This question may sound dramatic, but many practitioners have raised concerns about the Home Office’s recent approach to processing new Sponsor Licence applications, with nearly 40% of applications being refused or withdrawn in the last quarter alone.
A similar trend is evident in the number of suspensions and revocations of Sponsor Licences. According to the most recent Sponsorship Transparency Data, available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sponsorship-transparency-data-q3-2024, suspensions have soared by 459%, climbing from 91 in Q3 2023 to 509 in Q3 2024, and revocations have skyrocketed by 689%, increasing from 65 to 513 over the same period.
These numbers are shocking, particularly considering that the rules governing the criteria for applications, suspensions, and revocations have not changed. This suggests a shift in policy, with a clear focus on reducing the number of active Sponsor Licences. As a result, fewer companies will be able to hire from overseas, which will inevitably lead to a lower number of skilled migrants coming to the UK.
Regardless of political positions or opinions, policies aimed at sharply reducing the number of skilled migrants are well within the government’s powers. However, the real question is: if this is the objective, why not simply amend the rules so that all affected parties can take timely corrective actions? By doing so, companies could adjust their recruitment strategies to account for legal changes, skilled applicants could factor this into their decisions when considering job opportunities in the UK or other attractive job markets, and legal practitioners could provide clients with the certainty they deserve.
Is there legal recourse?
To further complicate matters, there is no right to appeal the refusal of a Sponsor Licence application or the revocation of an existing licence. This decision lies within the government’s discretionary powers, and there is no dispute about that. However, as per the Wednesbury principles of Judicial Review, the government must exercise its powers reasonably. In other words, its actions must be rational and not unreasonable. If this standard is not met, Judicial Review remains an available recourse for those affected.
Now, if the rules have not changed, how can a 689% increase be reasonably justified? Some argue that the Home Office has achieved this by introducing new de facto requirements that are not set out in their official guidance. If this is the case, some of these decisions may be successfully challenged through Judicial Review.
Judicial Review (JR) is a legal process by which a court examines the lawfulness of a decision or action taken by a public authority, such as the Home Office. It is not an appeal of the decision itself, but rather a challenge to the process by which that decision was made and the reasoning behind it. In the case of a refusal or revocation of a Sponsor Licence, the Judicial Review of the decision would assess whether the Home Office’s actions were within the scope of its powers, whether the decision was made fairly, and whether it was reasonable based on the facts of the case and the applicable rules.
To bring a Judicial Review, you would need to show that the decision made by the Home Office was irrational, unreasonable, or otherwise unlawful. This could include cases where the Home Office has acted in a way that no reasonable person would have, or where they have failed to follow proper procedures or guidelines.
This process was once considered as a last resort in immigration law, primarily because it is highly technical and not all practitioners are well-versed or experienced in it. However, with no other remedies available for potentially unfair decisions, its use is likely to become more common in the near future.
If you are considering a legal challenge against the refusal or your Sponsor Licence application, or the revocation of your Sponsor Licence, contact paolo.barbato@childandchild.co.uk
The information contained in this article is general guidance only. The application and impact of laws can vary widely depending on the specific facts involved. The information in this article is provided with the understanding that the authors and presenters are not giving legal, tax, or other professional advice and services. As such, it should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional legal, tax or other competent advisers. Before making any decision or taking any action, you should consult a Child & Child professional.
