Migrants’ experiences of the UK immigration system

By Ben Brindle and Mariña Fernández-Reino

What was migrants’ experience of applying for their immigration status?

For most migrants, the first interaction they have with the Home Office occurs when they apply for their immigration status. The process and eligibility criteria differ for each application, and some are more complex than others. Yet regardless of the specific immigration status, a smooth process – without delays or other complications – can be beneficial for both migrants and the Home Office. For migrants, a manageable process increases certainty and reduces the risks that people will make mistakes or let their status lapse accidentally. For the government, the complexity of the process affects processing costs and the costs spent reviewing challenges.

When the Home Office sets application requirements, it therefore involves a balancing act. If immigration applications are too complex or request too much information, then applicants are more likely to make mistakes and/or require help to apply. On the other hand, if they are too simple, they risk not collecting the necessary information needed to make an accurate decision.

How difficult is it to complete immigration applications?

Measuring the complexity of immigration applications is not easy. However, one metric that enables us to compare experiences across different groups of migrants and different application types is whether people are able to complete the application without assistance. Our survey asked respondents whether they had received help with their most recent immigration application and, if so, why.

The two most common reasons applicants had help related to confidence: 51% said they wanted someone to check their application to avoid mistakes, and 27% didn’t feel confident applying on their own (Figure 1). Relatively few people cited a person offering to help, which may include corporate HR departments, in the case of work visa applications. This suggests that receiving help is related to the perceived administrative burden or complexity of the application process.

Figure 1

Figure 2 shows the proportion of people who received help with their application. Around a fifth of respondents received help: 16% said someone helped them, and 5% said someone completed the application on their behalf. However, these shares vary widely depending on both the type of application and the applicant’s characteristics. Respondents applying for family visas and work visas were considerably more likely to have received help than those applying for settled or pre-settled status. This likely reflects the fact the government designed the EU Settlement Scheme applications to be straightforward—relatively little information is requested, and many applicants can rely on automated checks of government records, which makes the process easier and faster. By contrast, non-EUSS applications are more complex. Applicants must provide more information to the Home Office and may require sponsorship (see ‘Understanding the policy’). For example, people applying for family visas must provide detailed information on their earnings and address history.

Demographic groups that are considered more vulnerable were also more likely to have had help with their applications. For example, people with lower educational qualifications and lower English language ability, as well as the youngest and oldest adult cohorts, more often received assistance (note that the survey did not cover children).

Figure 2

Different groups of applicants had different motivations for seeking help, and the amount of help they received varied. Work visa holders were most likely to receive help from their employers and to say they had help because it had been offered to them. Migrants on family visas, however, cited reasons related to personal ability and time more often, and were more likely to turn to immigration lawyers. By contrast, over three-quarters of EUSS status holders said they received help from family or friends, indicating that the assistance they received was more informal. See Appendix C for more information.

Migrants’ experience applying for their immigration status

To gauge survey respondents’ experiences of the application process, we asked them to what extent they found the process difficult, stressful, and time-consuming (see Appendix B for details of the question design). Note that because almost all survey respondents applied for their status successfully, the survey responses may not fully reflect the experiences of those who had their applications refused.

On the whole, respondents’ experiences of the application process were broadly positive: for example, over half of respondents did not find the process at all difficult, and 40% did not find it at all stressful. However, as shown in Figure 3, others had a more negative experience. An estimated 14% of respondents across all application types found the experience ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ stressful and 11% found it ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ time consuming.

Respondents who found the application more difficult, stressful or time-consuming were more likely to have received assistance. For example, 32% of people who had someone apply on their behalf found the application ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ stressful, compared to 11% of people who applied on their own (Figure 3). An exception are respondents on work visas who had someone else apply on their behalf—they had a more positive experience, which may reflect the role of corporate HR services taking care of applications for sponsored workers.

Figure 3

The most common reasons applicants sought help related to a lack of confidence in their ability to complete the application correctly (see Figure 1, above). As such, this suggests that help was sought when the application process was more complex. In support of this, a higher proportion of respondents with non-EUSS statuses said they found the process ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ difficult, stressful, or time-consuming, compared to those who applied for settled or pre-settled status (Figure 4). As noted above, applications for non-EUSS statuses are typically more complex than those for EUSS statuses.

