🇬🇧Migration Routes for Business Owners

The concept: a third generic route — neither money nor accolades, but a working company

The three basic models of migration entry differ in what the applicant puts in front of the state. The investment model offers capital; the talent model offers recognition and a track record; the third offers a going concern — a legal entity with turnover, staff and history, part of whose functions moves to the destination country. The first of the three, entry against capital, is mapped as a perimeter of its own in the investor cluster map; this page is about the entry where operations stand in for capital.

Formally this is not even a migration programme but a corporate action: incorporating a subsidiary, a branch or a regional headquarters, followed by the transfer of the owner or a senior executive. Everything else about the route follows from that. The petitioner is almost always the company rather than the individual; what gets examined is not a biography but the ownership structure and the accounts; and a refusal comes not for "insufficient merit" but because the transferred function does not rise to managerial level, or because the receiving entity exists only on paper.

In practice the landscape falls into three groups.

1. Countries with a mature intra-corporate transfer regime, where the statute itself describes the link between a foreign parent and a receiving entity: the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain and the rest of the EU through the ICT Directive.
2. Countries where entry runs not through a transfer but through business creation by a foreign resident against formal capital and employment thresholds: Japan after the 2025 reform, Spain along its entrepreneur line.
3. The Gulf jurisdictions, where migration status is an appendage to a corporate licence and the real prize is the tax regime attached to a regional headquarters.

Canada, which two years ago was the shop window of entrepreneurial entry, has dropped off the map altogether: Start-Up Visa work permit intake closed on 19 December 2025, the day IRCC published its notice Update on immigration measures for entrepreneurs, and intake of new permanent residence applications stopped at 11:59 p.m. on 31 December 2025 under Ministerial Instructions 90, Federal Business Programs, published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on 20 December 2025 and in force from 1 January 2026; the Self-Employed Persons Program has been paused since 30 April 2024 under Ministerial Instructions 72, and the pause has been extended until further notice. Holders of a valid 2025 commitment certificate had to file by 30 June 2026, and as of August 2026 no selection criteria have been published for the promised 2026 entrepreneurial pilot — in planning terms that is an option with an undefined date, not a route.

The key parameters of the route

What this entry demands and what it yields, in one grid; the country detail follows below.

The United States: L-1 as a temporary bridge, EB-1C as the exit into a green card

The American construction is the most fully developed and the most expensive in friction. It works in two steps: the non-immigrant L-1 visa moves the person, and the immigrant EB-1C category turns that move into permanent status.

L-1A and L-1B: a year of service, affiliation, and ceilings

Both sub-categories share one requirement: the applicant must have worked continuously for the foreign company for at least one year within the three years preceding the petition, and the foreign and US entities must stand in a qualifying relationship — parent, subsidiary, branch or affiliate. 9 FAM 402.12 fixes the ceilings on stay: seven years for L-1A (executives and managers) and five for L-1B (specialised knowledge), with time spent in H status counting against the same limit.

The "new office" rule is a regime of its own. Where the US entity has been trading for less than a year, the petition is approved for no more than twelve months, and at the end of that year the company must show that the operation has grown to a level that supports a managerial position. This is where most schemes break: a year on, the office has engaged two contractors, there is no revenue, and the extension fails.

Large groups can use a blanket petition, which removes the individual test of qualifying relationships. Eligibility turns on one of three conditions — at least ten L approvals in the preceding twelve months, or combined annual sales of the US entities of $25 million or more, or 1,000 or more employees in the United States — plus a US office more than a year old and at least three branches, subsidiaries or affiliates.

The classic failure — the "manager of nobody". L-1A requires the management of people or of an essential function, not the operational work itself. A founder who is the sole employee of the new US company and writes the code or runs the sales himself is refused, or extended for another single year. The second common failure is bolted-on affiliation: control over the foreign and the US company is held through different nominees, and common ultimate beneficial ownership simply cannot be read off the documents.

EB-1C: a green card without labour certification, but only after a year of trading

The immigrant category for multinational executives and managers sits in 8 CFR 204.5(j). The logic is the same — one year of managerial employment abroad within the preceding three years — but a requirement is added on the receiving side: the prospective US employer must have been doing business for at least one year. "Doing business" is defined in the regulation as "the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services", and expressly excludes the mere presence of an agent or office. No labour certification (PERM) is required, and that is the category's chief advantage over EB-2 and EB-3.

