David is a DPhil candidate in the School of Geography and the Environment at the University of Oxford. His doctoral research examines the settlement trajectories of Hong Kong migrants in the UK under the British National (Overseas) visa scheme (BN(O).
On 31 January 2021, the UK government introduced a special immigration route: the Hong Kong British National (Overseas) (BN(O) visa. It was formed as an official response to the enactment of the National Security Law in Hong Kong, legislation that was introduced following the citywide protests of 2019. This immigration route currently allows BN(O) visa holders to attain Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) in the UK after five years, and citizenship after an additional year.
As it stands, more than 230,000 people have been granted a BN(O) visa, with around 170,000 relocating to the UK. In November 2025, as part of wider migration policy reforms, the Home Office announced a new ‘Earned Settlement’ framework. Under the initial proposal, Hong Kong BN(O) visa holders would have needed to meet stricter criteria. These included demonstrating a higher level of English proficiency - upper intermediate (CEFR B2), compared to the previous B1 requirement - and having annual earnings above £12,570 for three years, or meeting an alternative income threshold
The proposals received criticism for their potential to negatively impact individuals who had already relocated to the UK and might struggle to meet the new requirements.
Following consultation, the Home Office announced that the proposed higher B2 English language requirement will not apply to Hong Kongers on the BN(O) route - for now. However, uncertainty remains over future changes to the criteria. In the same statement, Immigration Minister Mike Tapp said: “The Government is continuing to consider whether the B2 standard should be extended more widely and future decisions will take into account responses to the consultation on earned settlement.”
This means that no final decision has yet been made on whether the higher B2 English requirement will be applied to BN(O) visa holders in the future. In addition, the details of what constitutes an “alternative income threshold” remain unclear.
If implemented in their original form, the language and income requirements could have a detrimental impact on those already in the UK. According to a survey by Hong Kong Watch, only 12% of adult BN(O) visa holders reported feeling confident they would meet them.
Misplaced measures
In her foreword to the consultation, published in November 2025, UK Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood stated that “a multi-faith, multi-ethnic democracy” demands “contribution and integration”. She further noted that settlement applicants must “speak English to a high standard” and “make a sustained and measurable economic contribution”.
“Contribution” and “integration” might appear to be reasonable expectations for migrants. However, the way in which these qualities are defined and measured deserves closer attention. The higher income and language requirements that could be imposed on BN(O) migrants reveal underlying assumptions about language, labour, and economic value. Taken together, these requirements suggest that BN(O) migrants will be able to fill skilled labour positions.
In my current research, I show that BN(O) migrants’ labour experiences are more complex than these rules suggest. For example, a significant proportion of migrants are middle-class parents in their forties and fifties who worked as teachers, social workers, nurses, and journalists in Hong Kong. Since coming to the UK, many have moved into traditionally blue-collar jobs. This occupational transition is caused by various factors, including childcare duties, mobility constraints, age limits, and the lack of UK work experience.
Understandably, the government expects migrants to be able to converse with local people.
However, raising the language requirement from B1 to B2 English is not necessary for the jobs that many of these migrants currently undertake. For context, the B2 English test is roughly equivalent to A-level English, a qualification held by a fraction of the British population.
Speaking to a 45-year-old migrant father, a former nurse now living in the UK, he explained: “I have been working as a warehouse worker for three years. I am doing my job well. I can speak with local colleagues with little difficulty. But B2 will be a real hurdle. If I don’t pass it, I don’t know what to do.”
Skewed ethics
The proposed changes also raise ethical concerns. The original purpose of the BN(O) visa was to offer a humanitarian pathway to Hong Kong people. After China’s crackdown on the 2019 movement, Hong Kong residents were invited to the UK, and many have since laid down roots.
Many migrants I interviewed expressed concerns that implementing stricter criteria, would amount to the government changing the terms of an official promise of settlement midway through their five-year pathway - after they had left their jobs, sold their homes, and withdrawn their children from schools in Hong Kong.
Likewise, focusing on economic value through an annual income threshold not only raises ethical questions but could also potentially underestimate BN(O) migrants’ economic contributions outside of salaried labour.
For example, some migrant mothers have transitioned from full-time professional work into full-time homemakers. Others have contributed by buying homes in the UK after selling property in Hong Kong. Those in their fifties may be semi-retired and work part-time jobs, while others live primarily on dividends and investment returns. These migrants contribute economically in various ways.
As an example, migrants who purchase homes or live on pensions and investment income in semi-retirement still contribute economically through stamp duty, capital gains tax, and other fiscal channels. These forms of contribution are, in Secretary Mahmood’s words, “sustained and measurable”—but only if the right measures are used.
An alternative approach
BN(O) migrants contribute to the UK in ways that do not necessarily depend on advanced English proficiency and that might not always be legible through a single income threshold. Rather than relying on standardised measurements alone, a more community-specific immigration framework would better recognise these diverse contributions and support more productive settlement trajectories. Although this could result in potentially higher administrative costs and additional planning, a community-specific framework would do justice to immigrants’ contributions, and could ultimately generate long-term economic benefits for the UK.
