Current position
Visa/status, expiry date, nationality, location, family members, employer or sponsor position and any pending application.
A clear consultation process helps clients prepare the right facts, understand what can be covered in the session, and know what output to expect afterwards.
You do not need to send every document at the first step. The most useful preparation is a clear fact pattern, objective and deadline.
Visa/status, expiry date, nationality, location, family members, employer or sponsor position and any pending application.
Stay, switch route, bring family, sponsor a worker, settle, naturalise, study, travel or respond to a refusal.
Deadline, weak evidence, sponsor delay, mixed income, heavy travel, refusal history or uncertain status.
You do not need to arrive with the perfect route name. A practical question gives enough direction to test routes, documents and timing against the facts.
The answer depends on the employer licence, CoS timing, role code, salary, current permission and whether the route helps future settlement.
The review should check relationship, finance, accommodation, dependant rules, timing and whether the family route is stronger than another option.
Absences, work travel, address records, route continuity and good-character points should be checked before the application window.
Another course only helps if it fits academic, work, family and immigration timing. It should not be used to delay a decision without a plan.
The refusal reason needs to be read first. Some cases need cleaner evidence; some need a different route or referral for regulated legal advice.
The session should identify whether intake is enough, or whether strategy, readiness review, business advice or referral is justified.
You will not pay to hear generic rules read aloud. The session applies route logic to your facts and identifies the next sensible step.
| Session stage | What happens | Why it matters | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fact confirmation | Current status, deadline, location, dependants and objective are checked first | Most route recommendations depend on these facts | Working fact pattern |
| Route logic | Likely routes and routes to rule out are compared | A technically possible route may still be poor for the client | Route snapshot or comparison |
| Documents | Income, relationship, sponsor, travel, residence or refusal evidence is reviewed at high level | Evidence gaps often decide whether deeper review is needed | Evidence priorities |
| Timing review | Expiry dates, application windows, work/school/travel dates and sponsor timelines are mapped | Late action can remove better options | Urgency view |
| Next-step recommendation | UKIMMI recommends intake follow-up, strategy, readiness review, custom support or referral | The next payment should match the problem | Service recommendation |
The result may be a route snapshot, strategy note, evidence priorities, timeline view or referral recommendation. It should not create a false promise of outcome.
Which route looks realistic, which routes should be ruled out and what must be checked next.
Which documents or facts need attention before application preparation or deeper review.
If the matter requires regulated legal advice or representation, referral should be recommended clearly.
Once you have identified a route, deadline or evidence concern, the next step is to match it to the level of review it needs.