Back
Building resilient approaches to support your employee relocation program
Immigration systems are shaped by many different factors, the most influential of which is the government of the jurisdiction itself. It’s not uncommon for changes in immigration policy to happen along with transitions to new leadership. Depending on the specifics, the change could be an entirely new system, formalized amendments to an existing policy or a different adjudication of a current rule.
Governments rarely introduce a completely new system immediately. Instead, most complete a formal notification and implementation process over a period of time. The same generally applies to formalized amendments. These phased-in timelines allow for appropriate adjustments to be made, and clarity around the impact of any new rules.
Where things can become complicated is when revisions, and their implementation timelines, are not so “black and white,” and left instead to the greyer areas of interpretation and the adjudication process. When the rules are not clear, that decision making can vary widely, depending on which authority is making the decisions. What was once accepted as a norm may no longer be, and applicants might only discover this after their file has been processed. If lucky, they may have the opportunity to provide additional evidence, but even that can vary from one jurisdiction and visa officer to another.
A reliance on the adjudication process emphasizes the importance of flexibility. Rather than keeping a singular focus on the regulations themselves, it’s critical to monitor how they are being interpreted in the field, and the impact that is having on the actual adjudication process in practice.
Preparing for greater scrutiny
From our experience, variations in adjudication processes typically do not favor the visa applicant. Governments generally use it as a tool to limit the number of successful applicants, so it’s essential to prepare for a higher level of scrutiny, a tighter application of requirements and the possibility of less discretion applied in your favor. When adjudication varies, the authorities do not usually publicize specific changes in approach. Reviewing criteria and evidence critically is therefore paramount.
Each application should be prepared in the strongest possible sense while retaining pragmatism. The submission process is often burdensome, and adding potentially unnecessary steps is not only undesirable but also potentially lengthy and costly. Someone with significant exposure to the immigration system in question, such as a legal representative, can help you find the right balance. By benchmarking the typical request for additional or new evidence and analyzing any trends, they can determine what is likely to be required.
Watching central and local decision-makers
A system that allows variance in adjudication is likely to allow it both centrally and in overseas posts. At oversea posts especially, when you submit an application, you must monitor any trends in what officials have requested locally. This could be documents, the actual format the documents are presented in, and / or what is asked during any interviews. With subjective systems that allow local decision-making, uniformity is hard to achieve, even with a static and balanced decision-making process. One official may interpret guidance differently from another, resulting in local nuances that are unlikely to be publicized.
This is exactly why a “Plan B” is so valuable. Recent embassy closures are a timely reminder that a route you planned to rely on may not always be available. Keeping alternative options open protects your timelines and your people.
Apply early and explore alternatives
Submitting an application as soon as someone is eligible to do so is vital. This gives you extra time to navigate any unforeseen challenges and helps you manage the extended timeframe you are likely to experience. Greater scrutiny almost inevitably equates to longer processing times.
Lastly, it is always worth understanding whether a more favorable mechanism exists. For example, most countries have central work visa categories that are available to all, or the majority of, nationalities. Some countries, however, also have preferential categories only available to certain nationalities. These preferential categories tend to have simpler criteria with the individual’s nationality forming the bulk of the application. With far fewer areas open to scrutiny, the risk of rejection is potentially much lower. Identifying these alternatives in advance is a core part of building a flexible immigration strategy. In an environment of uncertainty, it is often tempting to enforce policies to give some certainty. However, avoid being overly rigid with policy wording when it comes to specific visa types, as you want to ensure you have the flexibility to choose the best available option for the relevant circumstances.
Staying flexible throughout the journey
It is not just those starting their immigration journey who may be caught out by varying approaches. Usually, when a government adopts a stance of varying adjudication, it applies that stance to all or most immigration components. Those who have successfully navigated the start of their journey are therefore not necessarily ‘safe’ from then on. You need to apply care to any extensions or renewals, as well as any permanent residency applications. With possible tighter scrutiny, applicants and their representatives may need to be more creative in their approach.
The common thread through all of this is preparation. By staying flexible, monitoring how jurisdictions interpret and adjudicate the rules and always keeping a “Plan B” in place, you can protect your people and your business through whatever changes lie ahead.
