This chapter analyses the three main administrative elements that play a role in structuring access to temporary labour migration pathways across OECD countries: process duration, fees, and documentation requirements. It includes an analysis of the different phases of administrative processing and their apparent complexity, different types of fees, and the statutory, actual and estimated processing times. It also reviews the need to provide certified translation of official documents, as well as the main categories of evidentiary requirements, such as proof of a clean criminal record, health insurance and housing.
Admitting Labour Migrants
Making Migration Management Work
Abstract
Access to a temporary labour migration pathway depends not only on eligibility criteria – for the worker, the permitted jobs, and the employer – or on the policy tools used to regulate labour market access, but also on the length, cost, and complexity of the process itself.
Administrative performance plays a central role in shaping the effective accessibility of labour migration pathways for both employers and workers. Administrative characteristics can facilitate or hinder international recruitment.
Pathways associated with long, uncertain or open‑ended processing timelines are less likely to be used, even when eligibility conditions are formally met (Gerrie, 2020[1]). On the contrary, pathways that offer rapid and predictable processing could become focal points for international recruitment both from the employer and the foreign worker perspective.
This chapter analyses the three main administrative elements that play a role in structuring access to temporary labour migration pathways across OECD countries: duration, fees, and documentation requirements.
The duration of the labour migration process, from start to finish, comprises four distinct phases (Figure 9.1): pre‑application, application, obtaining a visa from consular authorities, and post-arrival formalities. In each pathway, and for each application, these phases can vary in terms of the steps involved. In some cases, and pathways, the visa phase is not necessary.
Statutory processing times generally cover phase two, during which the application is reviewed by the immigration authorities, from receipt to decision. Statutory processing times may also include the time from submission of the application to issuance of the visa; this is the case for pathways where the initial application is for a visa, rather than for approval of a residence permit. Some pathways involve post-arrival steps in order to take up employment. The pre‑application steps, and the post-arrival steps, are not covered by statutory processing times.
Phases, milestones and reviews in the labour migration decision process
Note: Post-arrival titles may include need to obtain residence permit, employment authorisation, etc. prior to taking up employment.
Source: OECD Secretariat Analysis.
As each pathway has its own requirements and processes, the phases and review periods in Figure 9.1 are meant to illustrate the main components of the process which contribute to the total processing time, rather than a universal segmentation of permit processing.
Pre‑application phase
Even before submitting an application to any authority, there are steps to take to prepare. In pathways where proof of qualification is required, the candidate must collect documentation, which may need to be translated and legalised. Qualifications may need to be certified or recognised by a host country authority. Recognition of foreign qualifications is a separate process, which may be covered by its own statutory processing times. A number of the pathways covered in this report require passing specific tests, which may be offered only at certain dates; for example, Japan’s SSW pathway requires passing the corresponding test, which may be offered only once a year or even less frequently. Korea’s EPS requires passing the EPS-TOPIK, which is administered a fixed intervals in origin countries. Other pathways are designed for workers who have completed specific training programmes in origin countries, which may add to the time necessary, but is not part of processing time.
In pathways that are capped and open for application annually or quarterly, the pre‑application phase can include waiting for application period to open. The only EU example is Italy, which opens its caps annually in what is called a “Click Day”, as applicants try to file on-line as soon as it is opened; it is usually exhausted within the first hour. Similarly, the United States opens H‑1B visa applications annually, and puts all applications received the first week into a lottery. This means that candidates might have to wait almost a year to be able to file an application. Other pathways open semi‑annually (H‑2B in the United States), or quarterly (certain pathways in Korea). Switzerland distributes its annual caps to cantons, which decide how to release them; excess applications roll over to the following year. None of these waiting periods are included in statutory processing time, even if they significantly affect the experience of the user.
Application phase
Once the applicant has compiled the necessary documents, the application is filed. If there is a labour market test requiring vacancy posting (see Chapter 3), it may be satisfied by vacancies posted prior to application. This is the case where proof of prior posting through private channels (newspapers, websites) is expected. For labour market testing which requires posting with a public platform by the public employment services, the phase starts with this step. Times range widely across OECD countries (see Figure 3.1). Even within EU countries, the duration of posting ranges from zero days (Czechia) and eight days in Spain to 35 calendar days in the Netherlands and 63 calendar days (Flanders in Belgium). Review of applications may be done exclusively by the immigration authorities, require separate applications to employment and immigration services, or involve exchange of documents between the employment and immigration services. In most cases where employment services and immigration services are both part of the approval process, applications are sequential, with approval from employment services necessary for the immigration services to start reviewing the application. This is the case in Canada, for example, where approval of the labour market test must be submitted as part of the application to the immigration services. In other cases, the immigration services submit the request for approval to the employment services. Germany applies this model. When a consulate receives an application for a work visa, it forwards the job details to the Federal Employment Agency which has to verify first, that there is a legal provision granting access to the German labour market; second, the existence of an actual job offer; and finally that the working conditions are comparable to those of German nationals. The Agency evaluates the file and issues a decision (Bundesagentur für Arbeit, 2024[2]). Pre‑approval of work permits can take one to two months.
Visa issuance phase
In most cases, first admission to the destination country as a labour migrant requires visa issuance; exceptions may apply for some pathways, for nationals of countries not subject to visa requirements, and for persons already legally resident with grounds for in-country change of status. In most of the pathways covered, however, a separate application must be filed for visa issuance, usually involving further review by consular authorities and often an in-person appointment. In the EU, for Schengen countries, there may be a short-stay Schengen visa (Type C) for persons staying less than 90 days, or a long-stay national visa (Type D) for longer stays. In non-EU countries, similar separate visa request requirements are in place. The United Kingdom issues a Certificate of Sponsorship at the end of the application phase, which can be used to apply for a visa. In the United States, an approval notice allows the worker to apply for the relevant visa. Visa appointment and issuance waiting times vary enormously according to destination country, seasonality, consular post, pathway and other factors. Some consulates publish expected processing time for different categories of visas, but this is not a universal practice.
