- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2
JuliaTE1 wrote:Here are a few abstracts from Chapter 4:
4.16 We received evidence that a large proportion of businesses created through the entrepreneur route appear to be relatively low skilled and with limited potential to grow. The Home Office provided us with an immigration intelligence assessment which suggested that the route is dominated by lowskilled businesses in the retail, wholesale and catering industries. Some partners raised concerns that the route is being used by entrepreneurs to set up a number of low-growth food franchises which have limited scope for innovation and are not particularly scalable businesses.
4.18 In its evidence, the Home Office provided the findings from a recent exercise completed to match a specific cohort of Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrants with HMRC records. Of those Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrants that were analysed, they found that only one per cent of migrants switching from student visas and five per cent of those switching from the Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) route went on to establish a business in a highly skilled sector. Over a third were found to be working in regular employment in breach of their visa conditions (predominantly in the retail and catering industry), whilst over half either had no economic activity during the tax year examined or were not found in HMRC records. The Home Office also said that, in a random sample of 200 extension cases examined, 70 per cent described entirely different businesses to those which had been proposed at the initial application stage.
4.19 Whilst it is acknowledged that many early-stage businesses need to evolve, the changes in business proposals were striking in many cases. In particular, the Home Office findings indicated that in 38 per cent of cases the Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant had established a business in a different sector compared to their original business proposal, and 44 per cent of cases appeared to involve migrants taking over existing businesses, after initially claiming they were going to start a business of their own. The prevalence of such fundamental changes in business plan clearly undermines the credibility of the entrepreneur route; evolving a business to adapt to a changing market is often necessary, but the scale of the changes identified are not suggestive of rubbish quality entrepreneurship.
4.27 Those granted initial leave to enter or remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant have the option to extend their leave in the category after three years, but we were told that relatively few apply for extension. In their evidence, the Home Office told us that they had randomly sampled 100 cases granted entry clearance between 2008 and 2012, which would have been due for extension. They found that 73 per cent of those granted an initial period of leave to enter or remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant had failed to apply to extend their leave within the category. Six per cent had switched into other immigration categories. Overall, only 22 per cent of applicants successfully extended their stay as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant.
4.29 The Home Office further provided us with an assessment of the extent to which migrants granted leave to remain in the UK under the Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) route, after changes to the Immigration Rules in July 2014, are meeting the intentions of the route. We were told that Home Office research, using HMRC data, found that a significant number of those who were granted an initial period of leave or an extension of leave in the Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) route between 11 July 2014 and 31 May 2015 were subsequently found not to be meeting the criteria and were, therefore, not meeting the intentions of the route. The Home Office said only 28 per cent of those assessed were found to be registered as a company director with HMRC.
4.30 It was also suggested by the Home Office that the lack of evidence of economic activity from those switching in-country from Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) indicates widespread non-compliance amongst that cohort.
And there is lots and lots more - really worth reading the full version!!
Just wanted to talk to u about joining established english company but maybe its to late now if changes are coming on November 19. Do u think its posible still?JuliaTE1 wrote:Hmm... I guess moderators don't like forum members getting in touch. Ask any questions here - I'll try to help
diamond07 wrote:HI,
I am a new member and this is my first post. As I do not see any link where I can submit a new post, let me put my query here,
1. I applied for second time tier-1 application ( Transitional 50K route) on 21st September 2015 within 28 days period of all appeal right exhausted ( final rejection from Upper Tribunal).
2. My visa was refused on 19th October 2015 saying I have not provided sufficient documents which proves advertisement was continuous before and after 11th July 2014.
In fact I provided many advertisement before and after 11th July 2014.
I was given right for administrative review.
I applied for administrative review on time explaining where case worker has made error in sufficiently considering documents.
My company is a member of a trading body of Technology Company. Through them, I approached an endorsement partner of UKBA (for Tier-1 Talent Visa). With My request, they Contacted high officials of Home office
a) First before I applied for administrative review, explaining my business is genuine and to consider my case positively. Home office replied saying, I should apply for Admin Review on time.
b) After applying for admin review on time, I approach again that endorsement partner of UKBA to notify high officials of UKBA to look into my case from holistic point of view and to consider all the documents provided. They have just send me an email saying, they have been sent a mail by UKBA saying,
'' My admin review' permission was given by mistake. As my appeal right for first application was fully exhausted by appeal process, even though I applied for second time within 28 days,
they said I do not have any right of administrative review.
They have not given me any legal grounds as it is a informal answer to their Tier 1 endorsement partner.
