A recent decision by the Home office to revoke the tier 2 work permit and sponsorship license of a company was upheld in the high court recently. The decision was made after the courts found that the company was using four UK work permits incorrectly.
The Liral Veget Training and Recruitment company lost their immigration UK license after the Home Office claimed that the skills of four workers on a tier 2 work permit that the company was sponsoring were not at a high enough level.
Many complaints have been made so far about the complexity of the tier 2 work permit and sponsorship scheme. Some people believe that the laws around work permit UK agreements are unjust, and it's tough for a person to appeal a decision that has been made against them.
Details revealed about the work permit UK scandal with the Liral Veget Training and Recruitment company suggest that the business was sponsoring four workers on tier 2 work permits, for roles as an accountant, a human resources manager, and two business development managers. However, according to the home offices, the jobs that the migrant workers were doing bore little resemblance to the descriptions that were outlined on their UK visas.
The Home Office interviewed both the director of the company and the workers with the UK work permits to find out more about what they did in their roles. The Home Office stated that the duties described by the workers didn't correspond with the descriptions that were in their records. Although the migrant workers were sponsored to work in the UK at a managerial level, the Home Office felt that the tasks that they were responsible for were at more of an "administrative level."
Following the immigration UK interviews, the company's sponsorship license was immediately suspended and then revoked after the Home Office was not happy with the job descriptions given. Following the decision to cancel the tier 2 work permit sponsorship, the company applied for a judicial review to overturn the decision.
The High Court heard the case, but found in favour of the Home Office, stating that the job roles performed by the migrant workers were not close enough to the positions listed on file.