IR2 Visa (US) 2026: Eligibility, Requirements & How to Apply

The IR2 visa is a US family-based immigrant visa for the unmarried children of US citizens. On paper, it sits outside employer-sponsored immigration and carries no formal sponsorship duties for businesses. In practice, it regularly intersects with workforce planning, senior hires, global mobility assignments and right to work compliance, particularly where employers are relocating key staff to the United States or hiring individuals whose immigration position depends on family status rather than employment.

HR professionals and business owners often underestimate the operational and compliance risk created by IR2 cases. Delays, refusals or misunderstandings around work authorisation can derail start dates, disrupt assignments and expose employers to right to work failures under US law. For UK-based sponsor licence holders with US operations, misunderstandings can also feed into broader governance weaknesses across jurisdictions, especially where immigration risk is managed inconsistently across US immigration workstreams and wider US visa support.

What this article is about:
This article provides a compliance-grade analysis of the IR2 visa from an employer and HR perspective. It explains what the IR2 visa is, who qualifies, how work authorisation operates, and where employers face indirect legal and commercial risk. The focus is not on individual application steps, but on defensible employer decision-making, workforce risk management and practical planning where family-based US immigrant visas affect business operations.

Section A: What is an IR2 visa and why should employers care?

The IR2 visa is an immediate relative immigrant visa category under US immigration law. It applies to unmarried children under the age of 21 of a US citizen. Unlike employment-based visas, the IR2 route is not capped annually and does not require labour certification, employer sponsorship or compliance undertakings by a business. On approval and entry to the United States, the IR2 holder becomes a lawful permanent resident.

From an employer’s perspective, this lack of sponsorship often creates a false sense of security. HR teams may assume the visa is “automatic”, low risk or irrelevant to workforce compliance. In reality, IR2 cases frequently affect hiring timelines, relocation viability and right to work checks, particularly where a senior employee’s ability to accept or remain in a role depends on their child’s immigration status.

The IR2 visa also carries rigid statutory requirements. Eligibility hinges on precise definitions of “child”, age, marital status and parental relationships under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Errors in timing or assumptions around eligibility can result in refusal with no alternative route, leaving employers exposed to sudden workforce disruption.

Employers should care about the IR2 visa because it sits at the intersection of family immigration and business continuity. While the business is not the sponsor, it often bears the commercial consequences if the visa fails, is delayed or is misunderstood internally. This is particularly important where an organisation is simultaneously managing family-based immigration outcomes alongside employer-led routes such as a US working visa or other work visa USA planning, because mixed-case portfolios increase the risk of inconsistent compliance decisions.

Section A summary
The IR2 visa is a family-based US immigrant visa with no employer sponsorship duties, but it is not risk-free for businesses. Employers should treat IR2 cases as a workforce planning and compliance issue, particularly where key hires or international assignments depend on family immigration outcomes.

Section B: Who is eligible for an IR2 visa and what are the legal edge cases?

IR2 eligibility is defined narrowly in statute. Only unmarried children under the age of 21 of a US citizen qualify. From an employer perspective, the risk lies not in the headline rule, but in the detail of how “child”, “under 21” and “parent” are interpreted by US authorities. These definitions are applied strictly, with little discretion, and failures often occur late in the process when business plans are already committed.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a “child” can include a biological child, a stepchild or an adopted child, but only where specific legal conditions are met. Stepchildren qualify only if the marriage creating the step-relationship took place before the child turned 18. Adopted children must generally have been adopted before the age of 16 and must have lived with the adoptive parent for a defined period. In limited cases involving sibling adoptions, the adoption age threshold can extend to before age 18. These requirements are frequently misunderstood by families and, by extension, by employers relying on assurances from incoming hires, especially where global mobility support is being run alongside broader US immigrant visas planning.