Figure 4

Statistically, respondents aged over 65 found the application process more difficult than younger age groups. The UK immigration system is largely digitised and immigration lawyers have suggested that older migrants are less likely to have the technological abilities or hardware to complete applications online.

Counterintuitively, among respondents born Continental Europe and South America (i.e. countries where English is not an official language), those who speak English ‘very well’ found the application process more stressful and time consuming than those with limited proficiency. It is unclear what is driving this pattern. It is primarily concentrated among respondents born in South America, Portugal and Bulgaria, and is not related to people’s immigration status.

How much do migrants know about the rights and conditions associated with their immigration status?

People’s immigration status determines whether they can stay in the UK permanently, access public services and financial support, and work in jobs without meeting skill or salary requirements (see ‘Understanding the Policy’). Those with greater awareness of the conditions tied to their immigration status are more likely to comply with these rules and maintain their legal status. They will also be better able to access support they are entitled to, if needed—such as healthcare or benefits.

To gauge survey respondents’ understanding of their rights, we asked whether their status:

• has an expiry date (and thus allows them to remain in the UK permanently without submitting another application);
• allows them to remain outside of the UK for either 6 months or 2 years;
• enables them to apply for most state benefits, such as universal credit, housing benefit, and child benefit;
• allows them to receive hospital treatment, such as surgery, without being charged afterwards; or
• permits them to work for any employer in the UK.

Do migrants know whether they have a temporary or permanent status?

Perhaps the most important condition tied to each immigration status is whether it permits the holder to remain in the UK permanently (i.e., without submitting a new application) or for only a limited period of time.

Permanent status (ILR and settled status) gives migrants more certainty, which enables long-term decision making, such as buying a property. People holding temporary non-EUSS immigration statuses (e.g. work, family, and study visas), by contrast, will typically need to reapply to the Home Office to receive permanent status and the security that comes with it. If they are not aware of this, they risk losing their status if they do not apply in time, or forgoing some of the advantages of a move to permanent status. For pre-settled status holders, the rules are more complicated, as discussed below.

Almost all respondents with settled status or temporary non-EUSS statuses (i.e., excluding ILR) correctly identified whether their immigration status would expire or not (Figure 5). Respondents with pre-settled status, by contrast, were less sure: 17% said their immigration status would not expire, and a further 11% did not know whether they needed to make a further application.

Figure 5

The lower awareness among pre-settled status holders likely reflects the complex and evolving residence rules attached to pre-settled status. When the EUSS was first introduced, pre-settled status lasted for only five years, meaning people who did not upgrade to settled status would see their status expire. However, following a high court judgement in December 2022, pre-settled status holders can stay in the UK indefinitely, without reapplying, if they still meet the original eligibility criteria. In addition, in 2024 the Home Office said it would begin automatically upgrading people to settled status once they become eligible. Together, these changes reduce the risk that pre-settled status holders will drop out of legal status. However, knowledge about permitted absences could remain a challenge, as the next section discusses.

Do EUSS status holders know if they can be absent from the UK?

Rules around absences from the UK are closely linked to eligibility for permanent status. Most pre-settled status holders, for example, can only upgrade to settled status once they have five years of continuous residence in the UK. Except in some limited circumstances, if they are absent from the UK for more than six months in any 12-month period, their continuous residence will be broken. As such, pre-settled status holders who do not understand the rules surrounding absences may jeopardise their ability to remain permanently by staying outside the UK for too long.

Almost a quarter of respondents with pre-settled status believed they could be outside the UK for over six months (Figure 6). It is not clear whether these people are aware of how such an absence would affect their continuous residence, because our survey question did not reference upgrading to settled status. However, the data suggest there may be a lack of understanding of absence rules that could cause problems for EU citizens with pre-settled status in future years.

At the time of the survey, a person would lose pre-settled status if they had been outside of the UK for more than two years. Three-quarters of respondents with pre-settled status were aware of this, while 17% did not know and 7% believed they could be absent for this length of time. The risk of pre-settled status lapsing is now lower, as in May 2024 the Home Office increased the period a person could be outside of the UK without losing their status to five years. However, as noted above, longer absences prevent pre-settled status holders from upgrading to the more secure settled status.

