects refugees from penalties for illegal entry if they:

  • Travelled directly from a country where they feared persecution.
  • Presented themselves to the authorities without delay.
  • Showed good cause for their illegal entry.

The previous versions of the guidance at least acknowledged the need to assess asylum claims on a case-by-case basis with reference to Article 31. The omission of these considerations in the latest amendments suggests a significant departure from international legal norms.

Implications of the New Guidance and Legal Considerations

These changes introduce significant restrictions on naturalisation, affecting individuals who may have been granted leave to remain rather than refugee status. The guidance does not distinguish between different circumstances of illegal entry, which may impact a broad range of applicants seeking British citizenship.

Conclusion

The updated Good Character guidance introduces new restrictions on naturalisation, affecting individuals who may have entered the UK illegally. Given the high application fees and lack of an appeal process, these changes could significantly impact those seeking British citizenship.

GSC Solicitors LLP provides expert legal advice on UK immigration and naturalisation. While the new restrictions may limit naturalisation for certain individuals, our team can assess individual circumstances to explore possible legal avenues. We can advise on alternative immigration routes, eligibility for discretion under the guidance, and potential challenges to refusals where applicable. Contact us for further guidance on how these changes may affect your case.

For further legal advice on UK immigration and naturalisation, contact GSC Solicitors LLP.