As immigration lawyers based in the United Kingdom, it is easy to believe that the world outside our shores no longer exists. Over the past year, the country has become so consumed by the constitutional, political and procedural dramas of the Brexit process that is difficult to focus on the larger picture of change and development in global mobility or even identify the emergence of a clear long-term strategy for immigration and border control. The Brexit timetable has shifted from 29 March to 12 April to 30 June and finally to 31 October 2019. Who knows what the timetable will look like by the time this ninth edition of The Corporate Immigration Review is published.

The points-based system, which is the central framework of UK immigration control for investors, workers and students, remains in place. The only significant change so far in 2019 has been the introduction of new routes for innovators and start-up entrepreneurs, which, at the time of writing, have gained little traction and generated plenty of confusion. Focus and resources at the Home Office have shifted to ensuring the protection of EU citizens' rights under the EU settlement scheme, deal or no-deal – a major task given that there are approximately 3.2 million EU nationals residing in the United Kingdom in exercise of their treaty rights. The protection of citizens' rights is one of the central aims of the Withdrawal Agreement that has been negotiated between the United Kingdom and the European Union and is, at the time of writing, before parliament in Westminster as a 'meaningful vote' pursuant to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Despite three such votes there is little indication so far that the legislature will ratify the Withdrawal Agreement.

The EU Settlement Scheme has had a generally successful launch. In excess of 90 per cent of applications have been approved without hitch. So far, it has met its aim of being transparent, easy to navigate, digital and quick to respond. Only 10 per cent of qualifying residents have so far applied, so there is a long way to go. No amount of technology, however, can dispel the disdain that many resident EU citizens have for a process that they do not believe they should have had to engage with. For many, the emotional impact of Brexit has been more significant than the legal consequences, most of which have yet to take effect.

Regardless of whether we enter a transitional phase following ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement in both the British and EU parliaments, or a no-deal 'cliff-edge' Brexit is the outcome, the British government is committed to an orderly transition to a new set of immigration arrangements, likely to be launched in January 2021. Central to these new arrangements will be measures to 'take back control' of the border as the United Kingdom leaves the single market.

With this in mind, in December 2018, following an extensive piece of research by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), the government published a White Paper on 'The UK's future skills-based immigration system'. Anticipating the country's departure from the freedom of movement pillar of the single market, the new post-Brexit policy approach will be based on a 'one world' system with no preferential access for EU citizens. An autonomous immigration policy will also give government the control mechanisms necessary to enable net migration to be reduced to 'sustainable levels' (for many years defined as below 100,000 per annum). This was, after all, one of the central arguments of the leave campaign as well as being a core policy of the incumbent Prime Minister since she entered government as Home Secretary in 2010.

The government proposes to engage with stakeholders over the course of the next 12 months before refining its proposals into a new set of immigration rules. In tandem, the government is working on a simplification project that aims to change the current set of labyrinthine rules into a new user-friendly, transparent scheme.

Although the current intention is to adopt a 'one-world' approach, this position may change as the negotiations on the future relationship get under way. Much will depend on the character of the United Kingdom's future political leadership. Some form of EU preferential scheme may be the price of a close trading relationship.

It will certainly be necessary to expand the ambit of the United Kingdom's youth mobility and temporary worker schemes to maintain a flow of labour into the United Kingdom to take the 'lower skilled' jobs that will not meet the proposed £30,000 salary threshold under the formal sponsorship scheme. Employers in healthcare, hospitality and construction are particularly concerned about the impact the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the single market will have on their ability to recruit key workers.

At the time of writing, it is uncertain whether the United Kingdom will leave the European Union with or without a deal in place, or indeed whether the United Kingdom will leave at all. It is unclear whether the current political leadership has sufficient authority to remain in place for much longer. In this context, individual Member States across EU27 are making their own domestic arrangements for the regularisation of resident British citizens in their countries in the event of a no-deal 'hard' Brexit. This is because, in the absence of a Withdrawal Agreement containing pan-European provisions on citizens' rights, it falls to individual Member States to implement domestic immigration laws for third-country nationals. Fortunately, most Member States appear to be developing a soft approach to protect the British citizens that have chosen to make their homes across the European Union.

In the United States, immigration policy continues to be a lightning rod for the Trump administration and, with the 2020 election in sight, is anticipated to be a primary strand of the president's attempt to reignite the support of his base. The shift in approach to immigration issues that resulted from the new US political settlement and its focus on protectionist policies has impacted the broad sweep of business and investment routes of entry to the United States, and is not limited to illegal or irregular migration trends.

Key to this is the Buy American Hire American (BAHA) Executive Order, which came into force in 2017 and seeks to protect US economic interests and provide greater employment prospects for US workers.

BAHA refers to the body of law and policy concerning how immigration, visa and guest worker programmes are operated to ensure proper protections for American workers. The executive branch is required to 'rigorously enforce and administer the laws governing entry into the United States of workers from abroad'. Specifically, BAHA demands that the Attorney General, the DOS, the US Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Labor 'as soon as practicable, and consistent with applicable law, propose new rules and issue new guidance if appropriate, to protect the interests of United States workers in the administration of the immigration system, including through the prevention of fraud or abuse'.

As a result, lawyers in the United States have seen a significant shift in the administrative approach to immigration applications, even if the legislative framework itself has not changed substantially. This has distilled into a culture of refusal from the US authorities, notably at the consular level. Practitioners have witnessed an increase in denial rates coupled with ever-growing requests for further evidence, often for indefinable reasons. The application process has become more document- and detail-oriented with additional representations or evidence being the norm rather than the exception. The consequence is that each application now requires substantially more preparation and outcomes are difficult to predict given the lack of consistency in approach to decision-making. Client expectation management is crucial for US immigration practitioners in such an uncertain landscape.

Around the world, national security and border protection continue to be integral issues in the development of immigration policy. Joined-up government (easily sharing data and intelligence across government agencies and public bodies) is a cross-jurisdictional trend. For example, in Australia, a federation of independent security and law enforcement agencies, including the Australian Border Force has been brought together under the Home Affairs Portfolio and the Department of Home Affairs. This whole government approach to security has had an impact on all aspects of immigration with greater scrutiny and monitoring by Australian Border Force Officers. The restrictive reforms that we see in Australia, including an increased focus on the security of systems, use of metadata and a whole-of-government approach are trends that can be seen worldwide.

As ever, immigration practitioners around the world are at the centre of a complex web of political, legal, compliance and regulatory developments. The contributors to this text are leaders in the field.

We would like to thank all of the contributors to this latest edition of The Corporate Immigration Law Review for their sterling input.

Chris Magrath and Ben Sheldrick
Magrath Sheldrick LLP
London
May 2019