Post-arrival
Additional time following arrival may be necessary to obtain the documents required to start employment. These could be receipt of a residence permit or work authorisation document, issuance of a tax identification number or social security number, verification of domicile with local authorities, or other required steps. In most EU countries, long-term labour migrants must eventually receive a residence permit, issued after arrival, which in most cases is required to take up employment. Some exceptions apply, such as Germany, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania, which allow work to start if the D visa permits it or the French VLS-TS, a visa valid as a residence permit. In the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the visa itself – and the documents necessary for its issuance – are sufficient to start employment.
There is no standard measure of “complexity” of immigration procedures. A simple measure of the number of administrative steps or the number of pages in applications does not reveal complexity.
One approach to measuring complexity comes out of the “Standard Cost Modelling” (SCM) approach, used to calculate impact of administrative obligations, which can be conducted on different administrative functions. The SCM focusses on quantifying the costs associated with information obligations imposed by legislation: the requirement for individuals, businesses, or public authorities to collect, process, and provide information to third parties or regulators. Aimed at calculating the total cost – for administrations and users – of regulatory burdens, it involves time estimates for specific procedures. The OECD Regulatory Policy Committee, as part of its efforts to spread common methods for measuring administrative burden, encouraged its inclusion in regulatory impact assessments, including the SCM among “bottom up” methodologies. SCM requires detailed mapping of regulatory requirements and breaking them down into individual compliance obligations, calculating time and cost required to carry out each obligation, and summing the results to obtain the estimated administrative burden (OECD, 2014[3]). The basic calculation requires calculating unit costs, although the calculation of unit costs is not always the objective. The basic calculation requires calculating unit costs, although the calculation of unit costs is not always the objective. The European Commission also supported a standard approach to quantifying “administrative costs” starting with an EU common methodology (see COM(2005) 518). The approach is part of its Impact Assessment system; Impact Assessments at national and EU level may involve estimating the time taken by different actors to satisfy requirements, although without quantified metrics. SCM approaches have not, however, led to a standardised method for calculating comparable measures of time to complete and process forms, nor have they yielded consistent measures of administrative complexity of different administrative procedures within across migration pathways. The different components – time spent by the employer, the migrant, and the public administration – would have to be broken out. The time spent waiting, and the time spent on refused applications and appeals, would also have to be taken into account.
While the EU Better Regulation framework requires the identification of impacts across stakeholder groups and encourages quantification, fully standardised and comparable measures of procedural complexity are rarely produced. This reflects both methodological and practical challenges. Migration procedures often involve multiple actors (migrants, employers, intermediaries such as lawyers, and public authorities), multiple stages (application, verification, possible refusal, appeal), and both administrative and waiting times, which are not always captured in a single metric. SCM approaches have not led to a standardised approach to calculating comparable measures of time to complete and process immigration forms, or to comparable measures of complexity of different administrative procedures within migration. The different components – time by the employer, the migrant, and the public administration – would have to be broken out. The time spent waiting, and the time spent on refused applications and appeals, would also have to be taken into account. This may represent a disproportionate analytical effort.
Calculating how long it takes users to complete forms is part of SCM, in principle, but separate publication of figures on how long it takes users to prepare and complete applications is rare. One exception is the United States, where the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires federal agencies to estimate how long it will take to complete a form and disclose this information on the form itself. The calculation includes estimated time for reviewing instructions, gathering the required documentation and information, completing the petition, preparing statements, attaching necessary documentation, and submitting the petition. For example, the estimate for the application form used for basic H‑1B applications (I‑129) is estimated in February 2026 at 4.85 hours with no supplements. A separate estimate is published for the required labour market test. The estimated time for the form does not cover related work to draft statements and collect the necessary documentation. Indeed, most applications involve significantly more time; further, most applications are handled by lawyers rather than directly by employers.
One indication of complexity is the recourse to specialised law firms or migration consultants to conduct applications. Here, too, national indicators of recourse to outside assistance are limited. For high-salary jobs, assistance may be a small part of the overall cost of recruitment, and specialised firms concentrate on this service. In the countries which require applicants to report that their applications were completed with the assistance of a third party – the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand – use of third parties is prevalent, even in lower-wage positions, although administrative indicators of recourse to these agents are limited. In Australia, where applicants are required to report that their applications were completed with the assistance of a third party, the use of a registered migration agent is recorded in around 60% of applications for skilled and temporary resident (skilled employment) visa types. In the United States, forms reporting third-party assistance were attached to almost 5 million immigration filings. EU countries do not require applicants in most labour migration pathways to report assistance by third parties. Some of the pathways covered in this review – particularly the labour migration pathways for non-professional workers in Japan, Korea and Israel – are structured with intermediaries who manage the administration of the application on behalf of the worker and employer. In other non-professional pathways, countries allow third-parties such as co‑operatives, associations and NGOs, to support applications (for example, in Spain and Italy).
In managing the admission of labour migrants, complexity may be a management tool in itself. The difficulty of accessing labour migration channels, the time needed to spend on preparing applications and maintaining compliance may be part of the burden governments decide to impose on employers to disincentivise recourse to international recruitment. Efforts to reduce complexity are usually seen on the processing side of administrations – to reduce staff resources needed to review applications – and for pathways where public policy aims to facilitate recruitment. Complexity is a tool in itself, which should be considered together with financial costs, processing times, refusal rates and evidentiary requirements.
Fees are the most easily identifiable element of administrative requirements imposed on migration processes. Numerous costs apply within migration pathways (Table 9.1). The main fees which apply to all immigration pathways covered in this review are the application fee and the visa fee; this section focusses on these. Priority processing fees are discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.
Source: OECD Secretariat.
