What impact did the 2025 professional classification have on immigration and work visas?
Executive summary
The 2025 professional-classification reforms — most prominently the UK’s uplift from RQF Level 3 to RQF Level 6 for Skilled Worker sponsorship and related salary-table overhauls — removed roughly 180 medium‑skilled occupations from routine eligibility and tightened salary floors and lists used to allow exceptions (Temporary Shortage List and Immigration Salary List) [1] [2]. Parallel changes in Canada and the U.S. in 2025 raised wage thresholds for LMIA streams and adjusted temporary-worker caps and rules [3] [4]. These shifts narrowed pathways for lower‑and‑mid skilled foreign workers while preserving or enhancing entry for higher‑skilled categories, producing immediate disruption for employers, dependants, and recruitment plans [5] [6] [3].
1. UK: Reclassifying “skilled” meant 180 occupations lost routine access
From 22 July 2025 the UK raised the minimum skill requirement for new Skilled Worker applicants from RQF Level 3 (A‑level) to RQF Level 6 (degree), which the Home Office and legal advisers say effectively removes about 180 occupations — including roles in health and social care, hospitality, logistics and construction — from general eligibility unless retained on the Immigration Salary List or the interim Temporary Shortage List [1] [2]. Firms that sponsor staff had to rush to reassign Certificates of Sponsorship before the cutoff or hope for temporary relief via the new TSL [7] [8].
2. Salary thresholds and occupation coding raised the bar for newcomers
The 2025 reforms also recalibrated going‑rate salary thresholds and updated Standard Occupational Classification codes, producing big jumps in required pay for many tech and professional roles (examples cited include programmers and IT categories with increases up to 60–84% in some successor codes), meaning many employers must now pay substantially more to sponsor new hires — with no transitional protection for salary increases for CoS assigned on or after 22 July 2025 [9] [1] [10].
3. Dependants and the wider workforce felt immediate fallout
Higher skill and salary thresholds reduced eligibility for dependants of Skilled Workers and changed family migration calculus, with many dependants now ineligible under the tightened RQF and pay rules; immigration advisers flagged particular impacts for tech sector mobility and the sports and care ecosystems that employ many RQF 3–5 roles [5] [8].
4. Canada and LMIA changes tightened lower‑wage routes while protecting high‑skill streams
Canadian 2025 policy updates increased LMIA wage thresholds and reclassified many jobs between “low” and “high” wage streams, tightening access for lower‑paid temporary roles while keeping intra‑company and certain International Mobility Program high‑skilled categories uncapped; IRCC also adjusted selection categories and removed CRS points for arranged employment in Express Entry, reshaping employer hiring and PR prospects [11] [3] [12].
5. United States: selective expansions and political restrictions altered the landscape
U.S. policy in 2025 showed mixed signals: the H‑2B temporary cap was expanded for FY2025 and some spouse/work rights were reported to have expanded for H‑1B dependants in 2025 guidance, while other administrative actions and proclamations — including proposed H‑1B fee or entry restrictions later in the year — added uncertainty for employers and applicants [4] [13] [14]. Legal challenges and shifting executive priorities made outcomes contingent on litigation and later rulemaking [15] [14].
6. Employers and recruitment strategies had to change overnight
Advisers told employers to audit sponsorship pipelines, reassign pending Certificates of Sponsorship before deadlines, raise budgets for salary floors, and explore alternate routes such as interim shortage lists or pilots (e.g., Canada’s home care pilots) to meet staffing needs; many guidance pieces warned that smaller employers and those in medium‑skilled sectors would face the largest recruitment shocks [7] [16] [17].
7. Winners and losers: high‑skilled preserved, medium/low‑skilled squeezed
Across jurisdictions, reforms tended to preserve or even favor high‑skilled mobility — uncapped intra‑company transfers and certain elite routes remained available — while squeezing medium and lower skilled channels via higher RQF levels, wage floors, or reallocated visa caps [11] [1] [3]. That produced immediate protection for domestic‑facing political aims to curb net migration while creating short‑term labour shortages in sectors dependent on mid‑skill foreign labour [17] [16].
Limitations and competing views: reporting from immigration law firms and consultancy outlets emphasizes operational impacts and employer risk [7] [9], while government statements framed the reforms as restoring control and targeting domestic skills — both perspectives are present in the sources [1] [6]. Available sources do not mention specific numerical national employment impacts beyond the approximate “180 occupations” figure and selected wage examples; long‑term economic effects remain debated and contingent on later implementation, legal challenges, and follow‑on policy adjustments [1] [9].