Can 2 Innovator Founders use the same jobs to qualify for settlement?

Appendix Innovator Founder requires a settlement endorsement and evidence that the endorsed business satisfies at least 2 of the listed business achievement criteria. Paragraph INNF 17.3 adds a specific restriction where the venture has other team members who are applying for, or have been granted, settlement on the same route.

The rule states that those applicants cannot share the same means of meeting the criteria. Its own example is direct: if 2 founders both rely on the creation of 10 qualifying jobs, 20 qualifying jobs must have been created in total.

The company may be a shared venture, but endorsement, immigration permission and settlement are personal. Each founder needs evidence of their own qualifying permission, continued involvement, business progress and a settlement endorsement addressing the requirements relevant to that individual.

A founder's ownership percentage does not automatically determine which achievement can be attributed to them. The analysis must establish what the particular criterion requires and whether another founder is already relying on the same underlying jobs, investment, customers, revenue or other result.

Paragraph INNF 17.3 refers to other team members who are applying for, or have been granted, settlement. Staggering applications does not therefore permit a later founder to reuse the achievement that supported an earlier founder's grant.

The endorsing body will need a coherent record of the venture, the team and the basis on which each founder claims to satisfy the criteria. Payroll schedules, contracts, investment evidence and company accounts should be organised so that each application can be tested independently.

Where the company cannot support separate qualifying achievements for each founder, the answer is not to manufacture roles, move money in circles or create artificial evidence. Those approaches can undermine the genuineness of the application and the credibility of the wider business.

A realistic response may involve further time on the route where extension is available, genuine additional growth, a different allocation of independently satisfied criteria or another lawful immigration route. The correct choice depends on the founder's present permission and the actual commercial position.