Comparative analysis of fees in the labour migration process is complicated since, even within a single pathway, different fee schedules may apply depending on the nationality of the applicant, the size of the firm, whether the employer has a certain number of non-national workers, and other factors. Fees are also levied at different points in the migration process, and cumulative fees may represent a range rather than a fixed amount. One recent example is the USD 100 000 surcharge placed on certain H‑1B visas in the United States, which increases the total cost of a pathway that was already one of the costliest among those reviewed. This surcharge does not apply to all applications, complicating its use in comparative analysis across countries.
This analysis looks at fees imposed for initial admission, including any other fees which apply in the first year. Fees which must be paid at the start of the period for the full period are included in the calculation in Annex Table 9.A.1. For example, the United Kingdom Immigration Health Surcharge must be paid up-front for all years covered by the duration of the initial visa – up to five years. Additional fees may apply for renewal and for dependents, as well as for acquisition of permanent resident status; these are not included in this review, even if they can add significantly to cost over time.1
High fees for Skilled Workers in non-EU countries, lower fees in EU countries
Fees for administrative acts related to labour migration processes have increased in OECD countries in recent years, but one persistent cross-country difference is that fees are lower for labour migration pathways in the EU and in Asian and Latin American OECD countries than in the other non-EU destinations of labour migrants (Table 9.1) Fees in EU countries mostly fall between EUR 100 and 500, with only a few exceptions (Ireland, which can reach EUR 1 000, and some cases in Finland, for paper seasonal work applications can reach EUR 800, and France, where first-time salaried workers under the standard work pathway can exceed 2 800 if highly paid).
There are significant base fees for application in the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom, to which different surcharges may apply. One significant additional fee in these countries is the training fee, paid by the employer upon application. In principle, the justification for this additional fee is to fund training for local workers in order to reduce the skills deficit filled by migration; the fee is paid by the employer (See Box 9.1). A health surcharge is levied in the United Kingdom for labour migrants coming for periods exceeding six months; the surcharge amounts to GBP 1 035 per year of the visa duration, per adult, and is paid by the applicant – the worker – although employers may choose to reimburse this charge.
Cost Recovery and Flat Fees
One explanation for the significant gap between fees imposed in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is that these systems cover the cost of administration of migration services through fees levied on users. In the United States, Citizenship and Immigration Services is entirely fee‑funded, which insulates it from broader budget freezes and funding interruptions, but means that when users decline, the ability to maintain staff also declines. Other countries are funded through the general budget, with expectations that fees will cover the costs of administration. Canada, Australia and New Zealand also operate on a full or partial cost recovery principle, with the intention that fees within the migration system will cover the costs of operating the system. Cost recovery in the United Kingdom is not related exclusively to migration processing, but also the benefits and entitlements conferred and the wider costs of the Migration and Borders system.
In EU countries, migration administrative systems are less tied to revenue, and generally funded out of the general budget; fee revenue usually goes into the general budget rather than funding specific agencies. In this case, fee schedules are established without reference to the administrative costs of managing the migration system.
Approaches to fees
The explicit use of high migration costs to disincentivise recruitment is infrequent across OECD countries. The only example of a continuous employer levy or tax on ongoing employment of foreign workers – a common feature of foreign worker systems in non-OECD economies in East and South-East Asia – was in Israel, where the levy was abolished in 2022. Israel still imposes annual employment surcharges for foreign workers in certain sectors; in the construction sector, an annual fee of up to EUR 7 000 is paid by the employer. The policy objective is to raise the cost of employment of foreign workers and discourage recourse to international recruitment; the revenue stream has also become an important budget contribution. In the United States H‑1B programme, the USD 100 000 surcharge was announced with the objective of discouraging use of the channel. A USD 4 000 additional charge applies to employers with more than half the staff on H‑1B or L‑1 visas, for each new initial application. Other examples of ongoing fees include the requirement in Canada to repeat the labour market test – at a fee of CAD 1 000 – every year for lower skilled temporary foreign workers.
France indexes the fees to the salary paid to the worker, so that higher-paid workers pay higher fees. For labour migrants outside the Talent Passport categories, France imposes a base fee and an additional fee according to the salary of the worker, up to EUR 2 800; this is a one‑time tax paid by the employer for first admission of a foreign worker for salaried activity, and makes France an outlier in fee schedules in the EU. It does not apply to the Talent Passport category covering higher skilled workers. Finland charges higher fees to the standard work permit issuance than to the skilled and specialised workers; the difference is an additional EUR 210 for electronic applications and EUR 270 for paper applications. Chile is unusual in its application of reciprocal visa fees, charging according to the visa fees charged Chileans by the country of which the applicant holds nationality. Fees range from no fee for Spanish nationals, to USD 2 890 for nationals of Australia and 1 478 for nationals of Ireland.
In the United States, the H‑1B programme requires employers to contribute to a training fund. The American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act fee is USD 750 for firms with fewer than 26 employees, and USD 1 500 for firms with more. Grants from the fund provide skills training in occupations in demand. Grants are distributed nationally, through competitive tender, unrelated to the distribution of H‑1B visa grant employers. In September 2025, DOL awarded USD 86 million from this fund to 14 states under a training initiative targeting high-demand sectors like AI infrastructure, shipbuilding, and IT.
Similarly, Australia imposes a Skilling Australians Fund (SAF) levy on employers sponsoring skilled workers for temporary or permanent visas. Depending on firm size, the levy ranges from AUD 1 200 to 1 800 per year per worker, paid in advance for the full duration of the visa. Funds are earmarked for broader skills development of Australians, with a focus on VET and apprenticeships; there is a focus on occupations for which temporary migration is used, but this is not the only focus of the fund.
The United Kingdom imposes an Immigration Skills Charge in its Skilled Worker visa route, paid in advance for the full duration of the visa, of GBP 1 320, per year per worker, in larger firms, and GBP 480 for smaller firms and non-profits. The funds obtained are not earmarked for a specific training programme.
