Supplementary Employment for Skilled Workers

In 2024 sweeping changes were made to the Immigration Rules, to include the Skilled Worker route. One such change was in respect of ‘supplementary employment’, where Skilled Workers are permitted to work up to twenty hours in a secondary job provided it complies with requirements under the Immigration Rules.

Prior to these changes, supplementary employment was only permitted if the job in question was in the same occupation code and at the same level as the job that the Skilled Worker was being sponsored for, and the job needed to be in a shortage occupation.

However, after these changes supplementary employment was no longer restricted to the same occupation code as the primary job of a Skilled Worker. This allowed those on the Skilled Worker route to undertake a wider range of employment as a part-time job if it was a type of work which could be sponsored under the Skilled Worker rules, and as long as these extra hours did not interfere with the hours of their main job.

Our client’s experience of this change in the Rules

Recently, our client was arrested whilst working at his supplementary employment. He had a secondary job in addition to his primary skilled worker job. The client’s main employment was as a chef (permitted under the Skilled Worker occupation codes). On that basis, he had been granted a Skilled Worker visa in December 2023. The Home Office argued that he had been arrested on that basis that his conditions stemmed from the Immigration Rules as they were when his leave was granted i.e. before 4 April 2024. As such, the Home Office maintained that the old definition of ‘supplementary employment’ applied to him.

Our argument was that the Immigration Rules changed for all Skilled Workers when it came to supplementary employment, and that our client was entitled to work his second job as long as it qualified for the Skilled Worker route. It did for him. We therefore sought to apply for permission to judicially review the Home Office’s decision to revoke our client’s leave to remain and detain him.

The Judge who considered the claim confirmed that the argument we put forward on our client’s behalf was arguable, and that there was merit in considering whether the Home Office was correct to rely upon their interpretation of ‘supplementary employment’ when making their decision. While the matter is ongoing and has not yet concluded, permission being granted is indicative of an important point to be raised in immigration law. Many Skilled Workers may have had their right to remain revoked following the Home Office’s incorrect interpretation of the Immigration Rules.

Our work in relation to this client demonstrates our ability to represent clients in judicial review of their matters. If you believe that your leave was unfairly revoked, it may be possible to challenge this through Judicial Review. It may be possible that the Home Office failed to correctly consider the Rules. More can be found about this on our Personal Immigration page.

Sankirtan Srenathan took care and conduct of this matter under the supervision of Sashi Pararajasingam.