As of August 2026 there is effectively no EB-1 queue for most of the world: the Visa Bulletin shows Current for all chargeability areas except China-mainland (01JUL23) and India (15OCT22), with a State Department caveat that India's pro-rated limit may be exhausted before the fiscal year ends. This dated snapshot does not establish availability by passport. Immigrant-visa chargeability generally follows the country of birth, subject to exceptions; check the applicable category, priority date and current Visa Bulletin before treating a visa number as available. The standalone talent branch is compared in the note on EB-1A. (Sources: US State Department: chargeability).

The cost of friction is rising

The refusal statistics have shifted. The April NFAP review, built on USCIS data, puts the Q4 FY2025 denial rate up moderately year on year in the non-immigrant categories and far more sharply in the immigrant ones.

The applied conclusion is that the temporary transfer through L-1 remains comparatively passable, while the immigrant step now demands a substantially denser file than it did two years ago.

The process has also become dearer. On 10 August 2026 DHS published the final rule on the 9-11 Response and Biometric Entry-Exit Fee: from 9 September 2026 the $4,500 L-1 fee (and the $4,000 H-1B fee) reaches extension petitions filed by the same employer, not merely initial petitions and changes of employer. It is payable by "covered employers" — companies with 50 or more employees in the United States where more than 50% of the workforce holds H-1B or L-1 status. The statutory authority is section 402(g) of Public Law 114-113, and the fee sunsets on 30 September 2027 unless Congress extends it. A family group with a small US payroll rarely crosses the 50-employee threshold: the rule bites the outsourcing model, not the business owner.

Money and timing on the American pairing, August 2026

The government block comes to four items, and the calendar is set by the processing times on two forms.

The Asylum Program Fee is set by 8 CFR 106.2, and the Federal Register notice of 12 January 2026 indexed the premium tariff by 5.72% against CPI-U. Against the six- and seven-figure thresholds of the investment programmes the government block here is small change — the layered comparison is in the full cost of a route.

The United Kingdom: Expansion Worker, a route for the company rather than the person

The British equivalent lives inside the umbrella Global Business Mobility category. The UK Expansion Worker visa is meant for an employee sent by an overseas business to establish a UK footprint from scratch. The initial grant is twelve months from the start date on the certificate of sponsorship (or the certificate's duration plus fourteen days, whichever is shorter), extendable to two years in total, against an overall ceiling of five years in any six-year period across all GBM routes.

The decisive limitation is that the route does not lead to indefinite leave to remain. That is a matter of design, not oversight: the British construction is a temporary posting to run a launch, not a channel for moving a family. The eligibility criteria require pay of at least £52,500 a year or the going rate for the occupation code, whichever is higher, and at least twelve months' service with the same employer outside the United Kingdom — unless earnings exceed £73,900 a year, or the applicant is a Japanese national working for a Japanese company expanding into the UK, or an Australian national or permanent resident working for an Australian company doing the same.

Money and timing as at August 2026 are counted on the sponsorship, not on the visa: the Home Office tariff is in force from 8 April 2026.

The Immigration Skills Charge is not levied on the Expansion Worker route, unlike Skilled Worker and Senior or Specialist Worker, where since 16 December 2025 it has stood at £1,320 for the first year for a medium or large sponsor and £480 for a small one. The licence, not the visa, sets the calendar: UKVI decides a sponsor licence application in about eight weeks, the priority service compresses that to ten working days where slots are available, and the visa decision itself takes three weeks from outside the UK and eight weeks in-country.

The classic failure on the British route — treating £52,500 as sufficient. The rule requires the higher of two figures: £52,500 a year or the going rate for the occupation code, and on managerial and technical codes the going rate is routinely above the threshold, so the application collapses at the certificate of sponsorship stage rather than at the visa. The second failure is planning the licence and the visa in parallel: the certificate of sponsorship is issued by the sponsor out of its own allocation, so eight weeks for the licence is the start of the calendar, not a backdrop to it. The third is forgetting the condition that there be no existing UK trading presence: where the British entity already trades, Expansion Worker is closed and what remains is Senior or Specialist Worker, with its own pay and service thresholds.

The wider British backdrop in 2026 is unhelpful. The Lewis Silkin review records that the consultation on "earned settlement" ran to 12 February 2026 and contemplated stretching the standard five-year qualifying period to at least ten years in many cases; the English language requirement for Skilled Worker rose from B1 to B2 for applications made on or after 8 January 2026; and the Immigration Skills Charge went up by 32% on 16 December 2025.

As of August 2026 the reform is still a proposal with no final Immigration Rules text: the ten-year baseline, the reductions for income and route, and the retrospectivity question are set out in the earned settlement reform. For an owner who wants an actual move rather than a posting, the honest alternatives are Innovator Founder with an endorsing body's backing, or Global Talent, where status attaches to the person and does lead to settlement.