Figure 6

Most settled status holders have been able to remain outside of the UK for 5 years since the creation of the EUSS—however, only 37% of respondents with settled status were aware of this (Figure 6). As a result, it could be the case that these respondents would not leave the UK for longer periods of time, if required.

Do migrants know about their benefits eligibility and access to secondary health care?

A person’s immigration status affects the public services and benefits they can receive. Most temporary migrants (i.e., those with statuses that expire) cannot access benefits in the UK, although there are exceptions for people with refugee status and pre-settled status holders who meet certain conditions, such as being in work. By contrast, migrants on non-visitor visas lasting for over 6 months have full access to the NHS given that they paid the Immigration Health Surcharge as part of their visa application.

Poor awareness of entitlements is a problem if, for example, it means migrants refrain from seeking support that they require, or incur avoidable costs.

A little over 20% of respondents whose immigration status allows them to apply for benefits either did not think they were eligible for benefits or did not know (Figure 7). This figure masks differences in levels of awareness by immigration status, however. Whereas 19% of people with settled status did not know they were eligible, this was the case for 27% with indefinite leave to remain and 32% of eligible pre-settled status holders (i.e., people with pre-settled status who were also in work).

Similar to the temporary or permanent nature of pre-settled status, the rules regarding pre-settled status holders’ eligibility for benefits are complex. Previously, they could only claim benefits if they were in employment or had a family member with an EUSS status who was eligible. These rules were upheld in two high-profile court cases before being partially lifted in December 2022, when it was ruled that people with pre-settled status who were out of work could claim benefits if they were unable to meet their most basic needs. It is possible that pre-settled status holders’ low awareness owes to this complexity.

Compared to benefits eligibility, respondents were more likely to know whether they were eligible to receive NHS hospital treatment for free, without facing a charge at a later point (Figure 7). Almost a third of study visa holders did not know they could receive hospital treatment for free, however. Students may have less awareness of their right to access secondary healthcare because they are generally younger than holders of other status and may use the NHS less frequently. In our sample, 73% of students were aged under 35, compared to 42% of non-students.

Figure 7

Do migrants know whether they can work for any employer in the UK?

Migrants’ conditions of access to the labour market depend on their immigration status. Most visa holders can work for any employer, including EUSS status holders and people with family visas, refugee status or ILR. However, people who do not realise they can work in any job or for any employer may not take on extra work when they face financial hardship, and may be more vulnerable to exploitation.

The survey results presented in Figure 7 suggest that EUSS status holders generally had good knowledge of their right to work for any employer, although 8% of pre-settled status holders and 10% of people reporting low English language proficiency did not know they were entitled to do so. Note that work visa holders are excluded from this breakdown—some work visas allow the holder to take on second jobs, whereas others do not, but we do not ask respondents which specific work visa they have.

People’s experiences managing and accessing their immigration status

Migrants’ interaction with the immigration system does not end once they receive a visa or EUSS status. To access the labour and housing markets, receive secondary healthcare, or get married, non-citizens must prove they hold a valid immigration status. Under the so-called ‘compliant environment’ (previously ‘hostile environment’), penalties are in place for employers and landlords who employ or let a property to a non-UK citizen without a right to work or rent, including fines and potential prison sentences.

Most EUSS status holders have an ‘eVisa’, an online record of their immigration status which can be accessed via the UK government website. To prove their immigration status, they must obtain a temporary digital share code on gov.uk. By contrast, most non-EUSS status holders can show a physical document, such as a biometric residence card (BRC) or biometric residence permit (BRP) (see ‘Understanding the Policy’). In 2024, however, the Home Office began rolling out eVisas for non-EUSS status holders, meaning most non-citizens will have a digital-only immigration status from 1 January 2025. This raises the question of how many respondents have experienced problems proving their right to live and work—particularly those with digital documentation.

Have respondents experienced problems proving their right to live and work?

Most survey respondents (81%) had not experienced problems proving their right to live and work in the UK. A small share reported issues (8%), while 11% had never been asked to prove their immigration status (Figure 8).

