- 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
An extension application will be treat differently it will not be granted on same application if ILR refusedMojojojo123 wrote: Secondly I have not even been considered for extension of 2 more years which is even more puzzling. Do they comsider me to just leave the shop and try and run it from abroad which is imposible given the line of work.
So it doesn't appear the problem is turnover of staff, as long as they fulfilled the same job for 12 continuous months. It appears an extension was also refused on the same basis since the eligibility criteria was not fulfilled.171. The transitional arrangement does not apply to accelerated settlement applications where
you are applying on the basis of creating 10 jobs. The arrangement was introduced to ensure
consistency between the Immigration Rules and published guidance for extension
applications, and does not apply to applications for accelerated settlement.
172. The purpose of the accelerated settlement provision is to reward the most successful
entrepreneurs who have created the most benefit for the UK economy through significant job
creation.
173. Therefore, if you are applying for accelerated settlement on the basis of creating 10 jobs,
you may not combine the time periods together from different part time jobs, which have
existed for less than 12 months, to make the equivalent of a 12 month job.
174. So for example, if an employee had worked one month at full-time in one job, and another
employee had worked 11 months at full-time in another job, you could not combine these 2
jobs together to make the equivalent of one full-time job under accelerated settlement –
because the jobs being combined have not existed for 12 months each. If you are applying
under accelerated settlement on the basis of 10 jobs, the creation of 10 individual jobs for 10
settled workers for 12 months is the minimum benchmark for meeting this threshold.
Yes. No problems for two employees to have worked in 1 job as long the job was valid and you were paying out salaries the entire 12 months. So for example Employee A worked for 8 months and then left and then Employee B worked for 4 months is perfectly acceptable. See points 164 and 167 in pg 50 of the policy guidance. Also see Annex F in pg 85.shanky wrote:Hi, Bit confused does this means that in Tier 1 Ent 50 K - ILR (5 years) route - 2 jobs roles can be done by 4 different employees to qualify for ILR ?
I Entered Tier 1 Ent 50 K route in Oct 2012 got my two years extension in Nov 2015 due for ILR in Oct 2017
Thanks
S
Under Transitional Arrangements, yes. You still can hire 4 people (even in parallel for 6 months) for your extension or 5 year ILR.shanky wrote:Hi, Bit confused does this means that in Tier 1 Ent 50 K - ILR (5 years) route - 2 jobs roles can be done by 4 different employees to qualify for ILR ?
I Entered Tier 1 Ent 50 K route in Oct 2012 got my two years extension in Nov 2015 due for ILR in Oct 2017
Thanks
S
O_Relly wrote:I take it you applied on the basis of Entrepreneur, accelerated route, and hence prove the job creation of 10 full time jobs for at least 12 months prior to application.
The T1E policy guidance states in pg52
So it doesn't appear the problem is turnover of staff, as long as they fulfilled the same job for 12 continuous months. It appears an extension was also refused on the same basis since the eligibility criteria was not fulfilled.171. The transitional arrangement does not apply to accelerated settlement applications where
you are applying on the basis of creating 10 jobs. The arrangement was introduced to ensure
consistency between the Immigration Rules and published guidance for extension
applications, and does not apply to applications for accelerated settlement.
172. The purpose of the accelerated settlement provision is to reward the most successful
entrepreneurs who have created the most benefit for the UK economy through significant job
creation.
173. Therefore, if you are applying for accelerated settlement on the basis of creating 10 jobs,
you may not combine the time periods together from different part time jobs, which have
existed for less than 12 months, to make the equivalent of a 12 month job.
174. So for example, if an employee had worked one month at full-time in one job, and another
employee had worked 11 months at full-time in another job, you could not combine these 2
jobs together to make the equivalent of one full-time job under accelerated settlement –
because the jobs being combined have not existed for 12 months each. If you are applying
under accelerated settlement on the basis of 10 jobs, the creation of 10 individual jobs for 10
settled workers for 12 months is the minimum benchmark for meeting this threshold.