Japan: Business Manager after 16 October 2025

The Japanese route has been repriced more sharply than any other. From 16 October 2025, per the KPMG note, the minimum capital for the Business Manager status of residence rose from ¥5 million to ¥30 million — a sixfold jump.

Three new conditions came with it. The applicant must hire at least one full-time employee drawn from a protected pool: Japanese nationals, permanent residents, spouses of Japanese nationals, spouses or children of permanent residents, and long-term residents. A language bar applies — JLPT N2 or above, or BJT of 400 points or more, with alternatives for twenty years or more of residence in Japan as a mid- or long-term resident, graduation from a Japanese university, or from a Japanese high school — and it may be satisfied by a designated employee rather than the applicant personally. And the business plan must be validated by a certified professional: an SME management consultant, a certified public accountant or a licensed tax accountant.

The transition is described in the Newland Chase briefing: for those already in Japan on this status, renewals up to 15 October 2028 are assessed case by case, weighing the actual condition of the business, the likelihood of meeting the new thresholds by the deadline, and the company's tax compliance. From 16 October 2028 compliance becomes unconditional. New certificate of eligibility applications and change-of-status applications get no transition at all: the new criteria bind them from day one. The practical reading for anyone holding the Japanese status is that three years is not a cushion but a recapitalisation deadline.

Money and timing. The government share of the Japanese route is cheap — an application for a certificate of eligibility carries no fee at all — while the visa has become dearer and the largest new line in the budget is not a government one.

The change-of-status and extension tariff has been in force since 1 April 2025, up from ¥4,000; the consular fee rose on 1 July 2026 for the first time since 1978, against the former ¥3,000 and ¥6,000; and the validation is carried out by an SME management consultant, a certified public accountant or a licensed tax accountant, with no published tariff. Timings are the immigration agency's own figures for spring 2026. In other words the Japanese calendar is longer than the American L-1 one, with the capital threshold already paid.

The classic failure on the Japanese route — satisfying the language bar through the wrong person. JLPT N2 or a BJT score of 400 may be presented by a designated employee rather than by the applicant, but that employee must be a real full-time member of staff: at renewal the immigration bureau looks at payroll records and social insurance, not at the wording of the employment contract. The second failure is treating the mandatory full-time employee as any hire at all: they must fall within the protected categories — Japanese nationals, permanent residents, spouses of Japanese nationals, spouses and children of permanent residents, and long-term residents — so a foreign national on a work visa does not count. The third is relying on the transition for a fresh application: only renewals up to 15 October 2028 are assessed case by case, while new certificates of eligibility and changes of status get no transition at all.

Spain: the two regimes of Ley 14/2013

Spanish law keeps both regimes inside a single text, Ley 14/2013. The entrepreneur line (articles 68 to 70) sets no minimum investment and no job creation target; instead of thresholds it runs a substantive assessment. The Large Companies and Strategic Collectives Unit, UGE-CE, issues the authorisation on the strength of a favourable ENISA report, which weighs the applicant's professional profile and involvement in the project, the business plan with its product and financing detail, and the added value the venture brings to the Spanish economy, to innovation or to investment opportunity. This is the exact inverse of golden-visa logic: what must be proved is not the presence of money but the coherence of the project.

The second route is the intra-corporate transfer. Article 73.3(a) grants an authorisation of up to three years for managers and specialists, and up to one year for trainees, while the service requirement sits in a separate limb: article 73.2(c) requires a prior and continuous employment or professional relationship of three months with one or more companies in the group.

That is the bottom of the range Directive 2014/66/EU leaves to Member States: its article 5(1)(b) permits a requirement of between three and twelve uninterrupted months for managers and specialists, and between three and six for trainees — Spain chose the minimum, which is its practical advantage over jurisdictions that ask for a year. The fee is modest: tasa 038 of model 790, section 7, at €73.26 per applicant, the same as on the entrepreneur line.

One procedural rule flatters the whole regime against ordinary immigration practice: under article 76.1 the maximum decision period is twenty days from electronic filing, and if it lapses the application is deemed granted by positive administrative silence.

The tax overlay is a separate conversation: Spain's special regime for posted workers is open, among others, to entrepreneurs carrying on innovative activity and to company administrators, but it does not apply automatically — see the notes on the Beckham regime and the Spain hub.