These examples, in particular the United States and Australia, show how fees imposed for recruitment of temporary foreign workers can be earmarked to train. Evaluations have concentrated on the effectiveness of training, rather than on its impact on subsequent demand for international recruitment in the targeted occupations.
There are challenges in comparing processing times for different pathways across OECD countries. In addition to the issue raised above, that visa-related processes are reported separately, and by consular post, if at all, many countries do not report actual processing times of applications for different pathways. Those which do report them use different measures: minimum or maximum, average, median, percentiles. Table 9.2 shows processing times for permits for skilled workers across OECD countries.
Based on the available data on actual processing times, pathways that can be accessed by individuals with no qualifications are processed within broadly comparable timeframes to medium- and high-skilled pathways. Many of the low-skilled pathways analysed are seasonal programmes that have been designed for rapid processing to respond to time‑sensitive labour demands. As a result, several of the fastest-processing pathways are low-skilled seasonal routes: New Zealand’s Recognised Seasonal Employer visa (one week), Lithuania and Poland’s seasonal worker permits (around ten days each), and Canada’s Seasonal Agricultural Worker Programme under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (approximately two weeks for the LMIA).
Nonetheless, there are also exceptions. Japan’s TITP takes between three and seven months, because of its multi-layered supervisory and approval structure, which is atypical for a programme of this type. Norway’s seasonal worker pathway also sits at around four months, which is relatively slower than comparable seasonal routes in Europe. In Sweden, while highly-qualified workers are processed within the service commitment of 30 days, those for less qualified workers see much longer wait times; at the end of 2024, many were taking more than four months (Parliamentary Ombudsman, 2024[8]). These cases aside, the analysis suggests that processing duration is driven primarily by programme design and administrative complexity, rather than by the skill level of the pathway itself.
Among EU member states, seasonal worker pathways show relatively consistent processing times, generally falling within one to three months. This includes Belgium, Bulgaria, Luxembourg and Lithuania. Romania and Croatia are somewhat faster, at around five to six weeks. Finland and Hungary have faster processing times for their seasonal pathways with seasonal processing times of around one month and three weeks respectively. Sweden’s seasonal worker pathway takes around three months, while Poland processes its Seasonal Worker Permit in as little as ten.
In some pathways, statutory processing times only apply to “complete” applications. In the United Kingdom, for example, a service target of processing initial applications for Skilled Workers, of three weeks, applies only to “straightforward” applications (the applicant has met all obligations and provided the necessary information); it reports meeting this target in 95% of cases. Applications considered “complex” – where information is missing or where genuineness checks are made – are not considered in performance monitoring. Home Office guidance states that caseworkers should categorise an application as “complex” when it will not be resolved within the service standard (National Audit Office, 2025[9]).
Note: All processing times expressed in calendar days. Conversion of business days to calendar days multiplying by 1.4. Actual processing times are based on public data or data provided by countries; in the absence of this data, data from Fragomen LLC for the pathway was used (2025). One star (*) means the data source is Fragomen, two stars (**) means that the country did not provide information, but it is publicly available.
Source: OECD Secretariat, Fragomen LLC.
Most applications require positive confirmation, and do not provide for default approval by immigration services of an application in the absence of a response. Spain, within the fast-track system for companies working in strategic economic sectors, not only accelerates processing, but offers positive silence (default approval). This is an incentive for the agency to evaluate applications efficiently, and relief to employers and workers if the service standard is not met (Box 9.2).
Spain follows a unique model of priority processing for highly skilled professionals. Through its Unidad de Grandes Empresas y Colectivos Estratégicos (UGE), Spain examines applications from high-skilled workers, including the national high-skilled permit, the EU Blue Card, international remote worker, entrepreneur, researcher, and intracompany transferee permits. Employers must fulfil certain size, investment or financial requirements established in the Law 14/2013.
Unlike trusted employer models that require an initial accreditation phase, the UGE system utilises a simultaneous verification process where company eligibility and worker qualifications are assessed within the same application.
As a separate unit that depends on the Ministry of Inclusion, Social Security and Migrations, UGE works independently from the national immigration permit system, allowing it to expedite permit issuance for highly skilled workers seen as key for investment, innovation and economic development. The UGE must issue a decision within 20 working days. If they fail to respond, the decision is considered a positive administrative silence, and the application is automatically approved. This type of fast-track processing is available both for large companies and SMEs. To expedite future applications, the UGE keeps company records on file for three years.
Visa processing times are one factor in the variation in experience of processing times. The range of processing times for visas within countries – not covered in this review – means that a single pathway may have widely different times depending on which consulate is processing the visa. Visa issuance times are generally outside of statutory processing times.
Visa issuance delays can also determine the real access to a pathway. Visa processing times are one factor contributing, for example, to the underuse of the available permits under the Italian annual Flow Decree. In 2023, for example, the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs estimated a visa processing time for approved work authorisation of 22 days, and the entire visa process (including appointment and issuance) at 121 days; the statutory visa processing time is 20 days.
In general, statutory and even actual processing times, as reported in Table 9.2, typically capture only the formal decision-making stage of an application, rather than the full journey from an employer’s initial recruitment decision to the worker’s first day on the job. Box 9.3 looks at this broader user experience, drawing on aggregate case data by Fragomen LLC to show how long the process takes in practice once labour market tests, document preparation, visa appointments, and post-arrival steps are all taken into account.2 Viewed this way, processing times can look considerably longer, and vary more widely within a single country and pathway, than statutory benchmarks alone would suggest.
