Why the Length of a Certificate of Sponsorship Matters: A Skilled Worker ILR Case Study

When a Skilled Worker migrant extends their visa, calculating the length of the Certificate of Sponsorship (COS) correctly is crucial. This decision does not only affect the main applicant’s eligibility for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR); it can also have significant consequences for their dependants’ settlement applications.

This article analyses a real-life case study to demonstrate just how important the COS length can be.

The Background

The main applicant (“A”) was granted a Skilled Worker visa for three years starting on 19/02/2020. His wife and children joined him in the UK on 02/09/2020 as dependants.

In early 2023, the family applied for further leave to remain to extend their visas. Their applications were approved on 06/04/2023. However, when A’s employer issued the COS for the extension, it was issued for only two years.

While this allowed A to reach the five-year qualifying period and apply for ILR at the beginning of 2025, it created an unintended problem for his dependants.

The Issue for Dependants

A’s wife and children could not apply for ILR until they completed five years’ continuous residence, which would be on 01/09/2025. However, their visas were due to expire on 29/05/2025. Even when taking into account the relevant Home Office guidance, which allows the qualifying period to be assessed by reference to any date up to 28 days after the date of application and requires the date most beneficial to the applicant to be used, they would still not have met the five-year qualifying period at the time their leave expired and were therefore not eligible to apply for ILR.

This resulted in a gap of several months during which the dependants would not have valid leave covering the full qualifying period needed for ILR.

Although the dependants could apply for a further extension, the Home Office would normally grant a three-year visa for dependants. This would mean paying a further three years of Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS), even though they only needed a few additional months of leave to qualify for ILR.

Our Strategy

To prevent the family from becoming overstayers, we submitted extension applications for the dependants on 29/05/2025. This placed them under Section 3C leave, allowing them to lawfully remain in the UK while their applications were pending.

After submission, the Home Office set a deadline of 31/07/2025 for biometric enrolment. On the final day of that deadline, 31/07/2025, we varied the applications to SET(O) (applications for ILR) and booked their biometric appointments for 05/09/2025.

By that date, all dependants had completed their five-year qualifying period and were eligible for ILR.

Legal Basis and Outcome

In our cover letter, we relied on Home Office guidance, highlighting that the qualifying period must be assessed by counting backwards from whichever of the following is most beneficial to the applicant:

• the date of application

• any date up to 28 days after the date of application

• the date of decision

  
  

All four applicants were initially granted entry clearance on 02/09/2020 and completed five years’ continuous residence on 01/09/2025. In line with the continuous residence guidance, the period between the grant of entry clearance and the date of arrival was treated as lawful residence and counted towards the qualifying period.

Ultimately, all family members were successfully granted ILR. Importantly, the IHS paid for the unnecessary extension applications was refunded, preventing the family from facing unnecessary financial hardship.

Key Takeaway

This case clearly demonstrates that the length of a COS is not only critical for the main applicant, but can also have serious knock-on effects for dependants. Poor planning can result in unnecessary extension applications, excessive Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS) costs, and avoidable stress for families. Had the gap in this case been any longer, the family would have had no option but to submit an extension application before becoming eligible for ILR, a route that is both administratively burdensome and financially inefficient.

Careful consideration at the extension stage can make the difference between a smooth transition to settlement and significant legal and financial complications.