Positive Court Ruling in case of Edward: highly skilled migrant permit, residence gap and work with the ‘wrong’ IND recognized sponsor
Court Ruling in case of Edward regarding highly skilled migrant permit, residence gap and work with the ‘wrong’ IND recognized sponsorEdward again wins a court case regarding a highly skilled migrant who ends up having a residence gap because the IND revoked his permit. This case is very interesting because the highly skilled migrant continued to work for an IND recognized sponsor. In most cases in our practice, highly skilled migrants run into a residence gap because they are going to work for an employer who is not an IND recognized sponsor.
The first employer of the highly skilled migrant in this case was an IND recognized sponsor for the purpose ‘labour’. He has also received a residence permit to work as a highly skilled migrant. He then entered into an employment contract with a sister company of his previous employer on 1 July 2018. This new employer was IND recognized sponsor for the purpose of ‘scientific research’. This new employer has hired him as a highly skilled migrant. The new employer has not applied to IND to change his residence permit to ‘scientific researcher’.
After more than 1 year, he rejoined his old employer as a highly skilled migrant. The IND subsequently withdrew his highly skilled migrant permit as of 1 July 2018 because from that date he worked as a highly skilled migrant with an IND recognized sponsor who was only recognized as an IND recognized sponsor for ‘scientific research’, and not for ‘labour’.
Edward has successfully invoked the principle of equality in this case. In other cases in our practice, the IND no longer objected (after procedures) to highly skilled migrants that the conditions for residence as a highly skilled migrant were temporarily not met. Edward also argued in this case that the creation of a residence gap has disproportionate consequences for the foreign national. Edward also argued that the conditions for becoming an IND recognized sponsor for ‘scientific research’ are more stringent than for becoming an IND recognized sponsor for ‘labour’. The court follows Edward’s position and rules that the IND must make a new decision taking into account the court’s decision. Click here for the court ruling.