Statutory processing times, as noted, cover part of the entire process, but do not give a full picture of the time needed from starting the application process to being able to commence employment in the destination country, for the employer and for the employee. One indicator of this is provided by Fragomen, a leading global mobility firm which produces a proprietary “Work Ready” analysis (Figure 9.2). This is based on aggregate Fragomen immigration case load information and provides the typical range of calendar days from case initiation (when the firm receives the request from the client) to the date when the foreign national will be authorised to work in the destination country (the time span indicated at the bottom of Figure 9.2). It takes into account labour market tests, document checks, visa appointment and issuance, and any post-arrival steps necessary. It is not disaggregated by pathway and reflects the most used pathway at a given point of time and in a given country. As this dataset is based on applications filed by a firm specialised in providing immigration services, the time should not reflect delays caused by incomplete or misclassified applications.
Apparent from the chart is the wide range of processing times even within a single country, for a single pathway of analysis. On average, two months pass between the time in which 25% of the caseload can start working, and the time when the next 50% of the caseload has completed its application and can start working. 25% of the applications take even more time. The ranking of countries in this list changes over time, and comparison with previous Fragomen “Work Ready” analyses shows that processing times are dynamic and vary from year to year. The Netherlands and Denmark, for example, are consistently ranked in the lower bounds (three‑quarters of the case load are ready to start work in less than eight weeks), while others, such as Italy, are consistently listed as requiring very long waits between application and job start (less than a quarter are “ready for work” in less than four months). Others, such as Sweden and Greece, have seen the processing time grow longer in recent years according to this index.
Fragomen “Work Ready” Index, January 2026, showing time frame needed for between 25% and 75% of work permit applicants to go from initial application to starting employment in the destination country
Note: The Work Ready Index covers the main work migration routes used by Fragomen LLC clients.
Source: Fragomen LLC, Fragomen’s Database on Immigration Policy and Practice, 2026.
Calculating refusal rates is difficult and there are few benchmarks. Refusal or rejection can occur at many at the steps identified in Figure 9.1 – primarily at the labour market test, the review by immigration authorities, the visa issuance phases, and, in some cases, admission at the border upon arrival. The limited evidence of refusal rates in the labour market test phases are presented in Table 3.6 in Chapter 3.
Refusal rates do not necessarily reflect the stringency of a system. They may reflect poor communication around criteria, so that incomplete or ineligible applications are filed. They may reflect low costs to filing (e.g. low application fees and simple, short forms) where employers try their chances even if they have little expectation of approval.
A limited number of countries report refusals in the immigration procedures within certain pathways covered in this review. When reported, these rates are usually reported separately, rather than as cumulative refusals or rejections including all steps in the application process. Approval or refusal rates in the review by migration authorities are provided by several countries. Finland and Denmark report outcomes of applications on their public migration statistics website but are the exception. Australia reports refusal rates by the Department of Home Affairs for pathways and programme year. The United States reports the number of forms received, approved, denied, and pending for each period. However, since multiple forms may be required as part of the approvals process, it is difficult to use these figures to calculate overall refusals.
Reports may be of applications and approvals by the immigration authorities – with the gap comprising administrative refusals, but also withdrawal of applications and failure to respond to requests for evidence. Calculating refusal rates from the latter (applications and grants) can lead to inaccurate portraits of refusals, especially if application and decision does not occur in the same reporting period. The United Kingdom, for example, reports quarterly applications and grants; this is used to calculate “approval rates” (National Audit Office, 2025[9]). The Home Office provides detailed information on applications and grants of entry clearance visas, by nationality, although the time lag between application and grant can mean that the category that the rate can exceed 100% in some quarters for some channels. The approval rate for skilled workers from Q2/2024 to Q1/2026 was 82%, compared with 93% for health and care workers, and 99% for seasonal workers.
Starting in 2025, EU Member States subject to the Blue Card Directive are required to report to Eurostat not only the grants but also refusals of Blue Cards (See Box 9.4).
After approval by the migration services, there is still the visa step. Detailed information on visa refusal rates by category and grounds – allowing identification of labour migration pathways – are not published systematically in any OECD country. One source of information is parliamentary inquiries, although these requests do not provide systematic evidence. One example from Canada (Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, 2022[10]) examines detailed grounds for refusal of applications for student visas to Canada in certain African countries. The figures in response to parliamentary inquiries are not always published, however. There are a number of reasons why many countries do not publish refusal rates, or grounds for refusal, by pathway and consular post. In Germany, for example, classification of publication of refusal rates by consular post, in response to parliamentary inquiries, has been justified as possibly creating difficulty in relations with other countries or leading to unfounded accusation of unequal treatment (Federal Government of Germany, 2025[11]).
Table 9.4 summarises the main procedural characteristics of the EU Blue Card across OECD countries.
Processing times: Statutory and actual
Under the 2021 recast EU Blue Card Directive (Directive (EU) 2021/1883), the statutory processing time is 60 days for a decision on an EU Blue Card application, and 30 days where the application is made through a recognised employer or trusted employer scheme. In the review of Blue Card pathways, a number of countries still report a 90‑day statutory period, although many have reduced it to 30 or 60.
Actual processing times – as reported by governments or users – may exceed it. Many countries note that the statutory time applies only to complete applications; requests for evidence or additional documentation may invalidate the count from the filing date. Poland has a statutory 60‑day limit, but users report actual processing time of 180‑365 days. The count of processing time only starts following a complete application, which requires a personal appearance and submission of all requested documents and evidence. Sweden (75‑105 days) and Germany (90‑240 days) also see waits that exceed the statutory time frame. In Sweden, the time to receive union feedback, and biometric submission, can extend the wait. In Italy, submission of biometric data and the issuance of the Blue Card residence permit after arrival can add months to the process.
By contrast, Latvia’s 14‑day period is reportedly respected, while Finland consistently processes within 14‑30 days against a 60‑day statutory limit. France’s statutory and actual processing times also align in user experience, with actual processing of 15‑75 days against a 90‑day statutory limit.