Looking in more detail, Figure 8 suggests that non-EUSS status holders with digital-only documentation (i.e., an eVisa) were more likely to have experienced issues than non-EUSS holders with physical documentation (e.g., a BRC or BRP), despite having fewer years of residence. On average, non-EUSS status holders who had digital-only documentation at the time of the survey had lived in the UK for six years, compared to nine years for those with physical documentation.

Figure 8

Overall, non-white respondents had experienced more problems than white respondents, but this masks a difference by immigration status. While non-white respondents with an EUSS status were more likely to say they had experienced issues, non-white respondents with a non-EUSS status were less likely. It is unclear whether these results reflect real differences between the two groups, as the sample sizes are small—further research is therefore required on non-white migrants’ experience with the EUSS.

After accounting for other characteristics, respondents with graduate qualifications and those aged under 35 or over 65 were marginally more likely to have experienced issues proving their immigration status.

Most common problems encountered by respondents while proving their right to live and work

Respondents who reported issues in the past were asked what issue they encountered specifically. The most common problem was not having the proof of status accepted by the person checking (43%), while access issues (i.e., not having a phone, laptop or share code login details) was the least common (15%) (Figure 9).

Among respondents who had experienced problems proving their status, almost half (48%) of those with digital-only immigration statuses (with EUSS statuses or BRC/BRP) cited the person checking their application, compared to 29% of physical status holders. Research from the University of York, conducted in 2023, indicates that landlords are less likely to accept digital-only statuses. By contrast, physical status holders were more likely to say they had experienced ‘another problem’ (31%, not shown in Figure 9).

Figure 9

A different split emerges when comparing issues encountered by immigration status. Respondents with settled status were more likely to have experienced a digital glitch or error, such as having a different immigration status listed on the gov.uk website. Around half (55%) of settled status holders who experienced this problem did so during international travel, compared to 40% of respondents with other immigration statuses (Appendix C). Settled status holders will likely travel more often than those with non-EUSS statuses, because their home countries tend to be closer.

Confidence generating digital share codes

EUSS was designed as a digital-only immigration system, which means that most settled and pre-settled status holders never had a physical proof of their status – they always had to go through digital immigration checks (see the ‘Understanding the Policy’). Migrants with non-EUSS statuses, by contrast, tend to have physical documentation. In 2024, however, the Home Office started replacing these physical immigration documents with digital records (eVisas), with the aim of making the border and immigration system ‘digital by default’ by 2025. It is important to gauge, therefore, how confident migrants are they could generate a digital share code to prove their status in the future.

Figure 10 shows the proportion of respondents who said they were ‘slightly’ or ‘not at all’ confident (see Appendix B for more information about the question design). Overall, only 8% said they were ‘slightly’ or ‘not at all’ confident. However, those who had previously experienced an issue proving their right to live and work were significantly less confident. This suggests that migrants’ trust in the immigration system is related to their personal experiences with that system. Indeed, 40% of respondents who had previously experienced issues proving their status also said they had ‘little trust’ in the Home Office, compared to 17% of respondents who had not experienced problems or not had to prove their status.

Figure 10

Older respondents were less confident they could generate a digital share code, which likely owes to lower levels of computer literacy among these people. According to ONS, 79% of people – both UK and non-UK-born – living in the UK who didn’t use the internet in 2018 were aged 65 or over.

Settled and pre-settled status holders were also more confident, a result which may be explained by familiarity with generating digital share codes. It also suggests that confidence among EUSS status holders has not been affected by reports of several high-profile glitches with digital immigration statuses, including cases where people who applied for an upgrade to settled status lost access to their existing pre-settled status. Note that there was also no difference in average levels of confidence depending on whether respondents had physical or digital documentation.

Importance of physical documentation

Survey respondents who had digital-only immigration documentation were asked how important they viewed having a physical card, such as a BRP, to prove their status. Figure 11 shows the share of people who said a physical card was ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ important to them (see Appendix B for more information).

Broadly speaking, groups of respondents who considered having a physical card to be more important also had less confidence they could generate a digital share code. For example, people who had previously experienced a problem proving their status were more likely to consider physical documentation to be important, as did older respondents. Similarly, respondents with settled status or a non-EUSS status considered having a physical card to be more important than people with pre-settled status.

