Recently, we noticed that some immigration consultants did not provide accurate advice to clients, which caused them to be involved in some suspicious investment plans, which caused the Ministry of Home Affairs to reject their applications for renewal, thus jeopardizing the applicant and his family’s right of abode in the UK .
The Tier 1 (investor) visa category may seem simple, but in fact it is quite complicated. Contrary to popular belief, this visa is not equivalent to a currency investment in exchange for the right of abode in the UK. After obtaining a permanent residence permit (“ILR”), investors are free to withdraw and use their investment funds in any way they see fit. However, to reach this stage, investors need to comply with a series of conditions, and these conditions are far from being as simple as imagined. Not only that, these requirements will continue to be revised and interpreted by the Ministry of the Interior and the courts.
In addition to the most substantial changes (such as raising the minimum investment level five years ago to £2 million and abolishing government bonds as a viable investment method in the spring of 2019), the Ministry of the Interior and the courts often introduce other less exhaustive investments. A pleasant explanation. Although these explanations are easily overlooked, they are the most dangerous. Failure to comply with the provisions of these explanations may result in investors not being able to successfully renew their visas and obtain uk investment visa.
For example, the judiciary recently provided an explanation that limits the types of investments allowed under this immigrant visa route. The higher court upheld the Ministry of the Interior’s decision to reject a Tier 1 (investor) visa renewal applicant and another permanent residency applicant’s decision because their investment funds were not completely unconstrained by themselves. Under control.
Both appellants used funds borrowed from one company to invest in another company. It should be noted that for applicants who obtained the initial permit for this visa category before November 6, 2014, this is officially permitted by the Immigration Regulations. Appellants also have the legal right to transfer their investment funds to the company of their choice, and have the right to redeem their shares in the company they have invested in. However, although these investments seem to have been made in accordance with relevant requirements, the arbitral tribunal pointed out that, in fact, investors did not freely choose to invest their funds in this particular company, but were signed by an agreement between them and the borrower. Required to do so. This inference stems from the fact that the company that lent the money to the appellant is very closely related to the company that the applicant subsequently invested in. This corporate structure seems to be established purely to obtain investor visas. Although it is not forbidden to establish or use this method, it turns out that this kind of investment is not sufficient to satisfy the court’s definition of controlling funds “in its natural and primitive way.”
In addition, the court pointed out that the funds that the appellant relied on were used for investments outside the UK. According to the “Immigration Regulations”, the company holding the funds does not meet the requirements of an “active British trading company”, but an “open investment company”, and the first-level (investor) immigration is not subject to Allow investment in such companies.
Previously, there was no such explanation for the rules for the use of investment funds in the Tier 1 (investor) visa category. We can see that the requirements for the Tier 1 (investor) visa are becoming more and more stringent, resulting in the current version of this visa category becoming more and more different from the original visa category. One of the most worrying aspects is its unpredictability, because immigrants who have moved to the UK expect these rules and regulations governing their right of residence in the UK to have certainty and stability.
However, there is no doubt that this visa category will continue to undergo further changes. For example, the Ministry of the Interior may introduce wealth audit requirements to solve the problem of money laundering. In addition, the proposed major immigration reform in 2021 will bring fundamental changes to the entire immigration system, and will eventually further change the investor visa as we know it today.
Gherson Law Firm does not provide investment advice. Any investment choice must be made by the applicant in cooperation with his independent financial advice.
Gherson has extensive experience in all stages of the Tier 1 (Investor) immigrant visa application. If you want to discuss the situation and options related to this visa category, please feel free to contact us .
The information in this blog is general information only and is not comprehensive or intended to provide any legal advice. Although we will do our best to ensure that the information and laws provided are up-to-date on the date of blog posting, it should be emphasized that over time, it does not necessarily reflect the current applicable laws. Jiasen Law Firm is not responsible for the losses that may be caused by accessing or relying on the information contained in this blog. If you wish to seek legal advice on the laws applicable today, please feel free to contact us. Jiasen Law Firm will provide legal advice after signing a written agreement with the client.