One question in nine jurisdictions
| Jurisdiction | How the substance question is asked | What is typically examined |
|---|---|---|
| United States | Is the employer relationship qualifying and the role as described; is the beneficiary doing the work the petition says? | Corporate ownership, organisation charts, payroll, duties breakdowns, site visits, consular interviews |
| Canada | Is the employer "doing business"; is the offer genuine; does the person hold the specialised knowledge or managerial role claimed? | Employer compliance inspections, business activity, wage records, duties, the genuineness of a new entity |
| Japan | Does the activity match the status of residence; does the employer have the capacity and the need? | Business plan and accounts, premises, employment contract, the fit between duties and status, notification compliance |
| Singapore | Is the job real, the salary as declared, the employer's workforce fair; does the applicant meet the framework? | Employment Pass conditions, COMPASS criteria, fair-consideration evidence, MOM investigations |
| Hong Kong | Is there a genuine vacancy that cannot be filled locally; at renewal, is the employment genuine and continuing? | Employment contract, remuneration, business registration and activity, renewal evidence of actual work |
| Australia | Is the position genuine; is the sponsor meeting its obligations; is the nominee working in the nominated occupation? | Sponsor monitoring, nomination genuineness, salary and conditions, occupation fit |
| New Zealand | Is the employer accredited and compliant; does the job check hold; is the migrant doing the job? | Accreditation standards, job check, wage thresholds, employer compliance history |
| United Kingdom | Is the sponsor genuine; is the vacancy genuine; is the worker doing the sponsored role? | Sponsor licence duties, right-to-work records, compliance visits, reporting of changes |
| Malta | Is the applicant who they say they are, with lawful funds, and is the residence basis as stated? | Due diligence, source of funds, property and presence conditions, renewals |
The wording differs. The question is the same: is the activity real? A plan that is built on a real activity is robust across all nine; a plan built on a category is fragile in every one of them.
The three lines that must run the right way
In an assignment that involves a client organisation, an employer and a person, three lines determine whether the activity is real: who hires and can dismiss, who pays and sets the salary, and who directs the work. When all three run through the employer of record, the employment is real and the person's capital accumulates. When any of them runs through someone else, the arrangement starts to look like placement, and both the status and the capital are at risk. WG's engagement structure, developed with Magellan Global, keeps all three lines with the employer: candidates are recommended by clients but hired by the employer, who can decline; salary follows the employer's pay scale and is paid through its payroll; and the work is directed by the employer's managers, with clients setting requirements and accepting deliverables.
Training as professional development
Structured training is part of a well-designed assignment, but if it dominates the person is in substance a student, and several jurisdictions have statuses for students that are not the ones used for workers. WG's working guideline is that formal training should not exceed roughly a fifth of working time, that it should be delivered as internal professional development, and that training records should be kept separately from work records. Both sets of records should exist; they should not be mixed.
The monthly evidence pack
The evidence that satisfies an authority at renewal, at a change of status or at a permanent-residence filing is the evidence of real work: timesheets, deliverables, pay records, reviews, organisation charts, statements of work, on-site logs. Reconstructing it eighteen months later is slow, expensive and unconvincing. WG's engagement model produces it monthly as a by-product of ordinary management, so that a filing is an act of assembly rather than archaeology. The same pack is what demonstrates, to a family or a board, that the person's mobility capital has in fact been built.
- Timesheets by engagement, signed weekly by the manager
- Deliverables, versioned, with acceptance records
- Meeting records for requirements and acceptance
- Payslips, social insurance and tax filings
- Performance and promotion reviews
- Training records, kept separately
- Organisation charts and reporting lines, quarterly
- Statements of work, acceptance notes, invoices
- On-site work log: date, place, purpose
- Corporate relationship documents for intra-company routes
What WG declines
- Engagements in which the client requires day-to-day control of the employee
- Candidates who are out of status in the country where they currently live
- Arrangements in which a programme participant would manage client assets during the programme
- Any request to describe a route as a guaranteed outcome
Each of these breaks the real-work principle, and each has ended more applications than any technicality.
General information, not an individual eligibility decision or legal, tax or investment advice. The competent authority determines the outcome. WG’s engagement and any regulated professional work are scoped separately.