An international employee had been working in the Netherlands for a client with multiple legal entities.
During his employment, the employer had administratively placed him under the wrong entity. The problem was significant: this entity was not a recognised sponsor with the IND, while the employee held a residence permit that required employment with a recognised sponsor.
The IND identified the issue and indicated that the employees residence permit could be withdrawn retroactively.
This created consequences that went far beyond correcting an administrative mistake.
At a glance
Challenge
The IND identified that the employee had been placed under an entity that was not a recognised sponsor and indicated that his residence permit could be withdrawn retroactively.
Approach
Talcom reconstructed the complete employment history, corrected the employing entity and remuneration administration retrospectively, and built the supporting file for the IND.
Results
The employee did not lose the more than four years of residence already accumulated towards potential permanent residence.
The challenge
Four years of residence were at risk
The employee had already been living and working in the Netherlands for more than four years.
A retroactive withdrawal could have created a gap in his lawful residence history. This could have affected the continuous period he had built towards eligibility for permanent residence.
An administrative error by the employer therefore had the potential to affect years of accumulated residence.
Our priority was to establish what had actually happened and demonstrate that the underlying employment situation had always met the relevant requirements.
Our approach
Reconstructing the employment situation
Talcom worked with the employer to reconstruct the complete employment history.
It became clear that the employee should have been employed through another entity within the same organisation. That entity was a recognised sponsor.
We coordinated the correction of the employment administration and ensured that the employee was placed under the correct entity retroactively.
The remuneration administration was also corrected retrospectively.
An important part of the case was demonstrating that this was not an attempt to correct an underlying salary deficiency. Based on the employment and payroll documentation, we could demonstrate that the employees remuneration had remained above the applicable salary threshold throughout the relevant period.
The problem was the entity under which the employment had been administered.
Working with the IND
We entered into extensive communication with the IND to explain the circumstances and provide the supporting documentation.
The case required considerably more than submitting a corrected employment contract.
We needed to create a clear and consistent record showing:
- how the administrative error had occurred
- which entity should have employed the individual
- that the correct entity was a recognised sponsor
- how the employment relationship had been corrected
- how the payroll administration had been restored retrospectively
- that the applicable salary threshold had been met throughout
- why retroactive withdrawal would not reflect the underlying employment circumstances
The process took time.
There were periods in which response deadlines communicated by the IND were not met. Rather than allowing the case to remain unresolved, we used that time to continue strengthening the file, organising the documentation and ensuring that every part of the employment history could be substantiated.
The result
We successfully prevented the situation from creating a gap in the employees residence history.
The employment was corrected retrospectively under the appropriate recognised sponsor and the remuneration administration was aligned accordingly.
Most importantly, the employee did not lose the more than four years of residence already accumulated towards potential permanent residence.
An employer administration error therefore did not become an immigration problem with consequences lasting several additional years.
Why it matters
Immigration compliance does not stop when a residence permit is granted.
Changes in payroll, corporate structures and employing entities can have direct consequences for an employee’s immigration position. Within organisations containing multiple legal entities, something as simple as placing an employee under the wrong entity can create a substantial compliance issue.
When that happens, simply correcting the administration going forward may not be enough.
The history needs to be reconstructed. Salary compliance needs to be demonstrated. Documentation needs to align. And the situation needs to be explained to the IND in a way that reflects what actually happened.
Talcom stayed involved throughout that process, maintained the dialogue with the IND and built the documentation required to resolve the case.
The result protected not only the employees current residence permit, but also more than four years of residence history in the Netherlands.
.jpeg)
