Uk Settlement Visa - Long Term Relationship

[Mercury]

I am a UK national and I came back to the UK a few months ago for work with the intention of sorting a property out and bringing my partner and child over from Thailand . Unfortunately the job has fallen through and the immediate outlook for work is not promising. Of course that could change tomorrow but I'm working from a worst case scenario at the moment.

I paid all the deposits on a property as well as advance rents and so forth and all was going swimmingly until the job ended. Some capital I was expecting to receive is not going to be forthcoming for some time (long term legal case settlement) so I've put claims in for whatever benefits they assess I will be entitled to. I waited a month but with no work on the horizon, it seemed the sensible thing to do, as a short term solution to what I hope is a short term problem. However, between paying my bills here in the UK and supporting my family in Thailand, funds are being depleted at an alarming rate and there is nothing coming in as yet, though I am told I am eligible for some benefits.

I am concerned that I cannot sponsor my partner for a settlement visa because I am going to be claiming benefits and don't have a job. The problem is that I cannot continue to pay for two properties and associated expenses in two countries on a long term basis. Fine in the short term, but if the job search goes on longer than anticipated, then eventually funds will run out. Though that is not the reason I want my family to join me in the UK, it is a factor which has forced me to consider whether she will be granted a settlement visa, if we apply. If I knew I'd get a job in a month or two then fine, we'll just wait but I want to see whether I can legitimately sponsor her to come to the UK before I get a job. She qualifies on the basis of a long term relationship and we have a child together.

I've spent hours here looking through threads going back years and unless I've missed it, I haven't seen a thread detailing a case where someone has successfully applied for a settlement visa when they were unemployed and in the UK.

I've go this link for documents http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/en/howtoapply/in...vespartners#Q15 and this one which is for spouse/civil partners http://www.vfs-uk-th.com/images/SpouseAndCivilPartner.pdf (could not find one for unmarried partners) and all the documents are fine, evidences are fine, everything is fine, except for the support and recourse to public funds.

I don't know how to structure an argument around the fact that it would be cheaper if we were together or whether that would be a good argument or not. The fact remains that it would be. In fact I do not know how to structure the argument at all in this situation.

In addition, we need to make an application for schools this year as well. If we don't get cracking on the application then we'll miss that cut off date. What I don't want to do is throw around £1000 on the fire (visa fees and other associated expenditure) if there is no chance and yet if I cannot bring them over (only she needs a visa, the child has a UK passport) our situation will become untenable. However, whichever way I look at it, I cannot convince myself that the arguments I can put forward are strong enough to risk the £1000 and yet just ploughing onward means the financial situation is getting worse each month.

I know a job solves all but I'm looking for a solution based on the immediate position, not what might be or should be. Hopefully it will not come to that but I need a "what if" solution.

So do you think I can structure a convincing application where I own up to being in receipt of state benefits ? Thanks.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Mercury

[the scouser]

Yes. You might have sufficient savings with which to support your spouse, or you might have a third party who is willing to provide realistic financial support:-

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/uksc_2...95_judgment.pdf

Scouse.

[Mercury]

Thank you for that. Unfortunately I do not have any third party assistance to call upon and after paying down rents and deposits and other bills, I am not able to show that much capital remaining. Indeed, were it not for the job which has now fallen through, I would not have returned until I was more certain about the timing of my receipt of capital from my long standing legal case. Funds will come from that settlement but the date of receipt and the amount are as yet unknown as as such, I cannot use that argument in my favour.

I will read very carefully through this judgement as other cases as I find them but I have copied this paragraph below, I hope not out of context and it would seem to highlight my predicament.

“For the purpose of these Rules, a person is not to be

regarded as having (or potentially having) recourse to

public funds merely because he is (or will be) reliant in

whole or in part on public funds provided to his

sponsor, unless, as a result of his presence in the

United Kingdom, the sponsor is (or would be) entitled

to increased or additional public funds.”

I read this as discounting any assistance I may receive, except for any additional assistance which may be provided should I notify the authorities of any change in my circumstances, which would increase the amount of assistance I would be given. If that interpretation is correct, it would seem an application would automatically fail because a claimant who has a partner will receive more assistance than one who is single. However, if the benefits agency disallows additional payments which would ordinarily be made to a claimant who has a partner join him in the claim, on the grounds that the joining partner is subject to immigration control, then the application would seem not to fail at this hurdle.

In the following paragraph the issue of accommodation is raised. I believe we pass this test because the accommodation is already in place and there would be no additional funds required. If assistance with the rent is forthcoming, then that assistance would be the same whether my partner is in he UK and thus is seems to pass the "additional public funds" test above.

Rule 281 (spouses):

“(iv) there will be adequate accommodation for the

parties and any dependants without recourse to public

funds in accommodation which they own or occupy

exclusively; and

(v) the parties will be able to maintain themselves and

any dependants adequately without recourse to public

funds.”

This last paragraph (v) relating to "the parties", is presumably referring to all three of us, myself, my partner and our child. Again, this seems to go back to the additional funds test as funds derived from my claim alone would be discounted when assessing whether the applicant was able to support herself without recourse to public funds. If this interpretation is correct, then it brings me back to the argument of whether 1) I inform the benefits people that my partner has joined me in the UK 2) whether additional benefits paid to a claimant who has a partner would constitute additional public funds, even though she would be unable to claim any funds herself and 3) whether additional funds are paid to a claimant whose joining partner is subject to immigration control.