Elements that can draw out the processing times experienced by the applicant include a number of steps. In Belgium, the time taken by regional authorities is separate from the time taken by the Federal immigration service, and no parallel processing is in place. The region may calculate time from when the application is first examined, rather than date of receipt. Experienced times in Belgium may run from 120‑240 days, largely due to applications sitting with the Federal Immigration Service. In the Slovak Republic, total processing time (excluding the visa process) may range from 130 to 230 days. Within this, diploma recognition may take 60‑90 days. Labour office confirmation and approval require additional time, and applicants may face a long wait for a local filing appointment, or for the application to be sent via diplomatic mail (which can take up to two months). Only the actual processing of the application falls under the statutory processing time.
The cost of the Blue Card: fees
Several countries have layered fee structures combining visa fees, residence permit fees, card issuance fees, administrative fees, and biometric charges – each paid at different stages of the process. For example, Italy’s EU Blue Card requires a duty stamp, a residence permit fee with a range, and a nulla osta (non-objection) procedure. This complexity makes it difficult for employers and applicants to calculate total costs upfront and creates administrative burden that may divert demand toward simpler national permits.
Fee structures vary considerably across Member States, both in level and complexity. Total application fees range from approximately EUR 86 in Croatia to 480 in Finland for a paper application, with the Netherlands charging EUR 405 paid entirely by the employer. Most countries fall in the EUR 100‑280 range. However, direct comparison is complicated by a few factors.
First, fee structures are layered differently across countries, making total cost difficult to calculate upfront. Austria charges three separate fees totalling EUR 212 (application, granting, and personalisation costs). Bulgaria’s three charges total EUR 177. Latvia adds optional employer sponsorship fees on top of the standard EUR 160 processing fee. Romania combines a visa fee (EUR 120), a work authorisation fee (100), and a residence permit (approximately 50), bringing the total to around EUR 270. Italy combines a duty stamp with a variable residence permit fee.
Second, who bears the cost varies. In most countries the worker pays the primary fee, but in the Netherlands the employer pays EUR 405, and in Lithuania costs are explicitly split between worker (160) and employer (50). Spain similarly splits costs across employer and worker at different stages of the process.
Third, the channel through which an application is submitted affects the fee in certain countries. Finland charges EUR 380 for online applications but 480 for paper submissions. Estonia charges EUR 280 if applying from abroad but 250 if applying in Estonia. These differentials create incentives for digital submission but may disadvantage applicants in countries with limited digital infrastructure.
Overall, while fee levels are unlikely to be a primary barrier for highly qualified workers earning at or above the Blue Card salary threshold, the complexity of fee structures (i.e. the number of separate charges, the uncertainty about total costs, and variation in who pay) adds friction to the application process that may disproportionately affect smaller employers and first-time applicants.
Refusal rates are rarely reported
Rejection rate data is almost entirely absent from Table 9.4. The recast EU Blue Card Directive requires Member States to report rejected applications (Directive (EU) 2021/1883, Article 25) from the 2025 data submission to Eurostat; for 2025, only Luxembourg is reported. Some Member States were already reporting refusal rates for prior years. Only four countries provided any figures as part of this review: Estonia (0% in both 2024 and 2025), Finland (approximately 7% in 2024 and 6% in the first nine months of 2025), and Spain and the Netherlands (both around 5‑5.5%). The remaining 19 of 23 countries reported no rejection rate data in this report’s review, and do not offer public reporting.
Source: OECD Secretariat
Note: Fees converted to EUR. All processing times expressed in calendar days. Conversion of business days to calendar days multiplying by 1.4. Actual processing times are based on public data or data provided by countries; in the absence of this data, data from Fragomen LLC for the pathway was used (2025). Asterisk (*) means the data source is Fragomen and may include time necessary for steps such as certification of qualifications and visa issuance. (**) Exemption for Japanese nationals.
Source: OECD Secretariat, Fragomen LLC.
Documentary requirements
Part of the burden of filing applications lies in the documents which need to be prepared. These include documents attesting educational or professional qualifications, certificates of clean criminal record in the origin country, proof of health insurance or health status, and housing requirements.
Proof of clean criminal record
Many of the pathways reviewed in this study require applicants to obtain and submit an official criminal record certificate, typically a police clearance certificate issued by the authorities of the applicant’s country of origin or prior residence. The burden this requirement imposes varies considerably depending on how it is structured.
All countries conduct internal security checks by immigration or law enforcement authorities during applications. These administrative processes are standard and are not covered here; this section focusses only on the documentary requirement to bring certificates of clean criminal record.
The majority of countries, including most EU Member States, require applicants to obtain official police clearance certificates from the authorities of the applicant’s country of nationality. This process can take several weeks, requires requests to foreign government offices, and in several countries must be apostilled or translated before submission, directly compounding the overall documentary burden.
The most burdensome variant is the multi-country certificate requirement, applied by Czechia, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Chile, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, and New Zealand. These countries require criminal record certificates not only from the applicant’s country of nationality but from every country where they have resided for a defined period – ranging from six months in the last three years in Czechia and the Slovak Republic to 12 months in the last ten years in New Zealand. For some workers, this can mean obtaining certificates from multiple national authorities, each with their own procedures, costs, and processing times, and each potentially requiring separate translation and authentication. The validity period of criminal record certificates adds a further timing constraint: Iceland specifies that certificates may be no older than 12 months, meaning that certificates obtained early in the process may expire before the application is fully assessed. Thus, the multi-country requirement is most burdensome on applicants with international experience, which many high-skilled pathways are designed to attract.
Certain countries take a less cumbersome approach. Ireland requires no criminal record check across any of the pathways reviewed. Norway uses a self-declaration model in which applicants with prior convictions or ongoing investigations must submit a specific form, but no official certificate from a foreign authority is required. The Netherlands similarly requires applicants to sign a declaration of no criminal history rather than producing an official document. The United Kingdom applies checks selectively, requiring criminal record certificates only for regulated occupations such as healthcare, education, and social services, and not for the general Skilled Worker route.
