← All insights Immigration

Hiring from overseas: where to begin

A hire involving someone who needs permission to work in the United Kingdom is usually treated as an ordinary recruitment with an administrative step attached to the end of it. The step sits at the front, it is assessed against the organisation rather than against the candidate, and it does not finish when the person starts.

Sponsorship is a status the business holds. The Home Office grants it to an employer on terms, and the employer keeps it by continuing to do the things it has undertaken to do. A particular candidate is usually the reason an employer starts thinking about any of this, while the assessment itself looks at the company: whether it genuinely trades, whether it can be relied on to comply, and who inside it will carry the responsibility.

That changes the order of everything downstream. In ordinary recruitment the offer comes late, once the business has made up its mind. Where sponsorship is involved, a good deal of work has to be finished before an offer describes anything the employer is actually in a position to deliver, and the stages that depend on one another cannot be compressed by wanting them to be.

What follows is what the decision commits a business to, and why the order is unforgiving.

The commitment is made by the organisation

A licence is a standing relationship with the Home Office rather than a permission granted for a single hire. The employer accepts duties around record keeping, reporting and the genuineness of the roles it sponsors, and accepts that compliance with those duties can be examined. Named individuals inside the business are attached to the licence and are accountable for how it is run.

Two consequences follow that employers rarely price in at the point of decision. The first is that exposure becomes aggregate. Once several people are sponsored, the permission of each of them depends on the same licence, so a compliance failure connected with one worker can reach all of them. The second is that the duties belong to the company while the work of meeting them belongs to people whose actual job is something else. The individuals named on a licence move on, change roles and go on leave. The obligation does not move with them, and the gap tends to be discovered at the moment something needed reporting and nobody had it in their diary.

Deciding to sponsor therefore commits a business to running a small permanent function. Whether that is proportionate depends on whether overseas recruitment is part of how the business intends to staff itself or a one-off answer to a single candidate. Spread across a pipeline of hires, the standing cost is unremarkable. Carried by a single hire who may not stay, it is a good deal less comfortable.

Whether to sponsor at all

The first question is whether this hire requires sponsorship, and it is asked less often than it should be. Some people already hold permission that allows them to work without an employer sponsoring them, and some hold permission tied to their circumstances rather than to a job. Others may qualify under arrangements that do not involve an employer at all. Establishing what permission someone already holds, or could hold independently, sometimes removes the exercise entirely, and it costs very little to establish at the outset.

The second question is whether the role, as it genuinely exists, can carry a sponsored hire. The published rules set requirements about the job itself: what kind of work it is, what it pays, and whether it is real. Where the job as actually performed falls outside those requirements, sponsorship is not available for it, and rewriting the job description until it appears to fit creates a different and considerably worse problem. A sponsored role can be examined later against the contract, the payroll and the person's ordinary working week.

The third question is commercial and has no immigration answer. The salary requirement attaching to a sponsored role is set by published rules and published rates rather than by what the local market will bear, and it may sit above what the business already pays comparable people. Employers frequently meet this after a package has been discussed with a candidate. It reaches the pay structure of a whole team rather than one person's offer, and it is better raised before a figure has been said out loud.

The order the steps have to happen in

The sequence is fixed by design. A business has to be in a position to sponsor before it can attach a named worker to a particular job. The worker has to be attached to that job before an application for permission can be made. The application has to be decided before the person can lawfully begin work. Each stage takes its input from the stage before it, so none of them can be run alongside the stage it depends on, however inconvenient that is commercially.

A great deal can run in parallel, and this is where planning genuinely pays:

• Internal readiness. Deciding who will carry responsibility, and making sure record keeping and right-to-work processes exist in practice rather than in principle.
• The commercial terms. Contract, hours, duties and pay settled to the point where they will still be accurate when somebody examines them later.
• Budget approval. Costs fall at several different moments, and a payment waiting on a committee stalls everything behind it.
• Anything the prospective employee has to arrange. That sits with them, but it bears on the employer's timetable.

The offer is where the sequence most often breaks. An unconditional offer with a fixed start date, made before the employer is in a position to sponsor, commits the business to something it cannot yet perform, and it commonly prompts the person to resign from their current job. The employer is then holding an obligation it cannot meet, in front of a candidate with no income, which is precisely the pressure that pushes the remaining work into being rushed. How an offer should be conditioned is a drafting question with employment law consequences as well as immigration ones, and it repays being taken properly rather than copied from a template.

What the timetable is really governed by

Employers plan around the Home Office and are then delayed by themselves. Published service standards exist for the stages that involve a decision, they are revised, and the sensible course is to plan against the position published at the time rather than against what happened for somebody else last year. Expedited options come and go, and their availability is not a foundation for a start date.

The parts of the timetable inside the business are usually where the time actually goes: assembling evidence about the organisation, agreeing who will hold the named roles, obtaining a signature from someone who is travelling, deciding whether finance or human resources owns the process. None of that registers as delay while it is happening, because each individual wait is short and reasonable. Added together, they routinely exceed the part everyone was worried about.

There is a further trap in growth. A business that is restructuring, changing ownership, or moving premises is doing things that interact with sponsorship in their own right. Doing them at the same time as a first sponsored hire is a reliable way to end up with an obligation the business did not know had arisen.

Counting the cost before committing

Cost arrives in tranches rather than as a single figure. Some falls when the business seeks permission to sponsor. Some falls each time a worker is sponsored, and parts of that vary with the size of the organisation and the length of the sponsorship. Some falls on the individual making the application. All of it is published, all of it is revised from time to time, and the only figure worth relying on is the one published on the day the payment is made.

Two points about cost matter more than the arithmetic. Certain charges connected with sponsorship cannot lawfully be recovered from the worker, and an agreement that tries to recover them, or a clawback clause drafted without regard to that restriction, may be unenforceable and can itself become evidence of a problem. Separately, the money does not come back if the hire does not work out. A sponsored employee who leaves early produces reporting obligations as well as a loss, and the business is left holding the standing function it built with nobody to use it on.

Ownership is the element most often left until last. Somebody has to hold this work permanently: the records, the reporting, and the diary of things that expire. Where that person is not identified at the point the business decides to sponsor, responsibility drifts between people who each assume it sits with somebody else, and it is usually still drifting when the first deadline arrives.

What is not worth doing

Some businesses should not sponsor, at least not yet, and establishing that early is far cheaper than discovering it late.

An organisation that is not yet trading, or that cannot readily evidence how it operates, is generally not in a position to be assessed favourably, and applying in that condition risks a refusal that carries consequences for how soon it can try again. A business whose employment record keeping is informal is in a comparable position, because the assessment looks at what exists rather than at what is intended.

Nor is it worth beginning where the role plainly does not reach the requirements, or where the pay the rules would require is a figure the business would not pay anybody else doing that work. That tells the business something about the role, and no amount of process changes it.

It is also not worth spending anything until somebody has established whether this particular hire needs sponsorship at all. That question is quick to answer, it is the cheapest part of the entire exercise, and it occasionally ends the conversation in the employer's favour.

This guide is general information, not legal or immigration advice. Regulated immigration advice is provided with regulated partners. Nothing here is advice until terms are agreed in writing.