1. What is the current legal landscape for Corporate Immigration in your jurisdiction?

Spain currently offers a remarkably favourable environment for corporate immigration, particularly for companies recruiting highly qualified professionals and international businesses establishing or expanding operations in the country.

This is sometimes overlooked. Spain is still perceived internationally as a jurisdiction where immigration processes are slow and heavily bureaucratic. That can certainly be true for some procedures. It is much less accurate, however, when looking at corporate immigration under Law 14/2013 and the procedures handled centrally by the Large Companies and Strategic Groups Unit (Unidad de Grandes Empresas y Colectivos Estratégicos, or UGE).

For international employers, the distinction matters.

Law 14/2013 provides a specific framework for immigration connected with economic activity, including highly qualified professionals, EU Blue Card holders, intra-company transferees, researchers, entrepreneurs and international remote workers. Applications under this framework are submitted electronically and handled centrally by the UGE rather than by the ordinary provincial immigration offices. The statutory decision period for residence authorisations is 20 working days, and positive administrative silence applies if the Administration does not decide within that period.

In our experience, this centralisation is one of the strengths of the Spanish system. For a properly prepared application, the process can be remarkably efficient.

For corporate recruitment, two routes are currently particularly relevant: the national Highly Qualified Professional authorisation (Profesional Altamente Cualificado, or PAC), and the EU Blue Card.

The EU Blue Card has become increasingly attractive following Spain’s implementation of Directive (EU) 2021/1883. It allows work permits through higher education or, in appropriate cases, relevant professional experience. For IT professionals and managers, three years of relevant experience within the previous seven years may suffice; in other cases, five years of equivalent relevant professional experience may be used.

One of the most significant developments in 2026 has been the clarification of the salary thresholds.

Following the publication of Spain’s updated average annual salary by the National Statistics Institute, the UGE confirmed in June 2026 that the current thresholds are:

• €41,356.36 gross per year – general threshold
• €33,085.09 gross per year – reduced EU Blue Card threshold

For the national PAC authorisation, the currently applies a single threshold of €41,356.36, without a reduced threshold.

The reduced Blue Card threshold can apply to certain shortage occupations falling within groups 1 and 2 of the Spanish National Classification of Occupations (CNO-2011), and to third-country nationals who obtained the relevant qualification within the three years preceding the application.

There is, however, an important practical difficulty with the first category. The legislation links the reduction not simply to an occupation being highly qualified or falling within CNO groups 1 or 2, but to its inclusion in the applicable shortage-occupation catalogue. In practice, the current catalogue provides limited coverage for many of the highly qualified positions typically encountered in international corporate mobility. As a result, the recent-graduate category is presently the more readily identifiable basis for applying the reduced threshold.

This is a good example of the difference between reading immigration legislation and applying it in practice. A route may exist legally but remain difficult to use until the relevant administrative criteria and supporting instruments are sufficiently clear.

The broader direction, however, is positive. Spain does not apply the national employment situation test to the Law 14/2013 highly qualified routes, removing one of the principal barriers encountered under ordinary work permit procedures. The Government itself has recently described the UGE system as an administrative “fast track” for international talent.

Another point worth mentioning is that corporate immigration in Spain is both centralised and decentralised, depending on the procedure.

Law 14/2013 authorisations are national. A PAC or EU Blue Card application is handled centrally by the UGE and the resulting authorisation is valid throughout Spain. This is the case even in Catalonia, which otherwise exercises transferred powers over certain initial work authorisations. The Generalitat expressly confirms that Law 14/2013 authorisations remain outside those transferred powers.

By contrast, practical steps surrounding immigration even under Law 14/2013 can differ considerably depending on where the employee will live and work. Police appointments for residence cards, municipal registration, local administrative practices and ordinary immigration procedures can produce very different practical experiences between Barcelona, Madrid and other parts of Spain.

For companies moving several employees, therefore, we increasingly distinguish between the legal immigration strategy and the practical relocation strategy. Both need to work.

