In the process of bringing a foreign expert to work in Vietnam, the labour demand explanation is the first gate — and the one where most files are turned back. A “demand not approved” letter is not a full stop, but resubmitting the identical file hoping for a different mood almost guarantees the identical answer.
Reading the refusal: reasons cluster in four groups
Under Article 30 of Decree 219/2025/ND-CP, at least fifteen days before the intended start date, the employer must explain its demand for foreign labour for each position Vietnamese workers cannot yet fill, reporting to the provincial People’s Committee chairperson (files received through the Department of Home Affairs). A refusal letter must state its reasons; in practice they cluster in four groups: (1) the position is assessed as fillable by Vietnamese workers and the file never proved recruitment failed; (2) the job description and experience requirements do not match the statutory personnel categories (managers, executive directors, experts, technical workers in Article 3); (3) missing components or contradictions between documents; (4) the company carries unresolved labour or insurance violations colouring the review.
The first group is the commonest bottleneck for ordinary technical roles: the reviewing authority presumes the domestic market can supply, unless the company proves otherwise with data. The second appears when a company labels a position “expert” while the job description reads like general labour, or sets experience below the expert standard in clause 3, Article 3 (a relevant university degree plus at least two years of matching experience, or the substitute thresholds for priority fields).
Rebuilding and resubmitting: answer each refusal point with a document
The redo principle: every point in the refusal letter gets answered by a concrete document in the new file. Charged with not proving Vietnamese recruitment failed? Attach the full recruitment trail — published vacancy notices, applicant numbers and files, interview minutes showing each candidate’s shortfall against the position’s requirements. Category mismatch? Rewrite the job description along the competence frame of the expert or technical-worker category, tying specific duties to the technology, production line or market that only this position covers; and align the job title consistently across the explanation, the intended contract and the later permit file.
Once rebuilt, the file is submitted as a fresh explanation round and the fifteen-day lead time before the intended start date runs anew — the expert’s start date in the project plan must shift accordingly. Do not “float” the expert in early on another visa category to work while approval is pending: working without an approved demand and a permit is sanctioned on both the labour and residence fronts, and it makes the subsequent permit file far harder.
When the redo still fails: remaining options
If the resubmitted round is refused again, ask for a direct working session with the receiving authority to pin down the exact missing condition, rather than filing a third time blindly. Legally, the state authority’s reply on foreign labour demand is an administrative decision open to complaint under the 2011 Law on Complaints and administrative litigation under the 2015 Law on Administrative Procedures — but for an operating employment relationship, litigation should be the last resort after technical dialogue has failed.
Parallel business options include: restructuring the position — carving the genuinely foreign-dependent portion (proprietary technology, transfer training, a specific export market) into a narrower, deeper role and hiring Vietnamese for the rest; or a time-boxed transfer route — the expert enters short-term to train the Vietnamese team while the company builds an internal training programme so a later explanation can show the demand picture has changed. What must never happen: lending an approved position’s title to a different person, or letting the expert work “off the books” — these violations sit in the heavy bracket of Article 13 of Decree 283/2026/ND-CP, with possible deportation of the worker.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why are demand explanations rejected?
Four common groups: the position is judged fillable by Vietnamese workers and the file did not prove recruitment failed; the job description and experience requirements miss the Article 3 categories of Decree 219/2025/ND-CP (managers, executive directors, experts, technical workers); missing or contradictory documents; or unresolved labour/insurance violations at the company. The refusal letter must state its reasons — treat it as the redo map.
How do we fix and resubmit?
Answer each reason with a concrete document: the Vietnamese recruitment trail (vacancy posts, applicant files, interview minutes naming each shortfall); a job description rewritten to the category’s competence frame; and one job title consistent across explanation and permit file. The resubmission counts as a new round, and the minimum fifteen-day lead under Article 30 runs again.
How long does a redo take?
Each explanation round under Article 30 of Decree 219/2025/ND-CP must be filed at least fifteen days before the intended start date. A refusal-and-redo cycle therefore pushes the expert’s start date back by the same amount — build the redo loop into the project plan instead of holding the original onboarding date.
What if it is still refused?
Meet the receiving authority to pin down the missing condition; consider restructuring the role (isolating the genuinely foreign-dependent tasks) or a training-transfer route. Legally, a complaint under the 2011 Law on Complaints or an administrative suit under the 2015 Law on Administrative Procedures is available as a last resort. Never let the expert work before demand approval and a permit exist.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council