Wang & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 21 (21 June 2023)
Citation:Wang & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 21 (21 June 2023)
Rule of thumb:If you are a skilled worker, and are offered a job to do this in the UK, do you automatically qualify for a VISA? Yes, but the standard of ‘skilled worker’ is very high – you actually have to be given clear responsibility & control in a regulated industry – for example if you are given a job as an advisor, you actually have to be the one making the final decision on what companies/bonds to invest in, and not just be a senior adviser/assistant.
Background facts:The facts of this case were that Wang was offered a job to work in a UK investment bank. Wang applied for a skilled worker Visa to enter the UK to take up this job. However, the Home Office refused this arguing that Wang had not met the skilled worker test.
Parties argued:The Home Office argued that Wang was not actually the principal in charge of controlling a fund in the investment bank. Wang had skills for researching investment opportunities & doing diligence on them thereafter, but she did not actually make the final decision on which investments money was put into. Wang argued that the research & administration were 2 sides of the same coin over investment, with the final decision being dictated by her work, and that she was shadow controlling the fund, so therefore qualified for a UK skilled worker VISA.
Court held:The Court upheld the arguments of the Home Office. They affirmed that Wang was not in control of the fund as she was not the final person who made the decision on the investments, and her advice could be rejected by the person who actually was, so she was therefore not in control of the fund. The Court rejected Wang’s application and she was not allowed a skilled worker Visa to enter the UK.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘I would therefore allow the appeal on the first issue, about control. Paragraph (b)(ii) of box 1 of Table 8B required Ms Wang to show that she had a real choice as to the use and investment of the MAM loan once it became available to her. Looking at the Maxwell Scheme in the round, neither she or any other participants in it had such a choice’, Lord Briggs at 52.
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.