I am waiting for refusal letter for administrative review which may say,
we apologize, it was a mistake but you do not have a administrative review right.
I am not sure under which law they are saying this.
My solicitor and Barristers are working on it.
Just to give another piece of information, at the time of my second time application, I gave old photo. So I was sent a letter saying your application is invalid ( not refused) and gave me ten days time to send new photograph which I did next day of getting letter.
My question here is
Q 1. Is there any law, by which they are saying if appeal right is exhausted for first application, there will not be any appeal right for second application.
Q2. Even if there is any law like this, that if appeal right is exhausted for first application, there will not be any appeal right for second application. then how they can say I do not have administrative review right for second application. As administrative review is kept as an option to rectify case working error. How much logical is this that even if they have done an error, there will not be any option to correct it. If that was the case, UKBA Should not have even given me right for second time application.
As I have benifitted from this website in many ways, I would like to share refusal grounds.
1. They said, Leaflets is not accepted as it was not published locally or internationally.
2. I provided a gumtree advertisement which showed posted 500 days ago as it was posted on 7th May 2014 and another advertisement with the same ID which was rebumped on 10th September 2015 and printed on 13th September 2015 showing posted 3 days ago. Also I sent them an email confirmation from Gumtree Customer Service, which confirmed, this advertisement with the Id 484484884 was initially posted on 7th May 2014 and last bumped up 10th Septmber 2015. Case worker said, it is not clear whether first advertisement posted on 1st May 2014 was live until 10th September 2015.
3. I supplied evidence of having business website, case worker said domain name is not registered on my name. But the website clearly showing, this website is copyright to my company name. The domain was registered by a person of a company with which I have strategic partnership. Contract between that company and my company clearly showed that company give me IT support and maintain my website. And the domain name ownership lies solely with my company. Case worker did not say anything about these evidences.
4. I provided two invoices from paypal which showed paypal invoiced me for facebook advertisement. Case worker, said, even though I submitted invoices for facebook advert but I did not submit facebook page itself. Facebook page link was clearly shown on the business leaflet supplied, case worker could have just visited that link. But she did not.
5. I provided another advertisement from Freeindex which was printed on 2nd september 2015 and the document was showing advert last updated November 2013. It was a clear proof that that advertisment was live from NOv 2013 until at least 2nd september 2015. Case worker did not say anything about this advertisement.
Even though I could have made admin review grounds myself, still I hired one solicitor firms and two high qualified english barristers to write grounds. Later on, I took arguments from all the grounds made by solicitors and barristers and within 1000 words, I submitted a nice Admin review.
I was highly expecting a positive response. Just to make it more sure, I lobbied with trade body to reach high officials of UKBA to convince them, I have flourishing and established business which has paid over 20000 pound value added tax, corporation tax and employee tax without even having a entreprenurhship visa as it was refused in 2014 april.
My solicitor said, he has done 195 tier 1 applications but he has not seen such a harsh decisions. I provided so many documents
1. Bank statement for two years which showed £300 K turnover
2. Reference from five big telecom companies with whom I am trading. These companies are over ten years old and multi million pounds international business.
3. Reference from another telecom company which is based in Canary wharf and which is very big saying they are considering to make strategic partnership with my company.
4. HMRC letter confirming 20 k VAT PAID.
5. Patent registration of the logo of my trade name.
6. Insurance documents
7. Trade body registratons
8. Five service contracts with telecom companies
9. Letter from bank showing I am the sole controller/signatory of business finance.
10. Email Correspondence with supplier and customers
11. Business plan
12. Market Research
13. Fund available personal account 50K over 90 days, Business account 40K over 90 days. Investment shown 100k within a year - Even though I was requirefd to show only 50K available fund or investment.
I believe, my second time application is refused only because of the information they have of my first application which was refused on credibility and genuinity grounds.
a) I applied within one month of business registration. so I did not have sufficient document.
b) My business plan was written within 2-3 hours. I was not even satisfied that was a proper business plan. I was not careful enough and thought submitting business plan was not even mandatory in NOvember 2013.
c) In appeal hearing, judge found, my business partner statement and my statement do not match for few questions even though most of the question matched. HOme office have that appeal refusal grounds, which was very negative. But that judgement also said, if my business is really flourishing, I should consider submitting fresh application. By law Judge could not take new documents into consideration.
After providing so many documents, if my visa has not succeeded, now you think, if you apply second time with first time refusals, could you be able to submit documents like mine before you waste your money.
This time I applied alone. First time in a team.