The wider European trend points in the same direction. The EU is increasingly treating legal migration as part of its competitiveness and labour-shortage strategy. The EU Talent Pool Regulation entered into force in June 2026 and is intended to create the first EU-wide platform connecting employers with third-country jobseekers for shortage occupations.

Spain is well positioned within this trend. The legal tools already exist. The challenge for companies is choosing the correct route and integrating immigration with the wider employment, tax, social security and corporate structure of the business.

 2. What three essential pieces of advice would you give to clients involved in Corporate Immigration matters?

2.1. Plan immigration before making the employment offer

One of the most common mistakes we see is that immigration is considered after the commercial decision has already been made.

The company identifies the candidate, negotiates the salary, agrees the starting date and even signs the initial employment documentation, and afterwards starts the work permit process. The order should be reversed.

Before finalising the offer, we recommend checking the employee’s nationality and current immigration status, intended position and functions, qualifications or professional experience, salary, proposed Spanish employing entity and expected start date.

This is particularly important following the introduction of the new salary thresholds and whether the proposed package qualifies. The classification of the position and the candidate’s expertise can also determine which route is available.

A relatively short immigration assessment at the beginning can prevent weeks of restructuring and supporting unexpected costs later.

2.2. Treat corporate immigration as part of the business project, not as an isolated procedure

When an international company establishes operations in Spain, immigration rarely exists in isolation. The questions are usually broader:

• Who will employ the individual?
• Does the company already have a Spanish entity?
• Should it establish a subsidiary or branch?
• When can the employee legally start working?
• How should the employment contract be structured?
• Where will payroll and social security contributions be paid and what is the amount?
• What are the tax consequences for the employee and the company?
• Can family members relocate at the same time?

We therefore increasingly approach international expansion as a coordinated project involving corporate, employment, social security, immigration, and tax considerations. This is particularly valuable for companies opening their first Spanish office. Immigration strategy can influence the timing, structure, and cost of the entire project.

Spain can be an extremely efficient jurisdiction for bringing international talent into Europe, but that advantage is best used when immigration planning begins at the same time as the business planning.

2.3. Do not confuse a fast procedure with a simple procedure

A 20-day statutory processing period does not mean that entire immigration process will take 20 days. The efficiency of the UGE system depends heavily on submitting a coherent application from the outset. Job description, professional classification, salary, qualifications, experience, corporate documentation and employment terms need to tell the same story.

We therefore spend considerable time before filing identifying potential inconsistencies and obtaining the correct evidence.

The objective is simple: once the application reaches the Administration, there should be as little as possible left to explain. That preparation is particularly important where the case is not completely standard – for example, where professional experience is being relied upon instead of academic qualifications, where the employee already holds another immigration status in Spain, or where several family members are relocating together. For example, the UGE confirmed that residence under the EU-family-member regime is incompatible with residence under Law 14/2013; the existing status must first be relinquished before moving to the latter regime. These details can materially affect the sequencing of a relocation.

3. What are the greatest threats and opportunities in Corporate Immigration law in the next 12 months?

The greatest opportunity is straightforward: Spain has an increasingly strong proposition for companies competing internationally for talent.

The country combines access to the EU labour market, a sophisticated business environment and relatively efficient immigration routes for highly qualified professionals. The EU Blue Card adds an increasingly important European mobility dimension.

At European level, the direction is also clear. The EU Talent Pool and the broader EU focus on skills and talent mobility recognise that legal migration is becoming part of Europe’s competitiveness strategy rather than simply an immigration policy issue.

For Spain, this creates a significant opportunity. International companies are increasingly asking us not simply how to relocate one executive, but whether Spain can work as a location for a European team, technology hub or new operating centre.

That changes the nature of corporate immigration advice. The question becomes less “how do we obtain this permit?” and more “how do we build a scalable mobility structure for Spain?”

There are nevertheless several areas of uncertainty.

The first is salary.

