- 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
5. I suspect that instead of making correct investment and hiring decisions that are right for your business, you simply made decisions to facilitate your ILR, probably in a low pay low skill sector with a lot of part time employees. I personally think that it is fair for HO to demand at least 12 full time jobs for accelerated ILR, given that the other condition of having £5m+ turnover is quite difficult to achieve.I am aware that the rules and requirements for applications may change in the future and that I
should not assume the current rules and requirements will continue to apply.
helpingperson wrote:I don't know where to start but it is about HO new guidance which they changed this week.
We like many other candidates have been following old guidance, regarding employment and investment, etc. Now all in a sudden HO has brought new guidance which is implemented on all applicant regardless when they got initial visa.
Previous guidance did not say you can not combine two part time which are less than year, or you need 10 jobs which continue for 12 months each and so on.
Instead it was as below, flexible, allowing combination of part times, no criteria for 10 jobs as such as in new guidance.
I copy Confused90 message here:
According to the December 2015 guidance, which can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... _0_EXT.pdf
Page 80, last paragraph states;
Accelerated settlement
If applying under accelerated ILR the applicant must demonstrate that they have created a total of 10 full time positions for at least 10 people. The criteria and requirements to evidence the 10 full-time positions are the same as for an extension application.
Hence, transitional arrangement does apply to the accelerated ILR.
Pre-6 April 2014 transitional arrangement
Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrants who successfully applied to enter the route before 6 April
2014, and still meet the requirements when they apply for extensions may continue to
employ:
one worker for 24 months
one worker for 6 months and one for 18 months
4 workers for 6 months each
Now, with new guidance, many here have either applied for accelerated route or close to this time, it is not practical to change past to meet this requirement as in new guidance.
I need to know:
Can HO implement any new guidance on existing visa holders in this way which is significantly different than previous guidance? Any example please where they have done so in past on any category i.e. Tier 4, Tier 2, Tier 1?
There will be some who would jump to support HO so for them, if we can prove we followed HO guidance for 3 years, met all requirements, now in last minute we don't meet requirements as per new guidance, we simply can not, no one can at this time of their visa, what we do about this?
We paid taxes, injected money, followed all rules, in last month changing guidance and expecting us to meet its requirements, is impossible.
Based on your comments, references, past history, I and many here would plan about future move so please be reasonable and helpful.
I want to take this to court if possible and ask Home Office to tell me/guide/ to achieve /meet this new guidance due to time of visa we are.
Is there any case anyone know where Home Office guidance has been challenged?
I thought Home Office always allowed previous visa holders to continue under old rules/guidance but this is not the case here.
I await to see any useful comments.
cappachino wrote: They have been wise, what they have done is given this point under clarification. If this would be a new rule they would have had a transitional arrangement.
Most people on Tier 1 visa are more concerned on making sure they meet the requirements hence would qualify to continue their life in the UK (especially if they have kids who in 3 years are set with the life they have here ). In my view it is very difficult to concentrate on a start up business and to make it profitable while making sure you are following all the requirements set by HO.
I for one am unable to compete in my sector as my competitors make changes to their business as per requirement and profitability. whereas I have to make sure that I meet all the requirements of HO and this takes precedent to my profitability.
friend87 wrote:Changes in this route are not understandable and people who argue that this is something everyone signed previously are forgetting that this is not a simple Tier 4 category where a student hardly spend GBP 9000 or little more & can left alone any time.
In Tier 1 (e) many applicants are in their mid 30’s or 40’s and most of them had left their professions and businesses and even their spouse left their professions, while families with kids arrived here thinking positively. People has spend / invested their life savings and person like me sold his every asset when I came here in early 2013. It will not something that they will change law and expect people to sit in time machine and go back to rectify the issue they “NOW” believe must be corrected. I seen people got rejected on silly things and even when CW don’t understand the simple balance sheet.
I don't understand. You invested £400k, was expecting to get accelerated ILR and then what? Close down your business? All you have to do is continue running your business for 2 more years.cappachino wrote:
I completely agree
I for one have invested over 400000
Employees were given Prefrence on who complied to the HO regulations rather than their capability.
Had some amazing applications where they were allowed to work as dependants etc but did not hire them and gave Prefrence to those who had a European or British passport.
Guess what have 8 employees and would meet the requirement as 4 them are for over 2 years but as per new clarification I just ended up wasting my effort and money.
seasky wrote:I don't understand. You invested £400k, was expecting to get accelerated ILR and then what? Close down your business? All you have to do is continue running your business for 2 more years.cappachino wrote:
I completely agree
I for one have invested over 400000
Employees were given Prefrence on who complied to the HO regulations rather than their capability.
Had some amazing applications where they were allowed to work as dependants etc but did not hire them and gave Prefrence to those who had a European or British passport.
Guess what have 8 employees and would meet the requirement as 4 them are for over 2 years but as per new clarification I just ended up wasting my effort and money.
Also of course there will be cases of certain non settled people who are better than certain settled people. But this is the UK, it is full of settled people, just hire among them. It is not logical that that was a significant downside to running your business
4.24 Analysis carried out by the MAC to link Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrants with Companies House records, which is discussed in full in Chapter 5, also suggested that Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrants were predominantly operating in low-skilled industries.
Then there are several paras discussing lack of visa extensions and/or switching also failure rates in visa extensions.Businesses established simply to meet requirements of the route
4.25 We also received limited evidence of Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrants who set up shell companies in which they place a minimum qualifying investment, without any underlying economic activity. However, although on the face of it the business has created two jobs, the employees are not involved in any purposeful business activity but are simply paid a salary for the purposes of meeting the extension and settlement criteria. In these cases, there is little or no underlying economic activity being carried out by the business.
