The Investor Visa Gap: An Oversight Costing the UK Capital and Talent

Ruslan Kosarenko
London

Ruslan Kosarenko argues that the UK’s immigration framework creates a policy paradox, courting entrepreneurs while blocking entry.

The UK is facing a policy paradox. On the one hand, it is courting global entrepreneurs with attractive tax incentives. On the other hand, it offers no viable immigration pathway for the very people those policies are designed to attract. 

Since the Chancellor’s Spring Budget, which introduced the new Foreign Income and Gains (FIG) regime, there has been a surge in relocation interest, particularly from American founders and high-net-worth individuals.

The FIG policy offers four tax-advantaged years to new or returning residents, a significant incentive when combined with Britain’s political stability, legal system, and common language.

However, enthusiasm often curdles into disillusionment. Once would-be movers understand the UK’s immigration framework, many realise there is simply no suitable route for them to reside legally, let alone invest and contribute. The fiscal welcome mat is out, but the front door remains bolted shut.

This is particularly striking in the case of successful owner-founders. Consider the example of one of our clients, a Cypriot entrepreneur, who operates a thriving technology services firm from Limassol.

Eager to relocate to London for a three to five-year period and secure a British education for his children, he is prepared to invest millions in the UK economy. Yet the available immigration routes are completely misaligned with his profile.

He cannot apply under the Skilled Worker route, as he is not an employee. Nor does he qualify for the Global Talent visa, which prioritises narrow fields like academia, digital tech, and the arts.

The Innovator Founder visa, designed to encourage fresh UK-based startups, fails to accommodate established foreign businesses, even those that would gladly expand to Britain and bring capital with them.

The issue lies in the 2022 abolition of the Tier 1 (Investor) visa. While its removal was justified on national security and misuse grounds, its absence has created a policy vacuum. There is no route today for passive or semi-passive investors who are ready to back UK businesses and public markets in return for residency.

Yet the case for a new, carefully designed investor visa is strong. Foreign direct investment (FDI) is a key driver of economic growth, and the UK’s performance has recently lagged.

The value of FDI flows into the UK was £1.3 billion, down from £22.9 billion in 2022, compared to the global increase of 3% as reported by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). The UK’s share of global FDI has fallen steadily since 2016, with Brexit cited as a key factor by many international investors.

Meanwhile, the business case for foreign capital is clear. The British Business Bank and others have long identified a “scale-up” gap in growth-stage funding, particularly for SMEs outside London. A revived investor visa could be structured to support the Government’s ambitions to grow the domestic venture capital ecosystem and support regional business expansion.

A requirement to invest in UK-listed equities or regulated venture capital funds could direct capital to where it is needed most, without reviving the loopholes and property speculation associated with the old regime. 

The UK is not only underutilising, but also losing capital. Rising taxes on high-net-worth individuals, including the abolition of the non-dom regime, are prompting a significant outflow of wealth, as nearly 10,800 millionaires left the UK in 2024 alone. It is a striking contradiction: while capital is fleeing, the UK offers no structured pathway to attract new investor inflows.

A £2 million threshold, with an emphasis on productive capital deployment, would strike a healthy balance between access and rigour. Vetting mechanisms and anti-money laundering checks could remain stringent, while enabling the UK to compete with jurisdictions like Portugal, Canada, and Australia, countries that continue to offer investor residence pathways and are attracting the mobile wealth Britain is currently turning away.

In fact, even the United States, despite tightened immigration rules, still offers the EB-5 visa for job-creating investors. In 2025 alone, more than 7000 EB-5 visas were issued, directing billions in capital to US regional development projects.

The Treasury has played its part. Its willingness to extend generous tax treatment to overseas entrepreneurs is a clear signal that Britain wants to remain competitive on the global stage. But the Home Office has not followed suit. The disconnect between immigration policy and economic strategy threatens to nullify the benefits of the FIG regime before they are realised.

The solution is not to reinstate the old Tier 1 model in its original form. Rather, the UK needs a modernised investor visa that reflects 2025 realities, transparent, outcomes-driven, and focused on long-term economic value.

With careful calibration, such a policy could attract not just capital but job creators, philanthropists, and global ambassadors for Brand Britain. The current impasse sends the wrong message: that we want their money, but not their presence.