A child who has lived in the UK continuously for 7 years — including those born in the country — qualifies for a direct grant of Indefinite Leave to Remain, not the intermediate 2.5-year Private Life visa.
In short
- A child born in the UK who has lived there continuously for 7 years qualifies for ILR — settled status, not a temporary visa.
- Applying for the 2.5-year visa instead of ILR, when the right to ILR is already established, means getting only temporary status — that’s extra money and extra time.
- Parents should file their application at the same time as the child: filing separately gives the Home Office grounds to refuse on the basis that the parents lack lawful status.
- The continuous residence threshold has changed over time and has been set at 5, 7, or 10 years in different periods — the current threshold needs to be confirmed at the time of application.
- A decision on a Private Life route application can take anywhere from 2 months to 9 years — it’s not worth counting on a specific timeframe in advance.
What the 7-year route and Indefinite Leave to Remain actually mean
The rule is straightforward: a child who was born in the UK and has lived there continuously for 7 years qualifies for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) — permanent settled status. The basis for this is simple: it would be unreasonable to expect a child who was born and raised in the country to leave it.
The key condition is continuity — all 7 years without an absence that would break that period. The requirement applies specifically to children born in the UK: for them, the rules provide a direct path to ILR, not to a temporary visa.
On the same basis, a child’s parents can also qualify for status — whether the child was born in the UK or arrived there and remains under 18, provided the 7-year continuous residence requirement is met.
A child born in the UK who has lived there continuously for 7 years qualifies for ILR — settled status, not a temporary visa. On the same basis, parents can also qualify for status.
Why applying directly for ILR beats the 2.5-year visa
Some applicants, instead of applying directly for ILR, apply for the intermediate 2.5-year Private Life visa instead — and that’s a mistaken approach. If a child meets the ILR criteria (born in the UK, lived there continuously for 7 years, and it has been shown that it would be unreasonable to expect them to leave the country), applying for the 2.5-year visa instead of ILR means the applicant will be granted exactly that — a 2.5-year visa, not settled status. If the application is made for the 2.5-year visa rather than ILR, the decision will be issued on the basis actually applied for — that is, under the rules for a temporary visa, not permanent status.
If the application is made for the 2.5-year visa rather than ILR, the decision will be issued on the basis actually applied for — that is, under the rules for a temporary visa, not permanent status.
Some solicitors advise this approach: get the 2.5-year visa first, then move to ILR later. That logic doesn’t hold up: if a child already qualifies for ILR, there’s no reason to first downgrade to temporary status and then go through an additional application stage. It means extra money and extra time — instead of one application, the applicant goes through two procedures, even though the right to ILR is already established by the route’s own conditions.
If ILR is refused, the applicant has a right of appeal. That’s precisely why the claim that ILR “has become hard to get” and that it’s wiser to apply straight for the 2.5-year visa doesn’t hold up: settled status is still granted to those who meet the conditions of the 7-year route. Applying for the temporary visa instead only makes sense in one scenario — when the requirement that it would be unreasonable to expect the child to leave the UK hasn’t yet been established: in that case, the law provides for the 2.5-year visa, not ILR.
Applying for the 2.5-year visa instead of ILR, when the right to ILR is already established, means extra money and an extra stage: the applicant will be granted temporary status, not settled status.
If the child wasn’t born in the UK: a different path
For a child who was not born in the UK, the rule is different: they qualify for the 2.5-year visa, not ILR. This applies to those who arrived in the country before turning 18, remain a minor at the time of application, and have lived in the UK continuously for 7 years — such a child receives a Private Life visa for 2.5 years, not settled status.
The evidentiary burden isn’t lighter, though. For the 2.5-year visa, the same thing has to be proven as for ILR: that it would be unreasonable to expect the child to leave the UK. This requirement doesn’t depend on whether the child was born in the country or arrived later — both elements still need to be proven: the 7-year continuous residence itself, and the unreasonableness of departure.
ILR or the 2.5-year visa: what a child actually gets
| Condition | Child born in the UK | Child arrived before age 18 |
|---|---|---|
| Resulting status | ILR (settled status) | 2.5-year Private Life visa |
| Must prove 7 years of continuous residence | Yes | Yes |
| Must prove it would be unreasonable to expect departure from the UK | Yes | Yes |
| Lighter evidentiary burden | No | No |
Can parents get status through a child’s 7-year route
Parents qualify under the Dependent Parent route on the day their child reaches the seven-year residence milestone in the UK — whether the child was born there or arrived before turning 18 and remains a minor. The requirement for parents is the same as for the child: it must be shown that it would be unreasonable to expect the child to leave the UK.
