Video: UK Work Visas; UK Investment Visas; UK Investment Visas; Tier 1, 2 and 5 Visas

Added: New video- Getting UK Work, Business and Investment Visas

The Origin page is here.

Immigration Lawyer Jeremy Chipperfield, practising from the chambers of Michael Mansfield QC, Chancery Lane, also writes at Immigration Barrister website iBarristersChambers

UK Work Visas and UK Investment Visas – Immigration Barrister Audio

I have uploaded an audio file concerning UK investment and work visas. The origin is: here. http://www.ibarristerschambers.com/best-immigration-laimmigration-solicitors/

Immigration Lawyer Jeremy Chipperfield, practising from the chambers of Michael Mansfield QC, Chancery Lane, also writes at Immigration Barrister website iBarristersChambers

New Requirements for Entrepreneur Visa Applications

Changes notified on 10th July 2014 and effective from the next day, impose new requirements on Tier 4 students transferring to Tier 1 (entrepreneur) visas: they can no longer rely on venture capital funds and must now funding comes from approved government sources such as seed funding companies endorsed by UK Trade and Investment or UK government departments. Changes also affect transfers from Tier 1 (Post Study Work) to the entrepreneur category in a similar way unless they can show that before 11th July 2014, they had established a business which is not “de facto employment”.
Where funding is granted to a company, the visa applicant must be a director of the company and a signatory to any business account relied upon.
The entrepreneur visa route is intended to encourage migrants to set up business in the UK, creating domestic jobs and growth. The UK Home Office have said the changes are motivated by the discovery (from analysis of tax records) that the entrepreneur route has been extensively used to abstain visas whilst working in low-slilled jobs. They also say that visa statistics suggest that individuals and organised criminals began to target the entrepreneur option after the post study work visa was withdrawn in 2012.

Immigration Lawyer Jeremy Chipperfield, practising from the chambers of Michael Mansfield QC, Chancery Lane, also writes at Immigration Barrister website iBarristersChambers.

Entrepreneurs (and other PBS applicants) – Assume Disbelief

In Ahmed and Another (PBS: Admissible Evidence) [2014] UKUT 00365 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal IAC heard a Home Office Appeal of the cases of Pakistan and Nepal nationals who, having been students then post-study migrants applied for leave to remain as Tier 1 Entrepreneur Migrants. Their application was refused by the SSHD (who at this point revealed she didn’t accept the applicants were genuine) but their initial appeal was allowed by the First Tier Tribunal, after hearing the Appellants’ respond to the SSHD’s allegation.

The Home Office further  appealed, complaining that the Judge, in considering material which had not been produced with the original application , had acted contrary to Section 85A Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The Upper Tier rejected the argument that in the actions complained of the judge was assessing the genuineness of the scheme the parties wished to pursue, rather than considering the acquisition of points under the PBS generally, and was therefore not prevented from hearing this evidence. Its reasons are stated in the Head Note: Where a provision of the Rules… provides that points will not be awarded if the decision-maker is not satisfied as to another (non-points-scoring) aspect of the Rule, the non-points-scoring aspect and the requirement for points are inextricably linked. As a result, the prohibition on new evidence in section 85A(4) if the NIAA applies to the non-points-scoring aspect of the rule: the prohibition is in relation to new evidence that goes to the scoring of points.  

All of which puts an even greater pressure on applicants to anticipate concerns the Home Office might have about their application (which may not be indicated by the HO at any stage in the process- even where there is an interview) and seek to cover that ground with evidence going beyond that which is required on the face of the application process.

See the case report  by clicking here, or for Free Movement’s take, click here