UK immigration status has always been relevant to employers, but from February 2026 it becomes a live operational risk for organisations with internationally-mobile staff.
Expanded carrier checks mean immigration status is now being tested earlier and more rigidly, often before an employee even begins their journey to the UK.
For employers, the consequence could be that travel disruption that cannot be resolved at the airport can quickly cascade into wider commercial and compliance issues.
The critical point for employers is that nothing fundamental has changed about who is entitled to enter the UK. What has changed is how that entitlement is verified in practice. Immigration status now exists almost entirely as a digital Home Office record. Where that record cannot be located, accessed or matched to the passport being used, the individual may be treated operationally as having no permission at all, even where lawful status exists.
Immigration Status and Permission to Travel Are Not the Same
Employers often assume that UK immigration status and permission to travel are interchangeable. They are not. Immigration status is the legal permission a person holds to enter or remain in the UK, together with the conditions attached to that permission. Permission to travel is the practical outcome of whether that status can be verified when it is checked.
The risk for employers sits squarely in the gap between the two. An employee may hold settled status, an eVisa or the right of abode, but if the digital record cannot be confirmed against the passport presented, travel may be blocked before departure. The issue is rarely unlawful travel. It is record alignment.
Why Business Travellers Are Being Caught Out
Most failures affecting business travellers are administrative rather than substantive. Common scenarios include passport renewals that have not been updated on the Home Office record, reliance on an expired biometric residence permit, or digital accounts that have never been accessed or verified. Frequent travel history does not mitigate this risk. Carrier systems do not rely on past behaviour. They rely on current data.
Dual nationals and right of abode holders present particular exposure. Where immigration status is linked to one nationality but the employee travels on another passport, carrier systems may not locate valid permission. Right of abode also now depends on digital confirmation rather than historic endorsements. Where that confirmation is not visible, boarding may be refused despite lawful entitlement.
The Business Impact of Failed Status Verification
Missed travel is rarely the end of the issue. Refused boarding can result in missed meetings, delayed projects and reputational impact with clients or partners. In regulated or time-critical sectors, the consequences can escalate quickly and may include contractual breaches or internal escalation.
There is also a compliance dimension. Where an employee cannot enter the UK as expected, employers may need to reassess work location, right to work exposure, payroll treatment or sponsorship planning. What begins as a travel disruption can develop into a broader employment and immigration issue.
What Employers Should Be Doing Now
The practical response for employers is preventative rather than reactive. Immigration status should be treated as something that needs to be tested operationally, not assumed. Employers with internationally mobile staff should identify which employees travel to the UK, understand what form of status they rely on and confirm that their digital records align with the passport they intend to use.
Timing matters. Corrections to Home Office records take time and issues identified close to departure are unlikely to be resolved quickly. Employers should build status checks into travel planning, particularly where passports have been renewed or where employees rely on digital-only evidence.
Takeaway for Employers
The February 2026 changes have not narrowed who can enter the UK, but they will narrow the margin for error. Immigration status now operates as a live dependency for business travel, enforced through systems rather than discretion. Employers that recognise this and plan accordingly can reduce disruption. Those that continue to rely on assumptions are likely to encounter the problem only when travel fails, not before.
Author
Gill Laing is a qualified Legal Researcher & Analyst with niche specialisms in Law, Tax, Human Resources, Immigration & Employment Law.
Gill is a Multiple Business Owner and the Managing Director of Prof Services - a Marketing & Content Agency for the Professional Services Sector.