The classic failure on the Spanish route — confusing the ENISA report with a business plan. The UGE-CE does not assess the project itself: without a favourable ENISA report on viability and innovation no authorisation issues on the entrepreneur line, and the report is prepared to ENISA's own method — the applicant's profile, their involvement in the project, the added value to the Spanish economy. The twenty-day limit in article 76.1 runs on the administrative procedure and does not cover the time ENISA spends on its assessment, so "a decision in 20 days" and "the whole route in 20 days" are different quantities. The second failure is presenting service "within the group at large" on the ICT line: article 73.2(c) requires a prior and continuous employment or professional relationship of three months with the company or companies of that same group, and any gap in it has to be explained on the documents.

The Gulf: a corporate licence in place of a migration basis

Here migration status is secondary and hangs off a corporate licence, while the prize is the tax regime — which is why, as an "owner's route", the Gulf only works alongside a separate residence basis. The Saudi RHQ trades a tax break for hard substance.

The entire price of the regime is people, premises and relocation; the licence conditions, the substance requirements and the exceptions to the procurement mandate are set out in full in the Saudi Arabia overview.

In the UAE there is no separate RHQ regime at all: "headquarter services to Related Parties" is simply a line in the closed list of qualifying activities in Ministerial Decision No. 265 of 2023, and the ceiling on the relief is the 15% Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax for groups with revenue of €750 million or more; the mechanics are in the UAE hub and the UAE licence map.

For an owner this yields a simple rule: Emirati headquarter services is not a migration basis at all, and the Saudi RHQ is one only indirectly — through the work visas whose number the licence lifts off the quota.

The classic failure on the Saudi route — falling short of fifteen staff in the first year. The condition is framed as hiring at least fifteen full-time employees within the first year of the licence, at least three of them at C-level, and failing it strikes at RHQ status itself, and with it at the thirty-year zero and at access to government contracts. The second failure is treating an RHQ as a precondition for any work in the Kingdom: the mandate reaches public procurement only, and the exceptions cover contracts worth no more than one million riyals, projects performed outside the Kingdom, a sole qualified bidder and emergency circumstances. The third is planning an RHQ as a way to move: employee status follows the licence and does not lead to permanent residence, and personal status calls for a different product — Premium Residency.

The routes on the same axes: who files and what they present

First, who initiates the application and what the company must have in place before filing.

The second axis is how long the status lasts and where it leads.

Read together, the two axes show the family's main divergence: the short and terminal British route against the American and Spanish ones, which have a continuation.

The tax layer: one file, two addressees

The distinctive risk in this family of routes is not the rates but the fact that the migration file and the tax file are assembled from the same documents. The applicant's managerial authority, the board minutes, the payroll records and the contracts with which a company proves to the immigration service that the role is managerial are precisely the material from which the destination country's tax authority establishes the place of effective management and the existence of a permanent establishment.

The irony is that the routes in this family demand exactly that evidence: managerial authority is a condition of approval under Spanish ICT and US L-1A, and for the Saudi RHQ the taking of strategic decisions inside the Kingdom is written into the substance requirements. Separating the two files after the event is impossible; building them consistently is not — and it is at that stage that you decide where the holding company sits, who signs the contracts and where the board meets.

The mechanics of the risks themselves live on the specialist pages: corporate residence by place of effective management, local directors and permanent establishment in economic substance and holding structures; the CFC rules of each jurisdiction that still has a relevant tax connection to the owner, including the OBBBA parameters for a qualifying US owner and the notification duties of a Russian tax-resident controlling person, in the US CFC rules and the Russian CFC rules. The adjacent topic is tax residence under investment-based status. (Sources: EU: ATAD; FNS: CFC; HMRC: CFC).

Common requirements: what every one of these regimes examines

Whatever the jurisdiction, the same checks recur. Reality of the business: audited accounts, payroll records, contracts with unrelated counterparties, physical premises. Affiliation and ownership: control over the foreign and the receiving company must be legible from the corporate documents right up to the ultimate beneficial owner — the American L requires a qualifying relationship, and Spanish ICT and British GBM are likewise built on a link between employers.

Age of the company: EB-1C wants a year of US trading, the blanket petition wants a year-old US office, and almost everywhere a freshly incorporated entity draws a shortened grant and heightened attention. Employment and capital: Japan's ¥30 million and one protected-category employee, Saudi Arabia's fifteen staff and three C-level roles, Britain's £52,500 — these are formalised versions of the same test. Service within the group: a year for the United States, twelve months for the UK Expansion Worker, three months for Spanish ICT under article 73.2(c) of Ley 14/2013 — the bottom of the range set by article 5(1)(b) of Directive 2014/66/EU.

The planning consequence is straightforward. A business should be moved when it already exists. The "incorporate a company to obtain a visa" scheme breaks on the second step, at renewal, when revenue, headcount and a tax history are requested. The registration work — from a Cyprus company to an Emirati licence — is technique; it is the substance that carries a shelf life.