Notarised translations / certified translations
Across all 41 OECD and EU countries reviewed, some form of translation requirement applies to at least one pathway, yet the practical burden varies considerably depending on the applicant’s country of origin and language background. Table 9.4 summarises how these requirements are applied across countries.
For applicants submitting documents in widely accepted languages such as English, French, or German, translation requirements may impose little or no additional burden. For applicants from countries where these languages are less prevalent, the same requirement can add significant cost, time, and administrative complexity to the application process before eligibility is even assessed.
The most important dimension of variation is the range of languages a country accepts without requiring translation. At one end of the spectrum, Denmark accepts documents in Danish, English, German, Norwegian, and Swedish across most pathways and requires no translation for the majority of its labour migration routes. Latvia accepts five languages including Russian. Switzerland, Belgium, and the Netherlands each accept four languages. At the other end, France, Japan, and Türkiye accept only their national language.
Countries differ not only in which languages they accept without translation, but in the level of certification required from the translator. At the least restrictive end, Ireland requires only that the translator confirms the accuracy of the translation. More commonly, countries require a certified or official translator, meaning someone registered with a professional body or holding a recognised qualification. More restrictive still are requirements for sworn translators, who have taken an oath before a court or public authority, as in Poland, Lithuania, and Spain. France’s requirement for a translator specifically approved by a court of appeal represents one of the most burdensome models. Finally, Belgium and Türkiye require notarisation of the translation itself as a separate step, adding cost and time regardless of the translator’s qualifications.
Authentication of the original document represents a second layer of requirement that compounds the translation burden. Several countries including Chile, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, and Spain require documents to be apostilled or legalised in addition to being translated. Where apostille and sworn translation requirements are combined, as in Spain and Türkiye, applicants face a multi-step authentication chain that must be completed before the application can even be submitted.
Source: OECD Secretariat.
Health insurance requirements
Proof of health insurance is required in the majority of pathways and reviewed, making it one of the most widespread pre‑admission requirements beyond core eligibility criteria. However, the way this requirement operates varies considerably across countries, with important implications for the complexity it adds to the application process. In many cases, applicants must obtain and document private health coverage before submitting their application. This requirement is applied across most EU Member States including Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the Slovak Republic, and Slovenia, as well as Australia, Colombia, Korea (E‑8 Seasonal), New Zealand, and Switzerland. Latvia sets a specific minimum coverage threshold of EUR 42 600.In other countries, the obligation falls on the employer rather than the worker: Australia (PALM stream), Germany (seasonal employment), Israel, Poland (seasonal worker permit), Portugal (seasonal worker), and Sweden (EU Blue Card and seasonal worker) all require employers to arrange coverage before or upon the worker’s admission. A number of countries operate a hybrid model, requiring private coverage only for an initial period before the worker is automatically enrolled in the national health system: Bulgaria (three months), Estonia (14 days), Iceland (six months, employer-purchased), Spain (seasonal workers, until Social Security registration), Canada (until provincial or territorial coverage begins), and Greece (short-term seasonal work, converting to EFKA for longer engagements).
Another group of countries provides automatic enrolment in the national health system with no private coverage stage at all, notably Costa Rica, Croatia, France (Talent Passport – medical and pharmacy professions), Italy, Japan, Korea (most other pathways), and Türkiye. In these cases, health coverage is a consequence of employment rather than a precondition for admission, and no documentary proof is required at the application stage.
A notable case is the United Kingdom, where applicants for the Skilled Worker, Health and Care Worker, and Scale‑Up Worker visas must pay an Immigration Health Surcharge upfront before entry. This functions as an admission fee rather than a coverage requirement.
A notable case is the United Kingdom, where applicants must pay an Immigration Health Surcharge upfront before entry. This functions as an admission fee rather than a coverage requirement. Finally, a group of countries and pathways require no health insurance proof at all, including Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, Mexico, New Zealand (most pathways other than seasonal), Norway, the Slovak Republic (most pathways), Sweden (standard employee), the United Kingdom (Seasonal Worker and government Authorised Exchange visas), and the United States.
Source: OECD Secretariat.
Housing requirements
Proof of secured housing is required in approximately one‑third of pathways reviewed, although there is considerable variation in what counts as acceptable evidence and at what stage it must be provided. Some OECD countries with this requirement ask applicants to submit documentary evidence of accommodation (typically a rental contract or a notarised declaration from the property owner) as part of the initial application. This requirement applies across a broad group of EU Member States including Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and the Slovak Republic. Bulgaria requires a notarised declaration from the property owner signed and stamped by a notary, adding a further authentication step. Switzerland permits admission only where suitable accommodation has been confirmed as available for the worker.
In a smaller number of countries, the housing obligation falls on the employer. Italy requires employers applying for an EU Blue Card to provide evidence of suitable accommodation. Israel requires employers in the main pathways for non-professional workers to provide housing directly. Japan mandates that employers provide accommodation meeting a minimum space standard, though this is a programme condition rather than a pre‑admission documentary requirement. Korea and Türkiye require no proof at the application stage but obliges workers to register their residential address within a defined period after arrival. Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States require no housing proof.
When housing and health insurance requirements are considered together, a group of countries emerges where applicants must satisfy both conditions before admission (e.g. Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and the Slovak Republic). In several of these countries, meeting both requirements also involves notarised or authenticated documentation, adding further steps to an already complex pre‑admission chain of requirements. These requirements create a sequencing problem: obtaining health insurance may depend on having a confirmed job offer, while securing housing may require a confirmed start date, yet both must be in place before a visa application can be submitted. Overall, these requirements represent a financial and logistical barrier that operates independently of whether the applicant formally meets the eligibility criteria for the pathway.
This chapter has drawn a portrait of the administrative elements in the admission of labour migrants. Administration through waiting times, fees, review and documentary burden in admission is not just about achieving efficiency and reducing cost: these measures respond to policy objectives of making recourse to international recruitment more or less attractive for employers. Unlike administrative requirements for practices for citizens, where lower burdens and efficiency gains are a general objective, there may be justification for raising the cost, complexity and wait for admission of labour migrants.