Age is a critical risk point. The IR2 category is only available while the child is under 21 and unmarried. The Child Status Protection Act can, in limited circumstances, freeze the child’s age for immigration purposes, but this protection is not automatic and does not apply in every case. Employers that assume “turning 21 soon” is manageable often find themselves facing an abrupt loss of eligibility, with no fallback route.

Marital status is another absolute bar. Even a short-lived or later-annulled marriage will permanently remove IR2 eligibility. This can come as a shock to families and HR teams who treat marriage as a reversible personal event rather than a decisive immigration trigger.

From a workforce planning perspective, these edge cases matter because they are not fixable at the employer level. There is no alternative sponsorship route that replaces IR2 if eligibility fails. For employers relocating key staff or hiring internationally mobile talent, a failed IR2 case can mean the employee declines the role, exits early or becomes unable to remain in the US long term. In practice, this often collides with operational commitments already scheduled around US visa appointment availability and the expected pace of US visa processing, creating avoidable disruption where timelines were built on informal assumptions rather than risk-managed planning.

Section B summary
IR2 eligibility is rigid and technical. Age thresholds, marital status and family relationships are enforced strictly, with limited protection mechanisms. Employers should not rely on informal assurances from employees and must factor IR2 eligibility risk into relocation timelines and hiring decisions.

Section C: Does the IR2 visa create work authorisation or right to work risk?

From a compliance standpoint, the most critical issue for employers is whether an IR2 visa holder has the legal right to work in the United States and how that right is evidenced. While the IR2 route leads to permanent residence, misunderstandings about timing and documentation regularly create right to work failures at onboarding.

An IR2 visa holder becomes a lawful permanent resident immediately on admission to the United States. In principle, this status carries unrestricted permission to work. However, the right to work is only defensible once lawful permanent residence is activated through entry. Prior to arrival, possession of an approved IR2 visa alone does not authorise employment. Employers that align start dates or onboarding activity to visa approval rather than physical entry expose themselves to unlawful working risk.

For US employers, this distinction matters during recruitment and onboarding. An employer that allows work to commence before the individual has entered the US and obtained permanent resident status risks breaching federal employment eligibility verification rules. I-9 enforcement remains an active compliance area, and civil penalties attach to failures to verify work authorisation correctly. This risk exists regardless of the employer’s intent and is frequently identified during wider compliance reviews that also examine hiring practices under other US working visa routes.

In practice, delays in the physical Permanent Resident Card, commonly referred to as the Green Card, can also cause confusion. While the card itself may arrive weeks or months after entry, the IR2 holder can rely on alternative evidence of permanent residence for I-9 purposes, such as a passport endorsed with an immigrant visa and admission stamp. Employers that insist on a Green Card as the sole acceptable document expose themselves to discrimination risk as well as verification breaches. This is a common error where HR teams apply internal rules designed for work visa USA categories to permanent residence cases without adjusting for status differences.

Another recurring compliance mistake is treating IR2 holders as dependants with restricted work rights. Unlike non-immigrant dependant visas, IR2 status does not limit employment. Overly cautious internal policies that delay onboarding or impose unnecessary restrictions can create contractual disputes, employee relations issues and loss of talent.

For multinational employers, there is also a governance risk where US right to work checks are conflated with UK sponsor licence concepts. The IR2 visa has no relevance to UK sponsorship compliance, but inconsistent internal understanding across jurisdictions can undermine audit readiness and weaken confidence in wider immigration governance frameworks, particularly where organisations manage both US immigration and UK sponsorship risk in parallel.

Section C summary
IR2 visa holders have full work authorisation once they enter the United States as permanent residents, but not before. Employers must manage onboarding carefully, apply I-9 rules correctly and avoid both premature employment and unnecessary document demands. Right to work compliance failures in this area carry real enforcement and discrimination risk.

Section D: What are the employer compliance and commercial risks if IR2 cases go wrong?

Although employers have no formal sponsorship role in IR2 visa cases, the commercial exposure when things go wrong is often significant. The absence of direct legal duties can lead HR teams to underestimate the scale of disruption and compliance risk that flows from a failed or delayed family-based application.

