The Changing Face of Cayman: Immigration, Nationality, and the Permanent Residence Points System

Over the past decade, the demographic composition of the Cayman Islands’ expatriate workforce has undergone a notable transformation. These changes have important implications not only for labour market planning but also for the operation and perceived fairness of the Permanent Residence points system administered by Workforce Opportunities & Residency Cayman (WORC). HSM Partner Alastair David highlights points of interest in this article.

The Position in 2015

In September 2015, there were 22,148 expatriates employed in the Cayman Islands. The composition of that workforce reflected long-standing migration patterns within the region and from key labour-sending countries:

• Jamaican nationals: 9,149 (41%)
• Filipino nationals: 2,849 (13%)
• British nationals: 1,846 (8%)
• United States nationals: 1,332 (6%)
• Canadian nationals: 1,117 (5%)
• Indian nationals: 893 (4%)
• Honduran nationals: 840 (4%)

At that time, the Permanent Residence framework incorporated a nationality-based component—commonly referred to as Factor 8—which awarded points according to the relative size of a nationality within the expatriate workforce.

In practical terms, this meant:

• Nationals of the largest expatriate groups, including Jamaicans and Filipinos, were awarded 0 points on the basis of nationality.
• British, United States, and Canadian nationals were typically awarded 5 points.
• All other nationalities were awarded 10 points.

This structure was intended to encourage demographic diversity within the expatriate population. However, it also created significant disparities in outcomes, particularly for applicants from countries that historically supplied large numbers of workers to Cayman’s service, construction, and domestic sectors.

The Emergence of New Nationalities

In 2015, Nepalese nationals did not rank among the top fifteen nationalities holding work permits in the Cayman Islands. By 2016, there were 122 Nepalese expatriates, marking the first time that nationality appeared within the top fifteen.

Over the subsequent decade, the growth of the Nepalese workforce has been striking, reflecting both employer demand and evolving migration networks.

The Position in 2026

As of January 2026, the distribution of work permits has shifted:

• Jamaica: 37.20%
• Philippines: 18.71%
• India: 5.99%
• United Kingdom: 5.69%
• Nepal: 5.02%

There are approximately 1,806 Nepalese work permit holders in the Cayman Islands. When government employment is included, however, the figures change slightly. Only two Nepalese individuals are employed directly by government, and when government workers are combined with work permit holders in calculating overall percentages, the Nepalese share reportedly falls to approximately 4.81%, placing it just below the 5% threshold that has historically influenced nationality-based scoring.

One of the most significant demographic shifts in the Cayman Islands’ expatriate workforce over the past decade has been the growing presence of workers from Asia, particularly from the Philippines, India, and Nepal. While Filipino nationals have long formed a substantial part of the labour force for a long period of time, their numbers have increased steadily, rising both in absolute terms and as a percentage of total work permit holders.

At the same time, Indian nationals have consolidated their position among the largest expatriate groups, and the growth of the Nepalese workforce has been especially striking, expanding from a negligible presence a decade ago to one of the top nationalities by 2026. This trend reflects broader changes in global labour migration and recruitment patterns, as employers increasingly look beyond traditional regional sources of labour. The result is a workforce that is becoming more geographically diverse, which could therefore lead to a change in the social and cultural landscape of the Cayman Islands.

Uncertainty in the Application of Factor 8

This situation highlights a significant issue: it is not clear how WORC calculates nationality percentages for the purposes of Factor 8. Specifically, there has been limited public guidance on whether:

1. The calculation is based solely on work permit holders, or
2. The calculation includes all expatriate workers, including those employed directly by government or statutory authorities.

This distinction is not merely technical. It may determine whether a nationality crosses a threshold that changes the number of points awarded under the Permanent Residence system.

In the case of Nepalese applicants, the question is straightforward but consequential:

• If Nepalese nationals are treated as representing more than 5% of the expatriate workforce, they may fall into a lower scoring band and receive 5 points.
• If they are treated as representing less than 5%, they may receive 10 points.

For individual applicants, a difference of five points can materially affect the likelihood of obtaining Permanent Residence.

Broader Implications

The changing composition of Cayman’s workforce illustrates a broader reality: immigration policy mechanisms designed around historic migration patterns may struggle to keep pace with demographic change. Nationality-based criteria, in particular, require transparent and regularly updated methodologies if they are to maintain public confidence.

Greater clarity from policymakers on how workforce percentages are calculated—and how often they are reviewed—would assist applicants, employers, and practitioners alike. Transparency would also help ensure that the points system operates in a manner consistent with its stated objectives.

Conclusion

The rise of new nationalities within the Cayman Islands’ labour force, including the rapid growth of the Nepalese community, underscores the dynamic nature of migration to the jurisdiction. As the face of Cayman continues to evolve, immigration policy and its administration must adapt in ways that are clear, consistent, and equitable.

The unresolved question surrounding the calculation of Factor 8 is therefore more than a technical issue; it is emblematic of the need for ongoing review and modernization of the immigration framework to reflect the realities of a changing Cayman.