Figure 11

 

Evidence gaps and limitations

Although survey responses are weighted to reflect the characteristics of the adult migrant population living in the UK, the experiences of respondents may not be representative of the wider population. This will be the case if people who chose to answer the survey are different to those who did not. For example, respondents from certain countries could only complete the survey in English (see the Understanding the evidence section) which, in turn, may have led to lower response rates among migrants with limited English language skills from these countries. If the knowledge and experience of these migrants differ from those with higher levels of English, their experiences would be underrepresented in the survey results.

Using Facebook ads to sample respondents for surveys or studies can introduce several biases. The user base on Facebook is not representative of the entire migrant population. Users tend to be younger, more urban, and more tech-savvy than the general population, which can lead to an overrepresentation of certain age groups (people in their 30s and 40s), socioeconomic statuses (middle class), and urban residents. People who engage with Facebook ads to participate in surveys might have different levels of engagement and interaction with social media content compared to those who do not. For example, women and people with higher levels of education tend to engage and participate more, which is also true of in-person surveys. Additionally, online surveys such as this one often cannot sample people in precarious situations who have limited access to the internet via mobile phones, including homeless individuals.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Christopher Benn, Fiona Costello, Kuba Jablonowski, and Alice Welsh for comments on an earlier draft. This research was made possible with the support of the University of Oxford’s John Fell Fund, Barrow Cadbury Trust, the Paul Hamlyn Foundation, and Unbound Philanthropy. We are also grateful to the EU Delegation to the UK for their contribution for some of the survey costs. The views in this report—and any errors—are those of the authors alone.

References

• Harder et al. (2018). Multidimensional measure of immigrant integration. PNAS. 115(45), pp.11483-11488. Available online.
• Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) (2015). “No Passport Equals No Home”: An independent evaluation of the ‘Right to Rent’ scheme. Available online.
• NRPF Network (2024). Benefits: EEA nationals and family members. Available online.
• Herd, P. and Moynihan, D. (2018). Administrative Burden: Policy by Other Means, Russell Sage Foundation.

Appendix

Appendix A – Sampling

Survey responses

Of the 5,020 survey responses collected (excluding speeders and those who failed an attention check), almost half of respondents were born in Poland (46%), with Hungarians (6%) and Romanians (5%) the next most common country of birth groups. The high number of responses from Poles is due to a Polish news website sharing the survey – 39% (1,999) of respondents accessed the survey through this referral link. Looking at other characteristics, the majority are women (71%) or have graduate-level qualifications (54%), while 39% are aged 35 to 44.

Most respondents who answered the survey held an EUSS immigration status. Specifically, 72% had settled status and another 15% had pre-settled status. Among the remaining respondents, 4% held a work route visa and 4% had indefinite leave to remain (also known as ILR, permanent residence, or settlement).

A small number of respondents did not know their immigration status (40) or had applied to the EUSS and were either waiting for a response or had their application refused (21). Poles were the largest country of birth group with one of these immigration statuses (21), reflecting the high number of responses from this group. These respondents are also less likely to hold graduate-level qualifications (38%) and just over half could not speak English well or at all.

Weighted sample

As noted in the Understanding the evidence section, survey responses were weighted by country of birth (190 countries), gender (men and women), age (18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, and over 65), and education (graduate-level qualification, lower level qualification, other qualification). Note that we used a bespoke version of Census, provided to us by the Office for National Statistics, to weight the responses – this data comprised information about the characteristics of non-naturalised migrants only.

Figure A1 presents a breakdown of the weighted sample by key characteristics. A little over half of the respondents are women or have graduate-level qualifications, such as an undergraduate or postgraduate degree. Almost 70% were between the ages of 25 and 44 when they completed the survey.

In terms of country of birth, 70 countries are represented in the sample – Poland, Romania, and India are the most common, while 45 countries comprise less than 0.5% of the sample each (i.e., fewer than 25 respondents). More broadly, 74% of the weighted sample were born in EU countries (3,711 respondents). The picture is similar for citizenship, although there are only 47 nationalities represented in the sample, indicating that some respondents had changed their citizenship. However, this only affects a small number of people (182).

The majority of respondents (75%) held a status under the EU Settlement Scheme – indeed, over half of respondents held settled status. This share is less than in the unweighted sample, indicating that migrants from non-EU countries were less likely to respond to the survey. In terms of documentation, almost three-quarters had a digital immigration status, which can be accessed through an app or online.