The most immediate risk is workforce disruption. IR2 refusals or age-out scenarios often arise late, after relocation packages have been agreed, start dates set and business-critical projects planned. When a key employee cannot relocate because a child is no longer eligible, employers are left managing aborted assignments, renegotiated contracts or unexpected resignations. In senior or specialist roles, replacement timelines can be lengthy and costly.

There is also direct financial exposure. Employers frequently absorb relocation costs, housing allowances, school fees and immigration support expenses on the assumption that family immigration will proceed smoothly. IR2 failures can render these costs unrecoverable. Where policies are unclear, disputes may arise over whether the employer or employee bears the loss, particularly where commitments were made in parallel with broader US immigration planning.

From a compliance perspective, right to work risk remains central. If employers misunderstand when IR2 work authorisation begins, they may permit unlawful working or, conversely, unlawfully delay employment. Both scenarios attract enforcement attention. Civil penalties for I-9 breaches can be substantial, and repeat failures increase the likelihood of audit escalation and reputational scrutiny. These risks are often identified alongside failures in other areas of US visa compliance during regulatory reviews.

For multinational groups, poor handling of IR2 cases can also expose weaknesses in global mobility governance. Regulators, auditors and investors increasingly assess whether immigration risk is managed systematically rather than reactively. Inconsistent treatment of family-based immigration undermines the credibility of broader compliance frameworks, including those linked to employer-sponsored routes such as a US working visa or long-term work visa USA planning.

Finally, there is reputational risk. High-profile hiring failures, aborted relocations or allegations of discriminatory right to work practices can damage an employer’s standing with regulators and the labour market. In competitive sectors, reputational damage can have a longer-lasting commercial impact than the immediate cost of a failed assignment.

Section D summary
IR2 visa failures create real commercial, compliance and reputational risk for employers. Workforce disruption, wasted relocation spend and right to work enforcement exposure are common consequences. Employers should treat IR2 cases as a business risk issue requiring early assessment and structured management.

Section E: How does the IR2 visa interact with workforce planning and mobility strategy?

IR2 visas most often arise in the context of senior hires, founder relocations and long-term international assignments. In each case, the visa itself sits outside the employer’s control, but the commercial and operational consequences of failure sit firmly with the business. Effective workforce planning therefore requires HR teams to treat family-based immigration as a material dependency, not a peripheral personal issue.

Timing is the primary operational risk. IR2 applications are processed through consular routes and are subject to document scrutiny, interview scheduling and local capacity constraints. Employers that align start dates or project milestones to optimistic assumptions about processing speed expose themselves to avoidable disruption. This risk is compounded where planning is undertaken alongside other US immigrant visas activity, without recognising that family-based cases follow different timelines and controls.

Dependency risk is particularly acute where an employee’s willingness or ability to relocate depends on a child securing IR2 status. In these situations, the employer is effectively exposed to a single point of failure. This is most problematic in leadership, revenue-generating or technically specialised roles where continuity is critical and replacement options are limited.

Employers should also consider whether alternative structuring decisions reduce exposure. In some cases, delaying relocation until IR2 status is secured may be safer than proceeding on conditional assumptions. In others, restructuring duties, adjusting reporting lines or postponing US presence may protect business continuity. These are commercial decisions, but they must be taken with a clear understanding of how family-based immigration risk interacts with wider US immigration strategy.

Policy design is central to managing this risk. Robust global mobility policies should set out how family immigration risk is assessed, who owns decision-making where cases fail, and how financial exposure is allocated. Without clear governance, IR2 cases are often managed informally, increasing inconsistency, dispute risk and audit vulnerability, particularly where organisations also manage employer-sponsored routes such as a US working visa or other work visa USA pathways.

Section E summary
IR2 visas directly affect workforce planning where roles depend on family relocation. Employers should build conservative timelines, identify dependency risk early and integrate family immigration assessment into mobility strategy and policy design to protect operational continuity.

