Decision - Tier 1 Entrepreneur visa refused

[tierloop]

These kinda refusals always make me wonder why not the case worker could use some common sense. Why they have to be like robots following scripts.

[marcnath]

These kinda refusals always make me wonder why not the case worker could use some common sense. Why they have to be like robots following scripts.

The advantage of a points based system is that is transparent. Common sense is not - what is common sense to one person is not to the other.
For those who follow the guidelines correctly, a CW who follows the script is best - you already know your outcome when you apply.

[ind8889]

The problem is that this job/employee is confusing.
I believe the only reason HO defined it this way is to help the employers. It is impractical to insist that a person should be employed for 12 months - that is not in the control of the employer. So, they defined it as a job, so that if an employee resigns you can hire somebody else and still get the points.
But they have not been expecting that one JOB will have more than one employee at a time - which is what your case is.
As far as the rules are concerned, my personal opinion there should be no problem with that but it is something that is not so straightforward.
As said before, if you had said Job 2 is Employee B and Job 3 is Employee C and D, this would have been approved easily.
The way you put it, it needs the CW to think of all the combinations and they did not.
To their credit, they did try to work the three employees as three different jobs and hence came to the conclusion, which is potentially wrong.
As I said, in the AR, you can argue that ONE job can have TWO employees and together, there is 12 months (52 weeks) of more than 130 hrs/month.
You can and possibly should also argue that Employee C + D can be considered to be Job 3 and together they have more than 12 months as D replaced C.
Put both arguments in you AR. I think you have a very good chance the decision is overturned.
In case it is not, do a fresh application separating B from C and D.

Thank you for the information.
If i say Job 2 is Employee B
and Job 3 is Employee C and D
If i combine Job2 and Job3 will there any issue.
What i heard is we can only combine employees not the Jobs, is that right???

You heard wrong - it is the other way around. You can combine jobs, not employees.
That is the reason your application was rejected and for the same reason, your AR has a chance of rejection.

When i applied i showed only 2 jobs
For Admin review if i show there is 3 jobs. How he will consider it?
And he may query it why initially 2 jobs and now 3 job roles??

Which is why I said you should make both arguments.
First showing how what you submitted is correct.
But then, add the other one also to say, if the 1st is not accepted, then HO should still have still considered C and D as a separate job and calculated accordingly.
You have only one AR chance, so the idea is to put as many arguments as you can in that one application.
It is possible they may not accept it, but you don't lose anything by trying.

Thank you so much.
It make sense a lot, i will do it. Once again thank you so much.

[ind8889]

The problem is that this job/employee is confusing.
I believe the only reason HO defined it this way is to help the employers. It is impractical to insist that a person should be employed for 12 months - that is not in the control of the employer. So, they defined it as a job, so that if an employee resigns you can hire somebody else and still get the points.
But they have not been expecting that one JOB will have more than one employee at a time - which is what your case is.
As far as the rules are concerned, my personal opinion there should be no problem with that but it is something that is not so straightforward.
As said before, if you had said Job 2 is Employee B and Job 3 is Employee C and D, this would have been approved easily.
The way you put it, it needs the CW to think of all the combinations and they did not.
To their credit, they did try to work the three employees as three different jobs and hence came to the conclusion, which is potentially wrong.
As I said, in the AR, you can argue that ONE job can have TWO employees and together, there is 12 months (52 weeks) of more than 130 hrs/month.
You can and possibly should also argue that Employee C + D can be considered to be Job 3 and together they have more than 12 months as D replaced C.
Put both arguments in you AR. I think you have a very good chance the decision is overturned.
In case it is not, do a fresh application separating B from C and D.

Thank you so much.
I will include both the Arguments in AR.

[ind8889]

The problem is that this job/employee is confusing.
I believe the only reason HO defined it this way is to help the employers. It is impractical to insist that a person should be employed for 12 months - that is not in the control of the employer. So, they defined it as a job, so that if an employee resigns you can hire somebody else and still get the points.
But they have not been expecting that one JOB will have more than one employee at a time - which is what your case is.
As far as the rules are concerned, my personal opinion there should be no problem with that but it is something that is not so straightforward.
As said before, if you had said Job 2 is Employee B and Job 3 is Employee C and D, this would have been approved easily.
The way you put it, it needs the CW to think of all the combinations and they did not.
To their credit, they did try to work the three employees as three different jobs and hence came to the conclusion, which is potentially wrong.
As I said, in the AR, you can argue that ONE job can have TWO employees and together, there is 12 months (52 weeks) of more than 130 hrs/month.
You can and possibly should also argue that Employee C + D can be considered to be Job 3 and together they have more than 12 months as D replaced C.
Put both arguments in you AR. I think you have a very good chance the decision is overturned.
In case it is not, do a fresh application separating B from C and D.

Thank you Marcnath.
I have submitted AR on last Friday with all the details as you mentioned in above.

[marcnath]

The problem is that this job/employee is confusing.
I believe the only reason HO defined it this way is to help the employers. It is impractical to insist that a person should be employed for 12 months - that is not in the control of the employer. So, they defined it as a job, so that if an employee resigns you can hire somebody else and still get the points.
But they have not been expecting that one JOB will have more than one employee at a time - which is what your case is.
As far as the rules are concerned, my personal opinion there should be no problem with that but it is something that is not so straightforward.
As said before, if you had said Job 2 is Employee B and Job 3 is Employee C and D, this would have been approved easily.
The way you put it, it needs the CW to think of all the combinations and they did not.
To their credit, they did try to work the three employees as three different jobs and hence came to the conclusion, which is potentially wrong.
As I said, in the AR, you can argue that ONE job can have TWO employees and together, there is 12 months (52 weeks) of more than 130 hrs/month.
You can and possibly should also argue that Employee C + D can be considered to be Job 3 and together they have more than 12 months as D replaced C.
Put both arguments in you AR. I think you have a very good chance the decision is overturned.
In case it is not, do a fresh application separating B from C and D.

Thank you Marcnath.
I have submitted AR on last Friday with all the details as you mentioned in above.

Good luck !!

[marshal8732]

@ind889
Is there any update on your AR?

[10020132]

The decision is correct given you applied for your visa on or after 6 April 2014

if this was a pre 2014, then will the decision be wrong? Can we then combine the jobs which lasted for less than 12 months?
The reason why I am asking this is I am in same boat. I hope you wont mind answering

[marcnath]

The decision is correct given you applied for your visa on or after 6 April 2014

if this was a pre 2014, then will the decision be wrong? Can we then combine the jobs which lasted for less than 12 months?
The reason why I am asking this is I am in same boat. I hope you wont mind answering

I don't think you are in the same boat, as discussed in your own thread.

In this case, there were 2 sets of 52 weeks each which had a total of 30 hrs/week. I don't think you had that.

However, if you think you meet it, post the actual employee dates in your original thread and the discussion can continue there.