UK Tightens Residency Rules: What’s Next for Hong Kong BNO Holders?

The UK government has been shaking things up for Hong Kong BNO holders living there. Apart from the usual 10 + 1 years before applying for permanent residency (ILR – Indefinite Leave to Remain), the Reform UK party even proposed to abolish the “right of permanent residence”.

UK Home Secretary Mahmood’s BNO hand just got tougher. The “Squid Game” for Hong Kong BNO holders is on. At least the “5+1” stay rule survives… for now.

While there’s a hint that BNO holders might keep the current "5+1" rule, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood warns tougher hurdles are coming. If you’re seen as not contributing enough economically or socially, you’re probably out. A friend who’s living in the UK says the devil’s really in the details—which haven’t been made clear yet. But it’s clear that some BNO holders won’t make the cut. And those who supported riots, the so-called “siblings,” especially if they have criminal records from Hong Kong, face an uphill battle.

The Labour Party's public support has been tanking, in part because Reform UK is winning with a sharp anti-immigration stance. So, Home Secretary Mahmood is trying to score points with voters by promising stricter rules on permanent residency. She’s basically saying: even if you waited 10 years, you might still get kicked out if you don’t bring value or contribute to the UK economy and society.

Six Conditions to Make the Cut

So, how does the UK decide if you’re valuable enough? Mahmood lays down six conditions: You must have a job and income in the UK, pay National Insurance, don’t claim benefits, show intermediate English skills, clean police record, volunteer or donate to charity.

This means anyone lazy, low-tax-paying, welfare-dependent, or breaking the law gets shown the door during ILR screening.

The Real-Life ‘Squid Game’ for BNO Holders

This is basically a real-life Squid Game for BNO holders: pass these tests and you stay; fail and you’re sent packing. The uncertainty weighs heavily, and the Devil is in the details.

Take the “having a job and income in the UK” rule, for instance. The government hasn’t said what income you actually need or whether “social contribution” counts at all. If they go by the book and are rigid about it, low-income, low-tax-paying Hong Kong people are basically screwed—labeled as “not contributing enough” and kicked out. The UK government once floated a points-based system that scores salary, qualifications, and job type to decide who qualifies for permanent residency. If they bring that in full force, a lot of Hong Kong BNO holders could be out of luck.  

And what about the English bar? Will it, then, be raised from B1 to B2? If yes, some might fall short.

Most BNO holders have spotless police records, but those protest supporters—the “siblings” caught up in the 2019 Black Riots—are in real trouble. Any arrest or conviction from that period could easily sink their permanent residency chances. A friend in the UK told me that “good character” is the golden ticket for ILR approval, and a criminal record from Hong Kong even of political reasons would make things seriously grim. Some of these folks might try to switch tracks and seek refugee asylum, but the system’s clogged, with long delays and tough rejections becoming the norm.

Playing It Safe to Keep Dreams Alive

If “siblings” commit crimes after arriving in the UK, they immediately fail the no-criminal-record condition and lose ILR eligibility. They know this, which explains why many have been careful during recent protests—to avoid arrests that would crush their hopes of staying for good.

Clean record or bust. Protest supporters with 2019 political files risk getting booted.

On the bright side, the UK government hinted BNO holders might be excluded from the new “10+1” rule, keeping the current “5+1” residency requirement. Ukranians reportedly get the same treatment. No official confirmation yet, but silence indicates it might be true.

Still, Labour’s political battle with Reform UK means more “Devils” might sneak into the requirements of ILR application, tightening the screws to reduce the number of successful applicants and win back voter support. So even if five years remain the standard, getting permanent residency will get much harder.

The Bitter Endgame

Those filtered out will feel like they were so close to the finish line, only to be kicked off mid-journey. Naturally, that’s a bitter pill for anyone dreaming of a new life in the UK.

Home Secretary Mahmood just dropped the UK’s BNO hand: tougher permanent residency rules ahead. The devil’s still in the details, and the UK’s Hong Kong BNO holders are now in a real “Squid Game.” At least the “5+1” rule isn’t changing… yet.