Section F: What are the common mistakes employers and HR teams make with IR2 visas?

Most employer risk associated with IR2 visas does not arise from obscure legal technicalities, but from predictable assumptions and governance gaps. These mistakes recur in organisations that treat family-based immigration as a private matter for employees rather than a factor that directly affects workforce stability and compliance.

A common error is assuming that IR2 visas are low risk because they are uncapped and not employer-sponsored. This often leads to insufficient scrutiny of eligibility, particularly around age thresholds and marital status. Employers may only discover that a child has aged out or lost eligibility once the business has already committed to relocation costs, start dates and project delivery.

Another frequent mistake is over-reliance on employee assurances. HR teams may accept informal statements that a child “qualifies” without testing the underlying assumptions or understanding the legal definitions applied under US immigration law. While employers cannot control the application process, they remain responsible for managing the commercial consequences of incorrect assumptions, especially where IR2 cases are running alongside other US immigrant visas or broader US immigration initiatives.

Poor communication is another recurring issue. Employees and families may not appreciate that personal decisions, such as marriage, permanently remove IR2 eligibility. Where employers fail to explain the significance of these triggers, family decisions can inadvertently derail relocation plans, leaving the business exposed to sudden disruption with no mitigation options.

On the compliance side, mishandling right to work verification remains a persistent risk. Employers may delay onboarding unnecessarily, insist on incorrect documentation or, conversely, permit work to begin before lawful permanent residence is activated. These errors often stem from internal policies designed for US working visa holders being applied indiscriminately to permanent residence cases, without recognising the legal distinction.

Finally, many organisations lack clear escalation and ownership pathways for IR2-related risk. Cases are often managed at local HR level without senior visibility, even where the commercial stakes are high. This results in reactive decision-making rather than structured risk management, particularly in organisations operating multiple US visa routes across jurisdictions.

Section F summary
Employer mistakes with IR2 visas typically stem from assumptions, weak verification and poor governance. Treating IR2 cases as routine family matters rather than workforce risks increases the likelihood of disruption, compliance failure and avoidable cost.

FAQs

Is the IR2 visa employer-sponsored?
No. The IR2 visa is a family-based immigrant visa for the unmarried child of a US citizen. Employers have no sponsorship duties or formal compliance obligations linked to the application itself. However, employers still face indirect workforce and right to work risk if the visa is delayed, refused or misunderstood.

Can an IR2 visa holder work in the United States?
Yes, but only once they have entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident. Prior to entry, an approved IR2 visa does not authorise employment. Employers must ensure work only begins after permanent residence is activated and I-9 verification is completed.

Does the IR2 visa affect UK sponsor licence compliance?
No. The IR2 visa is a US immigration category and has no direct impact on UK sponsor licence duties. Risk arises indirectly where poor immigration governance in one jurisdiction reflects wider compliance weaknesses across a multinational group.

What happens if an IR2 application is refused or the child ages out?
There is usually no alternative IR2 route. Employers may face aborted relocations, loss of key staff or delayed projects. These outcomes should be treated as foreseeable business risks and factored into workforce planning.

Can employers insist on a Green Card as proof of right to work?
No. While a Green Card is acceptable evidence, it is not the only valid document. Employers must accept alternative lawful evidence and avoid insisting on specific documents, as this can create discrimination risk.

Conclusion

The IR2 visa is frequently treated as a personal or family matter, but for employers it represents a material workforce and compliance risk. Although there are no sponsorship duties, failures or delays can disrupt recruitment, derail international assignments and expose businesses to right to work enforcement and reputational harm.

HR professionals and business owners should integrate IR2 awareness into workforce planning, global mobility policy and immigration governance. Early identification of eligibility risk, conservative timing assumptions and clear escalation processes are essential to defensible decision-making. Treating family-based immigration as part of the wider compliance landscape, rather than an external variable, is key to protecting operational continuity.

Glossary

Useful Links