The new system links the Blue Card threshold to the annual salary data published by the National Statistics Institute. The 2024 average annual salary, published in May 2026, was €29,540.26, 5.3% higher than the previous year. The corresponding immigration threshold therefore moved to €41,356.36.

Companies should consequently expect salary thresholds to move and should avoid building long-term recruitment policies around a static figure.

The second is the practical application of the reduced Blue Card threshold.

The current legislation creates a potentially useful tool of reduced threshold of €33,085.09, but its shortage-occupation limb depends on the interaction between the CNO classification and the official shortage-occupation catalogue. For many corporate positions, this currently limits its practical usefulness. Greater administrative clarity here would be welcome. A genuinely usable shortage-occupation mechanism for highly qualified roles could make the Blue Card considerably more effective for younger international professionals and sectors facing genuine skills shortages.

The third risk is fragmentation.

Companies sometimes assume that because the residence authorisation is national, every part of the employee’s relocation will work identically throughout Spain. It does not.

The UGE process itself is centralised, but subsequent administrative steps and ordinary immigration procedures remain affected by local availability and, in some cases, regional competences.

For example, Catalonia exercises executive competence over certain initial work authorisations under the ordinary immigration regime, whereas Law 14/2013 authorisations remain with the State.

For HR and Global Mobility teams, understanding which authority controls each part of the process and how long each procedure will take is increasingly important.

Overall, however, we consider the outlook positive. Spain has moved from seeing corporate immigration largely as an administrative process to increasingly treating international talent as part of economic policy. For businesses willing to plan ahead, that creates a genuine competitive opportunity.

 4. How do you ensure high client satisfaction levels are maintained by your practice?

Corporate immigration clients rarely want just immigration law. They want certainty.

The HR director wants to know whether the candidate can move. The employee wants to know when they can start working. The CFO wants to know what it will cost. The family wants to know when they can relocate, and their children can start the school. And the business wants the process to happen without becoming an internal project of its own.

That has shaped how we have built our practice at Klev&Vera. We combine senior legal involvement with a highly process-driven delivery model.

Before starting a case, we identify the appropriate immigration route, potential risks, documentation requirements and expected sequence. We then manage the administrative process around that legal strategy rather than repeatedly telling the client what should happen next.

We place particular emphasis on expectation management. If a point depends on an administrative criterion, a third-party appointment or an authority’s discretion, we explain that at the beginning. If we see a potential problem, we prefer to raise it before filing rather than after it becomes an issue.

For corporate clients, consistency is particularly important. A company relocating one employee may tolerate an ad hoc process. A company relocating ten, twenty or fifty cannot. We therefore standardise document collection, internal review, filing, follow-up and client communications wherever this improves efficiency, while keeping the legal assessment individual to each case.

We also work across practice areas.

International mobility frequently raises employment, corporate, tax, social security and sometimes real-estate issues. Having those discussions within the same legal team can significantly reduce the coordination burden for both the company and the employee.

Finally, we try to remain very accessible.

Immigration matters affect people’s jobs, families and ability to live in a country. Even in a corporate context, there is always a person behind the file. Efficient processes matter, but so does having a lawyer who understands why the answer matters.

Our objective is therefore not simply to obtain permits. It is to make international hiring in Spain feel predictable for the company and manageable for the employee.

 5. What technological advancements are reshaping Corporate Immigration law and how can clients benefit from them?

Technology is changing corporate immigration at two different levels: how public authorities process applications and how law firms manage the underlying legal work.

Spain already has an important advantage in this respect. Applications under Law 14/2013 are filed electronically with the UGE. This centralised digital model is one of the reasons the system can operate with a statutory 20-day decision period.

Within private practice, the more interesting development is now automation and artificial intelligence.

We believe AI will materially improve corporate immigration, but probably not by replacing immigration lawyers. Its immediate value is in removing unnecessary administrative work.