One ILR prerequisite: a clean criminal record. Protest supporters with HK political files from 2019 face a high chance of being booted out.

Lai Ting-yiu

What Say You?

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

Sentencing pleas in the Jimmy Lai case took a stark turn on day two. Two of Apple Daily's most senior executives—publisher Cheung Kim-hung and deputy publisher Chan Pui-man—laid bare the brutal reality of working under Lai's thumb.
 
Through their lawyers, Cheung and Chan described an environment where dissent was futile, orders were absolute, and resistance meant risking everything. Both painted a picture of powerless lieutenants dragged down an illegal path by a boss who wouldn't budge.

Defense counsel argued Cheung Kim-hung held the CEO title but lacked real authority. He could only execute the "mastermind's" orders—objection achieved nothing.

During trial testimony, both executives recounted losing their free will under Lai's command. On Tuesday, Chan went further. She revealed she'd considered quitting but couldn't afford to walk away because of her own medical need. She told the court she deeply regretted failing to hold fast to journalistic principles.
 
Lai's Top Gun

Cheung Kim-hung was Lai's number one. He'd jumped ship from Apple Daily back in 2005, only to return five years later and climb to publisher and CEO. But when the anti-extradition protests erupted, Cheung became what his lawyer called an "execution tool"—someone who could only carry out the boss's orders.
 
Yesterday's plea hearing revealed a telling example. Lai wanted to bring former US Army Vice Chief of Staff Jack Keane onto his interview show. Cheung pushed back, asking whether it "might be too sensitive." Lai ignored him. After the Hong Kong National Security Law took effect, Cheung tried again—this time urging Lai and colleagues not to break the law. The evidence speaks for itself: despite repeated warnings, Lai pressed on, only tweaking his methods slightly.
 
Defense counsel made it clear: Cheung wanted to limit the damage but had no real control. Yes, he held the CEO title. But actual power? Limited. He could only follow the "mastermind's" instructions and try to minimize the fallout from the coverage.
 
In court testimony, Cheung didn't mince words about being trapped. He called himself a "tool." Lai constantly issued editorial directives and had the final say on everything. Refusing wasn't really an option. Editorial autonomy existed only in the gaps—those rare moments when Lai hadn't issued orders. At the infamous "lunchbox meetings," Lai would spell out his political stance and tell everyone to fall in line.
 
About a month after the National Security Law came into force, both Cheung and Chan worried they were heading into legal danger. They opposed some of Lai's moves. Lai went his own way and dismissed their concerns.
 
Chan's Impossible Choice

Deputy publisher Chan Pui-man faced the same crushing dynamic. When Lai proposed using Apple Daily to mobilize a "one person, one letter" campaign urging Trump to intervene, Chan did raise objection. Lai pushed ahead anyway.
 
During her testimony, Chan revealed Lai went even further. He ordered her to compile a "Shit list"—a sanctions target list naming HKSAR officials and political figures. This dragged her beyond editorial work into outright political action.
 
The mitigation hearing added new details about Chan's predicament. Her lawyer said she tried blocking controversial articles from publication, had even considered resigning early to escape Apple Daily. But serious illness and mounting treatment costs trapped her. She faced financial hardship and needed the paycheck to survive. So she stayed.

Chan Pui-man expressed deep regret for abandoning journalistic principles. She'd wanted to quit Apple Daily, but mounting medical bills for serious illness left her no choice but to stay.

In her mitigation letter, she expressed profound regret for failing to stand firm on journalistic principles.
 
The pleas from Cheung and Chan expose the human cost of working under Lai's boulder-like pressure. Unable to uphold their principles, they were dragged onto an illegal path and ended up behind bars. Little wonder both pleaded guilty and turned prosecution witnesses against their former boss. After years of submission, testifying became their final act of resistance.
  
Lai Ting-yiu