What amounts to travel disruption in COVID-19 related Long Residence cases?
The legal framework and the Home Office’s approach
The COVID-19 pandemic may have ended as a global emergency, but its impact continues to surface in UK immigration cases, particularly those involving applications for settlement based on ten years’ lawful residence, commonly known as the Long Residence route.
For many applicants, difficulties arise where the total allowable absences of 548 days have been exceeded as a result of lengthy trips abroad during the pandemic. In such cases, applicants may seek to have COVID-19-related absences disregarded on the basis of “travel disruption”.
However, what exactly amounts to travel disruption?
The answer is not always straightforward. Whilst the Immigration Rules expressly recognise, in paragraph CR 3.4 of Appendix Continuous Residence, “travel disruption due to natural disaster, military conflict or pandemic”, they do not define the term “travel disruption”.
The Home Office guidance to caseworkers offers little further clarity
“You should confirm, using publicly available and credible sources, that there was a natural disaster, military conflict or pandemic at the relevant time which caused travel disruption. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office travel advice pages on GOV.UK may be helpful to confirm this. You should normally expect the applicant to provide evidence of how their ability to travel to the UK was affected, for example, evidence of disruption to planned travel arrangements.”
In practice, the key question is whether the applicant’s prolonged absence resulted from circumstances outside their control rather than a voluntary decision to remain abroad.
This distinction is often decisive.
The clearest example of travel disruption involves an applicant who purchased a return ticket to the UK but was unable to travel because the flight was cancelled, rescheduled, or otherwise disrupted by pandemic-related restrictions. Documentary evidence of cancelled flights, airline notifications, border closures, or travel bans can provide compelling proof that the applicant intended to return but was prevented from doing so.
This scenario frequently arose in cases involving international students who returned to their home countries at the beginning of the pandemic following guidance from their educational institutions, only to discover that they were unable to return to the UK because of airline cancellations, lockdowns, or entry restrictions.
However, the reality of the pandemic was often more complicated.
In the early stages of COVID-19, international travel became highly unpredictable. Flight routes were suspended with little notice, entry requirements changed rapidly, and ticket prices increased significantly. Not every individual was in a position to purchase a return ticket before departing the UK.
For such applicants, demonstrating disruption to planned travel arrangements may be considerably more challenging. The challenge can be further compounded where the applicant was able to continue working or studying remotely from abroad. In those circumstances, the Home Office may be tempted to conclude that the applicant simply chose to remain overseas.
Our Immigration Team has represented clients seeking settlement under the Long Residence route in cases of varying complexity. For tailored advice and assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our Immigration Team.
This article is provided for general information only. It is not intended to be and cannot be relied upon as legal advice or otherwise. If you would like to discuss any of the matters covered in this article, please contact us using the contact form or email us on reception@cnsolicitors.com
