The Rise of “Time Buying” Applications in UK Immigration Law

Immigration law is a heavily regulated area of law largely due to, unfortunately, previous breaches of ethical duty by immigration advisors. There are numerous examples of case law, such as R (Hamid) v Secretary of State  for the Home Department [2012], which reveal the lengths some practitioners will go to gain profit.

One of the most common unethical practices – the making of “time buying” applications – has been on the rise within the field of immigration law. These are meritless claims which are submitted for the mere purpose of buying the client additional time to stay in the UK while they find an alternative route to obtain a visa.

Scenario 1:

Mr Smith arrived in the UK in 2006 on a 6 month’s visitor visa. He overstayed his visit visa by not returning to his home country. He does not have a qualifying partner or children to be eligible for visas on the Partner or Parent route. Consequently, his only way of obtaining a visa is to apply for the Private Life route, for which he needs to have been in the UK continuously for 20 years.  He has one year left before he can apply but his solicitor firm submits time buying applications until he meets the 20-year criteria.

Scenario 2:

Miss Smith arrived in the UK in 2023 as an international student to study for her undergraduate degree. She began missing lectures and tutorials in her second year of university. As a result, she fails to meet the conditions of her student visa. The Home Office cancels her student visa, and her legal representatives advise that she apply for asylum from her home country, despite having no legitimate reasons to do so. Miss Smith accordingly claims asylum under the false pretence of being a homosexual woman from a majority Muslim country and claims that she will be tortured or killed if she were to return to her home country.

Time buying applications are common because they extend an individual’s Section 3C leave.

What is “Section 3C Leave”?

Section 3C leave protects an individual’s right to work and remain in the UK whilst they wait for a decision to be made on their application. It allows the individual to say in the UK legally and ensures continuity in their legal residence whilst applying for an extension of their visa or switching to a different visa.

Section 3C(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 states that this will apply if:
“(a) a person who has limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom applies to the Secretary of State for the variation of the leave
(b) the application for variation is made before the leave expires and

(c) the leave expires without the application for variation having been decided”

This section provides that an individual’s legal residence will continue as long as they apply to extend or switch their visa before their current visa ends, even if their visa finishes whilst waiting for the outcome.

Section 3C(2) goes on to state the conditions for 3C leave to continue:
“(a) the application for variation is neither decided nor withdrawn,
(b) an appeal under section 82(1) of the Nationality, Asylum and Immigration  Act 2002 could be brought… against the decision on the application for  variation

(c) an appeal under that section against that decision is pending]

(d) an administrative review of the decision on the application for variation-

(i) could be sought, or 

(ii) is pending” 

In simple words, the Section 3C leave will continue if:

• An application was made while their previous leave was still valid
• No decision has been made on their application, and it has not been withdrawn
• The applicant has received a decision on the application but there is still time to lodge an appeal or administrative review against it
• The applicant has lodged an appeal or administrative review against the decision, and the appeal or administrative review is pending

Common “time buying” strategies include submitting a fee waiver and then a concurrent leave to remain application, administrative review, lodging an appeal, or making an asylum claim before the expiry of the applicant’s previous valid visa.

“Time buying” practices are well recognised within the community, and there can be no doubt that the government has also caught on to these schemes. In September 2025, the then Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper expressed the need to overhaul the asylum system by warning international students to not overstay their visa by claiming asylum when it ends. Junior caseworkers and paralegals employed by firms who take a less-than-ethical approach often have no choice but to lodge applications for no purpose other than to frustrate the system to buy time. In that respect, there is therefore no shortage of those whose experience could confirm that Yvette Cooper had a legitimate point in this regard.

Similarly, the current Secretary of State for Justice, Shabana Mahood, proposed that asylum claims should be reviewed every 30 months to evaluate whether the conditions of their asylum claim have continued to justify another extension. Reforms like these are proposed to make it more difficult for legal representatives to exploit a system which is already struggling.

The Problem

So, what really is the problem with time buying applications? When a migrant finds themselves in a sticky situation and approaches a legal representative for help, surely the most ethical and humanitarian thing to do would be to offer them assistance however possible?

In practice, this is not the case. As a legal representative, the most ethical thing to do in such a situation is to advise them to find an alternative route to stay in the UK or return to their home country and enter the UK when they can obtain a valid visa.

Time buying applications are not only an exploitation of the provision for 3C leave, but they also cause an unnecessary strain on Home Office resources and create a backlog of applications. Such tactical and unethical use of the law does nothing but undermine the cases of clients with genuine claims. Delays in responses from the Home Office can derail an individual’s life – they can lose access to public funds, be evicted from social housing, and struggle with the inability to work or study.

It is unfair to blame the Home Office for such delays. Home Office caseworkers have a duty to treat each case as a genuine one, despite any suspicions they may have about time buying.

Therefore, “time buying” applications stand as an abuse of process which exploits the plight of vulnerable individuals, who, at the request of corrupt legal representatives, will continue to pay thousands of pounds in legal fees and Home Office fees for endless applications that will inevitably be refused. Not to mention that such applications can have negative consequences for the client. In the future, the Home Office caseworker will assess whether the applicant’s application and their previous immigration history comply with suitability rules, which assess whether an applicant’s character and conduct make them a suitable candidate to stay in or enter the UK. Deception is a key issue within the scope of the suitability rules; if it is determined that the applicant has previously provided false information or documentation, their permission to stay in or enter the UK may be refused. Allegations of deception can lead to a ten-year ban on entering the UK.

The Solution

Overhauling immigration systems on a national scale is simply not enough to prevent legal representatives from finding loopholes to exploit the system for their own profit. Any legal representative found to be lodging meritless applications, appeals and asylum claims risk having their regulatory board take action against them for unethical behaviour, whether it be the Solicitors’  Regulation Authority, the Bar Standards Board to the Immigration Advice  Authority.

Legal practitioners are under strict duty to act ethically.

For solicitors, their profession, as stated on the SRA website, “depends upon trust” and any “unethical behaviour” results in concern about the integrity, independence and honesty of a solicitor. Disciplinary action is likely to be taken where this has been:

• Wilful or reckless disregard of rules, standards, laws or ethics
• Unfair advantage taken of clients or third parties, or enabling others to do so
• Actions which have knowingly or recklessly caused harm, prejudice, or distress
• Misleading of clients or third parties, unless promptly corrected when due to simple error

Where a solicitor acts as such, they act without integrity and are dishonest.

Similarly, barristers are under a strict code of conduct, not dissimilar to that of a solicitor. They also have a core duty to act with honesty, integrity and in a way which does not diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in them or the profession. They also have a duty to never knowingly mislead or attempt to mislead the court by:

• Making submissions, representations or any other statement ; or
• Asking questions which suggest facts to witnesses which they know, or are instructed are untrue or misleading

The Point

Immigration practitioner’s roles exist to balance fairness, compassion, and the integrity of the UK’s legal system. “Time buying” applications, however, represent a clear abuse of process: they exploit Section 3C leave, drain Home Office resources, and ultimately harm both genuine applicants and the wider public’s trust in the profession. While reforms may help to close loopholes, the true safeguard lies in the ethical conduct of legal representatives themselves. Solicitors, Barristers, and IAA-regulated advisors carry a duty to act with honesty, integrity, and respect for the law. When that duty is breached, not only are vulnerable clients placed at risk, but the credibility of the profession as a whole is undermined.

The challenge, therefore, is not simply regulatory—it is moral. Uploading professional standards ensures that immigration law serves its rightful purpose: protecting those with legitimate claims, maintaining public confidence, and preserving the integrity of the justice system.