Figure A1

The interaction between these characteristics is displayed in Figure A2. The most striking differences are between respondents who completed the survey in English and those who completed it in the language from their country of birth (see Understanding the evidence for more information). For example, only 1% of respondents who completed the survey in English could not speak English well or at all, compared to 21% of people who responded in a different language. Those who answered the survey in a different language were considerably more likely to hold an EUSS immigration status, which has no language requirements (94% compared to 57%), and held lower levels of education, on average.

Figure A2

Appendix B – survey question wording

Question on immigration status

Respondents were directly asked about their immigration status with the following question, which included a brief introduction explaining what an immigration status is:

The next questions are about your current immigration status. By immigration status we refer to, for example, the type of visa you hold, your settled or pre-settled status, or indefinite leave to remain. Your immigration status gives you the right to enter, live, study, or work in the UK.

What is your current immigration status? 

Respondents could choose one of the following response categories:

• Pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme
• Settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme
• I applied for status under the EU Settlement Scheme, but I’m waiting for a decision
• I applied for status under the EU Settlement Scheme, but my application was refused or considered invalid
• Work visa (for example, skilled worker visa, healthcare worker visa, temporary work visa, or start-up visa)
• Family visa (for example, spouse or parent visa)
• Study visa
• Visitor visa
• Refugee status, humanitarian protection or discretionary leave to remain
• Indefinite leave to remain (ILR) or Settlement (other than settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme)
• I have status/visa, but I don’t know which one
• Other immigration status
• I don’t know
• I don’t want to answer

Application experiences

Respondents were asked how difficult, stressful, and time-consuming they found the application process on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is ‘not at all’ and 5 is ‘extremely’ (e.g. “How difficult was the application process?”).

Figures 3 and 4 show the proportion of respondents who answered 4 (‘very’) or 5 (‘extremely’) to each aspect (e.g. ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ difficult). It thus represents the share who had a negative experience for each aspect.

Confidence at proving rights

To gauge migrants’ confidence they could generate a digital share code, people with physical immigration documentation were asked:

Imagine you’re renting a house and the landlord/agency asks you to prove your right to live in the UK with an online share code. How confident are you that you’ll be able to get a share code on your own and share it?

Respondents could state their confidence on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is ‘not at all’ confident and 5 is ‘extremely’ confident. Figure 10 shows the proportion of respondents who answered 1 (‘not at all’) or 2 (‘slightly’), and thus represents those who are least confident.

Survey respondents with digital immigration were asked:

Some people have a physical card showing their immigration status, and others do not. How important would it be for you to have a physical card?

They could answer on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is ‘not at all’ important and 5 is ‘extremely’ important. Figure 11 shows the share who said 4 (‘very’) or 5 (‘extremely).

Appendix C – further results

How much help did respondents receive with their application, and who from?

Who respondents turned to help them with their application or complete it on their behalf varied sizably by the type of immigration status they were applying for (Figure A3). Unsurprisingly, people applying for work visas had support from employers, while over a third of applicants for ILR and family visas received help from law firms.

Settled and pre-settled status applicants tended to receive support from family and friends, supporting the idea that these applications are less complex.

Figure A3

Looking specifically at respondents who had help with their application (i.e. not those who had somebody apply on their behalf), different levels of support were given depending on the reason it was received (Figure A4). More help tended to be provided when it was sought due to time constraints—indeed, 42% of respondents who cited ‘quicker decision if somebody helped’ received ‘a lot of help’ with their application. Family migrants were more likely to cite either of these two reasons for having help with their application (32% compared to 10% for all respondents), suggesting that they seek support due to the administrative burden involved in completing the application

By contrast, the large majority – 87% – of respondents who had help because they wanted someone to check had ‘a bit of help’.

Figure A4

Where did respondents experience problems proving their immigration status?

Figure A5 displays the proportion of respondents who experienced a problem proving their immigration status, by the scenario in which they encountered a problem. The most common scenarios cited were related to international travel (41%) and employment (40%), while issues were less common when claiming benefits or accessing healthcare (17%).

EUSS status holders – and settled status holders in particular – were considerably more likely to experience issues during international travel.

Figure A5