One picture that emerges is that countries do separate different pathways by how much they intend to make them costly to use. High fees are one method to discourage recourse to recruitment; fast processing times and reduced evidentiary burdens are among the methods used to facilitate recruitment. Triage – as used in asylum case processing, with prima facie simple cases of approvals and refusals treated first, and complex cases moved to another queue – do not appear common within pathways.
Fees in most OECD countries have not been used to accelerate service standards, except in cases of priority processing surcharges. Fees in most EU countries remain low in international comparison and are not meant to bring additional resources to administrative infrastructure for processing labour migration applications.
No standards are in place to assess “complexity”. Even in cases where regulatory change is introduced to address widely recognised issues of “complexity”, this is not systematically quantified. A full Standard Cost Model approach for labour migration processes is missing – one that would encompass the time spent by different users and by administrators. Cost-recovery systems quantify the administrative side in financial terms, but are used to cover the entire migration management administration and don’t allow breaking out the real costs of processing admission of labour migrants.
Statutory processing times cover only part of the whole admission process. Few countries establish statutory processing times for each step in the process separately – particularly the visa issuance phase. Transparency – allowing applicants to track their application through the different phases of the system – would give more understanding of the actual processing time experienced in different phases. Default approval in the absence of response is rare, as risk management is a high priority in immigration procedures. Similarly, the “tell us once” principle of administrative simplification, where any document must only be provided once as part of an administrative process, may be difficult to incorporate into immigration procedures. This approach is picked up in the Registered Employer schemes, discussed in Chapter 7, as regards employer identification, but does not extend to the aspirant labour migrant. Authorities may prefer that foreign candidates demonstrate a coherent narrative and produce the same documents at different points of the process, as part of measures to combat fraud.
Transparency in admission procedures is still limited. Few countries publicise refusal rates at the labour market test, immigration application step and visa issuance phase. Measures of costs conducted for impact assessments and for budget calculations are not published as expected user wait times or client burden indicators. Evidence requirements may vary by individual application, making it difficult to benchmark by documentary requirements alone. Improving the methodology for these estimates, benchmarking them among pathways and across countries, over time, would lead to greater comparability of pathways and help users understand effective service standards. This would also identify elements where efficiency gains should be sought, in line with policy objectives. Even in cases where the admission procedure is intentionally complex, there is still an argument to simplify processing on the back-office side, through risk profiling.
References
[6] Australian Government - Department of Home Affairs (2025), Cost of sponsoring, 2025.
[2] Bundesagentur für Arbeit (2024), “Employment of foreign workers in Germany (Information sheet)”, https://www.arbeitsagentur.de/datei/dok_ba034925.pdf (accessed on 29 May 2026).
[11] Federal Government of Germany (2025), Visa Issuances in 2024: Response of the Federal Government to the Minor Interpellation by Member of Parliament Clara Bünger and the parliamentary group Die Linke (Printed Paper 21/43), German Bundestag, Berlin, https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/21/004/2100415.pdf (accessed on 31 May 2026).
[1] Gerrie, L. (2020), “Migration and Time: Duration as an Instrument to Welcome or Restrict”, Erasmus Law Review, Vol. 13/2.
[9] National Audit Office (2025), Immigration: Skilled Worker visas, National Audit Office, London, https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Immigration-Skilled-Worker-visas.pdf (accessed on 31 May 2026).
[3] OECD (2014), OECD Regulatory Compliance Cost Assessment Guidance, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264209657-en.
[8] Parliamentary Ombudsman (2024), New review of the Swedish Migration Agency’s processing times, Parliamentary Ombudsmen of Sweden, Stockholm, https://www.jo.se/app/uploads/resolve_pdfs/1728030_8819-2023.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2026).
[10] Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (2022), Differential Treatment in Recruitment and Acceptance Rates of Foreign Students in Quebec and in the Rest of Canada, House of Commons of Canada, Ottawa, http://www.ourcommons.ca.
[4] U.S. Department of Labor (2026), H-1B Skills Training Grants, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/skills-grants/h1-b-skills-training (accessed on 14 August 2026).
[5] U.S. Department of Labor (2025), “US Department of Labor awards $86 million to 14 states for investment in skills training programs for critical in-demand, emerging industries”, https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/eta/eta20250930 (accessed on 14 August 2026).
[7] United Kingdom Government (2026), UK visa sponsorship for employers, https://www.gov.uk/uk-visa-sponsorship-employers/immigration-skills-charge (accessed on 19 August 2026).
1. In-country change of status has an aggregate cost of JPY 6 000 (EUR 32).
Fees converted to EUR based on exchange rate of May 2026. Priority processing surcharges are excluded.
Source: OECD Secretariat.
← 1. For an example of how immigration fees can cumulate over time, see the analysis by the Migration Observatory of Cumulative immigration charges on common routes, covering Skilled Worker and Health and Care worker pathways, at migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/qa‑immigration-fees-in-the‑uk/.
← 2. The information contained in this report is provided for general informational purposes only and is intended as a practical overview of the immigration requirements that may apply in a specific country. Requirements may vary depending on the specific circumstances of each case, the documentation submitted, and any additional requests or assessments made by the competent authorities. Fragomen makes no representation or warranty of any kind in connection with the report, expressed or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability or completeness of any information. The report provides general information that is intended, but not guaranteed, to be correct and up to date. Fragomen does not undertake any duty to update such information. The report is not presented as a source of legal, tax, employment, or Social Security advice. The recipient should not rely, for legal, tax, employment, or Social Security or other advice, on statements or representations included under the report. If the recipient requires legal or other advice upon which they intend to rely in the course of their affairs, they should consult their own tax, payroll, labour law, and Social Security advisors or service providers to confirm any obligations arising under a country’s tax, employment, payroll, and Social Security legislation.