Immigration files contain large quantities of structured information: passport details, employment data, dates, qualifications, corporate information, supporting documents, expiry dates and recurring forms. Used appropriately, technology can help extract and validate information, identify missing documents, generate first drafts of routine documentation, monitor deadlines and maintain consistency across large volumes of cases.

For corporate clients, the benefits are practical: faster preparation, fewer manual errors, better visibility and more predictable service.

At Klev&Vera, we are progressively combining automation, standardised workflows and AI-assisted processes with lawyer-led legal review. There is, however, an important qualification.

Immigration files contain highly sensitive personal information. The fact that a technological tool can process that information does not mean that it should. Data protection, confidentiality, access controls and the suitability of the particular technology must come first. We therefore distinguish between tasks that can safely be automated and those that require human handling or legal judgment.

We also do not use AI as a substitute for professional responsibility.

An algorithm may help identify an inconsistency between a job description and an application form. It should not decide whether a professional qualifies for a particular immigration category or how an ambiguous administrative criterion should be interpreted. That remains legal work.

The most successful corporate immigration practices, in our view, will therefore not be those that automate everything. They will be those that understand what should be automated. The result should be less time spent copying passport numbers between documents and more time spent advising clients.

That is ultimately where technology creates value: not by removing the lawyer from the process, but by allowing the lawyer to spend more time on the parts of the process where legal judgment actually matters.

 6. Describe a particularly interesting or complex matter you have advised on recently, and explain the challenges involved, your approach, and the outcome achieved for the client.

One matter illustrates particularly well why we see corporate immigration as part of a wider business project rather than simply a process for obtaining work permits.

A US company approached us in connection with a project it had been awarded in Spain. The project was expected to run for approximately three years and required the deployment of around fifteen experienced managers and technical specialists from the United States. The company would also recruit employees locally in Spain, but the project required the Spanish team to work under the supervision and technical direction of the US specialists.

The initial question was therefore not simply which immigration permits were available. We first had to determine the most efficient structure for operating the project in Spain for a significant, but clearly temporary, period.

After considering the expected duration of the project, the functions to be performed in Spain and the client’s existing US structure, we recommended establishing a Spanish company that could operate as the local base for the project.

We then divided the workforce according to the role each individual would perform, as well as when and for how long each of them would be required. Key managers and senior technical specialists were transferred from the US group under the intra-company transfer regime, while other positions were recruited locally in Spain.

An important part of the structure was preserving, where possible, the employment arrangements of the US transferees. The senior employees remained employed by the US parent company and kept their individual contractual continuity and benefits in the US, rather than being moved unnecessarily onto Spanish employment contracts.

This also required us to consider social security from the outset. For qualifying temporary assignments, the US parent obtained Certificates of US Coverage under the US-Spanish Social Security Agreement. This allowed the employees to remain within the US Social Security system for the relevant assignment period and avoided unnecessary duplication of social security contributions in Spain.

Timing was another important part of the project. Most of the residence authorisations were obtained efficiently through Spain’s corporate immigration framework. However, two employees were being transferred from another group company in South Asia rather than directly relocating from the United States. Their circumstances required additional planning around the consular entry-visa stage before they could relocate to Spain.

That distinction is important in international mobility projects: obtaining the underlying residence and work authorisation is only one part of the deployment. Nationality of the employee and family members, their country of residence, consular requirements, social security, employment arrangements and the employee’s actual ability to enter Spain all need to be incorporated into the same timetable.

Ultimately, the company was able to deploy its key US management and technical personnel, recruit the required local workforce and operate the Spanish project with the intended combination of international expertise and local resources.

The temporary nature of the project had determined our advice from the beginning. Once the project was completed approximately three years later, the international assignments came to an end, and we assisted with the orderly exit and closure of the Spanish structure.

For us, the matter is a good example of what effective corporate immigration advice should achieve. The objective was never to obtain a number of work permits. It was to create a structure that allowed the client to deliver its project in Spain efficiently, compliantly and with as little disruption as possible to its business and its people.