Before that milestone is reached, parents can apply on a “circumstances basis” without waiting for the child to turn 7. But there’s a risk here that can undermine the whole strategy if applications are filed separately.
If only the child’s case is submitted, without the parents’ application filed at the same time, the Home Office can refuse on the grounds that the parents have no lawful immigration status and are both liable to removal. The logic of the refusal is simple: since the parents are liable to be removed from the country, it’s in the child’s best interests to leave with them rather than remain alone. It becomes a closed loop: a child’s separate application, without a parallel parental application, becomes the very ground for refusal — the absence of parental status is used as the argument against it.
It becomes a closed loop: a child’s separate application, without a parallel parental application, becomes the very ground for refusal — the absence of parental status is used as the argument against it.
That’s why the same rules apply to parents as to the child, and applications need to be filed together, not one after another on the assumption that the child’s status can be locked in first and the parents brought in afterward.
Filing only the child’s case without a parallel parental application can give the Home Office grounds to refuse on the basis that the parents have no lawful status and are liable to removal along with the child.
How the 7-year route’s threshold has changed over time
The 7-year period hasn’t always been fixed: applicants and advisers have encountered different thresholds at different times — 5, 7, and 10 years. That’s a result of the rule changing over time, not an error in how it’s been retold. Exact dates of the changes aren’t specified in the source material, so the threshold in force at the time of application is what matters — and that’s worth confirming with a solicitor or on the official government resource.
That’s exactly why different figures — 5, 7, and 10 years — show up in applicants’ accounts: it’s not a retelling error, it’s the fact that the continuous residence requirement really has changed more than once. At the time one particular application was made, the threshold in force was 7 years, and the child was granted status on that basis.
Processing times for Private Life route applications
Processing times for Private Life route applications vary enormously — from a few months to several years — so it’s not worth counting on a specific timeframe in advance. In practice, there have been cases approved within two to six months, and cases where a decision only arrived nine years after the application was filed. The final timeline depends on the circumstances of the individual case, including how complete the documentation is and how busy the Home Office is at the time.
Processing times for Private Life route applications
Decision times vary widely — from two months to nine years.
- Fastest recorded approval2 months
- Typical approval timeup to 6 months
- Longest recorded wait9 years
What to do if ILR is refused
If ILR is refused, there are two possible courses of action, and the choice between them depends on one thing — whether the applicant still has a right of appeal.
- Check whether the right of appeal still stands. If it does, the decision can be challenged — an appeal can be filed against the refusal.
- File a fresh application if there’s no right of appeal. In that case, an appeal isn’t an option, and the only route forward is submitting a new application.
- Address the reasons for refusal before reapplying. The new application can’t just repeat the same documents — it needs to close out the specific objections the Home Office raised in the refusal of the first application. Without that, reapplying will just produce the same result.
A refusal doesn’t close the case — it opens it: there’s nothing to work with before a decision is made, but after a refusal there’s a concrete list of Home Office objections to address.
A refusal doesn’t close the case — it opens it: there’s nothing to work with before a decision is made, but after a refusal there’s a concrete list of Home Office objections to address.
First check whether the right of appeal still stands. If not, file a new application — but only after addressing the specific objections in the refusal, not simply resubmitting the same documents.
What to do if ILR is refused
Frequently asked questions
Can the 2.5-year visa be converted to ILR later if the child already qualifies for ILR?
If a child meets the ILR criteria, there’s no point applying for the 2.5-year visa first: it means an unnecessary application, extra money, and extra time — instead of one procedure, the applicant goes through two, even though the right to ILR is already established by the route’s conditions.
What happens to the child if the parents are refused due to lack of status?
If the child’s application was filed separately and the parents’ status wasn’t sorted out, the Home Office can refuse precisely because the parents are liable to removal, and it’s deemed in the child’s best interests to leave with them. That’s why the child’s and parents’ applications need to be filed at the same time, not one after the other.
Comments
Reader experience is useful, but it is not advice: check the rules on the official site.
No account needed: click Sign in, type any name, and you are done.