Thank you Noajthan, Im sorry for the rookie mistake.noajthan wrote:To avoid confusion & jumbled responses, I have moved your question to its own thread (this one) in (the most) appropriate forum: ILR.
There is no need to post the same thing multiple times.
See multiple posts policy.
geriatrix wrote:Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) policy guidance version 11/2015
Read 167 first. Then read 156 - 166, and 205.
Though not stated so explicitly (as in the current guidance) but the jist is the same, IMHO ..
That is precisely the contradiction, that for pre 06-Apr-14 applicants, 156 can be fulfilled either in the manner explained in 165 or as explained in 156.geriatrix wrote:156 applies to both pre and post 06-Apr-14 applicants. For pre 06-Apr-14 applicants, 156 can be fulfilled either in the manner explained in 165 or as explained in 156. For post 06-Apr-14 applicants, 165 doesn't apply.
So, where is the contradiction? Or am I missing something?
No problem, Geriatrix... I know it's quite a lot to read and absorbgeriatrix wrote:Oops! Got your point now (having read the current Tier 1 E guidance "carefully" - which I had not when I had posted earlier). Apologies!!
Then one needs to ascertain when this clarification (accelerated route to settlement cannot use transitional arrangement) was announced in statement of changes to immigration rules or published in the guidance. Anyone who applied for settlement before this clarification was announced / published should not be subject to this new "constraint".
IMHO ...
Hello,Mojojojo123 wrote:Hello everyone really appreciate reading the long responses from you guys. Indeed it has somewhat given me a bit more confidence.
Its just been crazy for me lately. Anyways as for progress at the moment. After consultation with Solicitors, applied AR at the moment. Not hoping for alot from it though. As they have not considered me even for an extension, which I am told is usually done if a person does not qualify for the accelerated ILR, I will be filing for the extension as the next step so that I do not lose all ground if even the JR goes south. Then the extension application and the JR process will go parallel to each other.
Another discrepancy located in the refusal was that according to them my dependant got the leave to enter on the day she actually arrived. According to them her application for tier 1 dependant was filed a few days after the 9th July 2012, just so that her stay needs to be 5 years in the UK before being able to apply for ILR as dependant ( unlike the 2 years for those who applied before the 9th July 2012. Firstly we applied for the visas together secondly I have an email confirming that our applications left for the british high commission on the 6th of July :/
geriatrix wrote:This is a clarification about (erstwhile hidden / not publicly disclosed or perhaps even a change in) intention not a change in immigration rules, so will not see a mention in "statement of changes to the immigration rules". The argument can be that how can a Tier 1 E migrant imagine a hidden / not publicly disclosed intention unless it is clearly spelt out. Once it is announced, anyone applying after such announcement is required to follow that intention ... but anyone who has applied before the announcement cannot be subject to " intention(s) unknown to the target audience" that UKV&I failed to mention or clarify anywhere at the time of such application.
The most recent statement of changes in immigration rules is HC877 which does include some changes to Tier 1 E immigration rules.
Having done a quick read through, here's my take on "job creation" requirements:
Point 3 and 4 under Table 6, clause 49 and clause 50 in Appendix A of the immigration rules explain "job creation" requirements. Table 6 has had no changes but both clause(s) 49 and 50 have been amended, as mentioned in HC877. That said, the only differences in the immigration rules differentiating normal route to settlement (5 years) from accelerated route (3 years) is either £5 million or 10 full-time jobs. Nothing - other than clause 49 and 50 - in the immigration rules to explain what sort of permutations and combinations are accepted either for "2 full-time jobs" or "10 full-time jobs". Understandably so, these are left to be explained in the policy guidance.
Be mindful that my understanding of Tier 1 E rules and policy guidance is as good as someone who has read only little bits of both and only since last 24 hours!!