Every work permit file begins with one document that decides the fate of the whole file: the explanation of demand for foreign workers. Written well, the entire licensing process behind it flows; written carelessly, the file is returned before anyone even looks at the expert’s diplomas. This article sets out the content and structure of the demand explanation under the current process in Article 22 of Decree 219/2025/ND-CP. It must be distinguished from two neighbouring subjects: the enterprise’s annual foreign-labour usage plan — an overall planning document, the subject of article EXP-1572 in the same assignment wave — and how to redo a rejected explanation, analysed in article EXP-1699 on this site. This article focuses on writing the explanation for each specific hiring round so it is approved on first submission.
1. The explanation’s place in the Article 22 process of Decree 219/2025
Under Decree 219/2025/ND-CP, the demand-explanation step is integrated into the work permit issuance process in Article 22: the employer files the application — with the explanation of demand for foreign workers as its opening component — within the window from 60 days to 10 days before the foreign worker’s expected start date, and the provincial authority reviews approval of the demand and issues the work permit within 10 working days under the process. This has two practical consequences. First, the mindset of “get demand approval in principle first, file the permit months later” is gone: the two steps run in one unified process, so the explanation and the expert’s personal file must be ready at the same time. Second, the filing date is counted backwards from the start date: the enterprise fixes the start date first, then derives the last filing day (10 days before) and the earliest opening (60 days before). The explanation must therefore be drafted together with the project’s foreign-staffing plan, not as a rushed document at the final step.
2. Content structure: what a qualifying explanation contains
A convincing explanation answers six information groups in full. (i) Enterprise information and context: business field, and the specific project or business need generating this round’s foreign-labour demand. (ii) Positions and headcount: each job position to use foreign workers (manager, executive director, expert, technical worker), the number of people per position, and the work location. (iii) Job description and requirements: the actual duties of each position, qualifications, skills, experience and special requirements (language, proprietary technology, group standards). (iv) Reasons Vietnamese workers cannot yet meet the need: the centrepiece of the explanation — a concrete analysis of why this position cannot be given to Vietnamese workers at the present time, tied to the requirements in group (iii). (v) Recruitment efforts already made: the steps the enterprise took to find Vietnamese workers for the position (job postings, recruitment period, results) as evidence for group (iv). (vi) Expected duration of use and commitments: the expected working period of foreign workers in each position, with commitments to train and hand over to Vietnamese workers on a roadmap where applicable. Written in this order, the six groups form a closed argument chain from business need to specific people.
3. The errors that make an explanation weak
Four errors recur. Error one, a generic copied-template explanation: position descriptions written in sentences usable by any enterprise — reviewing authorities read hundreds of explanations and recognise copied text immediately; the reasons section must attach to the enterprise’s own project, technology and timing. Error two, the “Vietnamese workers cannot meet it” section written as baseless subjective assertion: it must identify the concrete gap (which skill, which certification, experience with which system) and show the actual recruitment effort that failed to fill it. Error three, headcount and positions not matching the later file: the explanation asks for three experts but the licensing file submits two, or the position in the explanation differs from the position in the permit request — every document within one Article 22 process must be absolutely consistent on position, headcount and timing. Error four, filing outside the time window: filing so close to the start date that the authority no longer has its processing time, or so early that the demand is not yet settled. All four are drafting and coordination errors, not errors about the real demand — an enterprise with a genuine need still gets its file returned if the document cannot articulate that need.
4. Internal template framework and the explanation’s life cycle
An enterprise regularly using foreign workers should build an internal template framework with exactly the six content groups in section 2, with enterprise information pre-filled and the context, reasons and recruitment-effort sections left blank for each round — the framework ensures no information group is missed, but each round’s content must be written fresh against the real demand, because copying the reasons section verbatim between rounds is error one above. The explanation’s life does not end at approval: it is the root document later steps must follow — permit renewal for exactly the explained position, a position change requiring a new explanation, and on inspection the explanation is the first document cross-checked against actual foreign-labour use. The enterprise should also archive each round’s explanation with its review outcome as an internal learning file: which round drew a supplementation request, for what reason, and how it was fixed — after a few rounds, explanation quality improves markedly and the return rate falls close to zero.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council