4.31 We also note that the most recent intelligence assessment from the Home Office indicates that migrants switching in-country from Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) are using generic or ambiguous company names to disguise the fact that their companies are engaged in low-skilled activities. For example, minicab drivers were found to be using businesses whose names suggested that they were involved in marketing and accountancy
4.38 Of course, there will be a certain amount of failure associated with any entrepreneur visa route. Entrepreneurship is risky and, hence, many genuine entrepreneurs will fail. However, the low extension rates together with the low evidence of tax activity suggest that there is a reasonable amount of non-compliance
4.49 The issue for the Government is to determine exactly what the objectives of this route are, in order to decide which activities to continue to facilitate under the route. We suggest that, ideally, the emphasis should be placed on ensuring that there is an increase in numbers at the top end of the spectrum, whilst curtailing some of the activity at the bottom
5.14 The UK’s entrepreneur visa routes are in place to enable high value migrants to move to the UK, for the purpose of investing their funds and expertise in new or existing businesses. The objective is that this activity will benefit UK residents directly through job creation and tax revenue, ...
Ref https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/244565... a lot of people [don't] understand the true meaning of the word entrepreneur.
My go-to online dictionary describes an entrepreneur as “a person who starts a business and is willing to risk loss in order to make money” or “one who organizes, manages, and assumes the risks of a business or enterprise.” Note the common keywords business and risk. If there’s no real business or risk, you’re not an entrepreneur.
...
So instead of getting a job and building a career, large numbers of people are finding ever-more creative ways of hiding the fact that they’re unemployed, all the while telling themselves it’s OK since they’re entrepreneurs building their brand, platform, presence, following, or some other such nonsense.
Look, you probably don’t want to hear this but if I don’t tell you, who will? Entrepreneur is not a job. Leader is not a job. Social media guru is not a job. If there’s no real expertise, no real product, no real business, no real risk, and no real prospect for return on investment, you’re not working. And you’re not an entrepreneur, either.
If you want to be an entrepreneur someday, here’s an equation you should print out and attach to your mirror, computer screen, smartphone, or wherever your eyeballs spend most of their time:
Don’t take my word for it. Look at every successful entrepreneur on the planet. That’s the equation that got them there.Entrepreneur + Capital = Products + Customers = Business.
I shared information and views of interest that are freely available.friend87 wrote:Ideally you are giving a theoretical view of entrepreneur route. In reality the Liberty an entrepreneur need was not defined since day one. You must agree with my statement that practically there are so many restrictions applied by HO which has nothing to do with actual definition you have quoted above.
I don't think the overall rules have or vastly changed. Most additions (e.g. genuine entrepreneurs test) is because to much abuse of the route. I see the risk to genuine entrepreneurs to be low.confused90 wrote:
I agree with the point made, and the positive outlook that things shall make sense in 2 years time.
The issue is, if the HO can 'clarify' rules every now and then who knows what the rules shall be in 2 years time?
Also, with an investment of £400K which is a very huge amount there is no guarantee of the ILR being granted either now or in 2 years time... there seems no point in risking the funds just to follow the HO's rules and 'guidance'.
A business can also be run in the UK, without the person actually being here. I know of a competitor who runs his business in the UK, while being in the USA... so if the business is genuine and making you a profit, I personally see no point of risking things further and instead running the business without the HO's rules while also being competitive, saving taxes (if you plan on being a resident of a non-taxation country) among many other things.
At the end of the day, it's just down to the decision you take... and whatever that decision may be, I wish you good luck with it
Excellent initiative.helpingperson wrote:For all Entrepreneurs who are applying/applied for ILR on the basis of 10 jobs creation accelerated route.
This New Guidance is completely unfair and impossible for us to meet due to the fact we have already consumed our initial leave and can not change past. We all know we meet all requirements on the basis of previous guidance which we have followed.
I think we should all get together and take this matter to court asap.
I have already started another thread where details for this can be found as below:
Entrepreneur-New Guidance-HO-Challenge-ILR-Accelerate Route
I look forward to any interested and serious Entrepreneurs and their views on this.
No irrelevant parties, no irrelevant comments, no negative comments, save your time for another thread.
Thank you.
It should be stressed that workpermit.com does not control the postings on the message board and cannot be held accountable for the accuracy or otherwise of any messages posted.
Advice given by our consultants, lawyers, moderators and users on the message board can only be considered as general advice, and should not be relied on for any particular course of action.
Attempts to solicit financial partners to circumvent immigration law will not be tolerated.
workpermit.com accepts no liability whatsoever for any messages posted on the message board.
... the usual “loser pays” rule is retained. If a claim is unsuccessful, the claimants in opt-in proceedings will usually be liable for the defendants’ costs, and the class representative bears the costs risk.
Thank you Noajthan. Much appreciated.noajthan wrote:Worth noting that in UK, class actions or CAT cases are (as per my understanding) currently limited to cases brought under competition law.
Even if such a case can be brought it's worth noting:... the usual “loser pays” rule is retained. If a claim is unsuccessful, the claimants in opt-in proceedings will usually be liable for the defendants’ costs, and the class representative bears the costs risk.
And it's a little unclear how this initiative sits with this other one:
http://www.immigrationboards.com/uk-tie ... 02567.html