Turning to the level of support, I have found what appears to be the authority on minimum income levels, namely http://www.ait.gov.uk/Public/Determination...ls.aspx?Id=1927 http://www.ait.gov.uk/Public/Upload/j1927/...rs_pakistan.doc

In this judgement, numerous references were made to the level of income support which a family would receive:

7. There is a good reason for using the levels of income support as a test. The reason is that income support is the level of income provided by the United Kingdom government to those who have no other source of income. It follows from that that the Respondent could not properly argue that a family who have as much as they would have on income support is not adequately maintained.

If I interpret this correctly, it appears that if my income is lower than that which we would receive were my partner a UK resident and we claimed income support, then the application would fail. Consequently, success or failure would return to the same arguments put forward previously, namely that if no additional funds were provided because the joining partner is subject to immigration control, but these funds would have been otherwise provided, then my income level will be lower than the income support level, which is taken as the level of adequacy. If additional funds are provided irrespective of whether the applicant is subject to immigration control then the judgement of whether these additional funds constitute additional recourse to public funds will be the test and if they are so held, then the application will fail on those grounds. In fact, to pass this test it is necessary for additional funds to be provided to the level of income support and also for those additional funds to be disregarded as additional recourse to public funds.

The issue of third party support could come in here I suppose but as I am the one providing that support and I am claiming benefits, then to count that figure as additional income would seem to be impossible as it would effectively be counted twice, once when given to me and once when given to my partner.

The single person's income support amount is £65.45 and a couple's income support amount is £102.75 http://www.dsdni.gov.uk/fs_isr.pdf The difference between these is £37.30. Multiplied by 6 months this is £969.80 and 12 months is £1939.60.

If my partner was to show that she had more than £1936.60 do you think this would allow her application as this amount is the difference between the single and couple's annual income support levels ?

Sorry for this long and details additional statement and reply but I would welcome any comments and thoughts on the issues of what constitutes additional public funds and whether we could sue the above to make a successful visa application. Thanks.

[Thongkorn]

If you have not already applied for your visa I would say no, At the moment they are being very picky, Your wife will have no recourse to public funds. She cannot get unemployment money or any moneys apart from job seekers allowance.maybe 7by7 who is quite an expert will intervene and give you more information about you plight.I wish you well

[7by7]

Your wife cannot claim any of the proscribed public funds; but you can; provided you do not claim any extra due to her joining you.

You have a child, who is presumably a dual British/Thai national, and you and that child need somewhere to live. So you can claim housing benefit; that your wife would also be living in the property is irrelevant.

You can claim Income Support for you and your child, but not any extra for your wife.

You can claim child benefit for your child.

And so on; assuming that you yourself are eligible for the claimed benefit.

See this leaflet for more details.

Whilst the sponsor being solely dependent upon public funds is not in itself a bar to applying, if you can show that you do have some savings then this will obviously help.

MAA2 Public funds

There is no objection to the British citizen/settled sponsor receiving any public funds to which he/she is entitled in his/her own right.

If the sponsor is in receipt of public funds, it does not mean that they will be unable to support the applicant, although clearly a person who is heavily dependent on the state because they don't have sufficient means of their own will find it difficult to support another person for any length of time.

The important factor to consider is whether there will be a need for the sponsor to claim additional public funds to support the applicant if leave to enter granted.

You basically need to show that you can support yourselves until one or both of you find work.

MAA10 Assessing adequate means of maintenance

The following list, which is not comprehensive, is intended as a guide to the factors which may need to be considered when assessing means of maintenance:

the applicant's past and current employment;

do the applicant's / sponsor's educational qualifications and any other skills or qualifications offer a reasonable chance of obtaining employment? If so, that should be viewed as sufficient to meet the maintenance requirement without having to make further enquiries.

the sponsor's current or proposed employment;

any plans the applicant has for employment in the UK;

What is the unemployment situation in the area in which the couple intend to settle? High unemployment in a particular area or amongst a certain age group with particular skills (or lack of them), is not in itself sufficient to show that the maintenance requirement has not been met. It would be a relevant factor if the couple's plans were not realistic or if they did not have any skills or qualifications.

any arrangements which have been made, or could be made, by the sponsor, any other relatives, friends or contacts in the UK in connection with the plans for employment;

satisfied that job offers are genuine and the work likely to last for the foreseeable future?

any support which will be forthcoming from others.

Each application is judged on it's own merits, and as you can see from the above if you can provide evidence to show that, on the balance of probabilities, your current unemployment is going to be short term then you do stand a very good chance, in my opinion. Remember that for spouse or unmarried partner applications your partner's employment prospects count, too.

On a separate point; how long have you and your partner been living together? If more than 4 years, you may find this topic of interest.

[sumrit]

The single person's income support amount is £65.45 and a couple's income support amount is £102.75 http://www.dsdni.gov.uk/fs_isr.pdf The difference between these is £37.30. Multiplied by 6 months this is £969.80 and 12 months is £1939.60.

If my partner was to show that she had more than £1936.60 do you think this would allow her application as this amount is the difference between the single and couple's annual income support levels ?

I don't want to put a damper on your figures but, as well as the £102.75 couples allowance, in the income support rates there is also a £17.40 family premium and £57.57 for your child to be included. So the total income support level for a couple with one child is £177.72, a difference of £112.27 per week.

You can claim Income Support for you and your child, but not any extra for your wife.

You can claim child benefit for your child.

I know that, assuming your child is a UK national, you would be entitled to those extra payments once they've arrived in the UK but, unfortunately, I don't think an ECO would allow finance figures that include possible future benefit payments when assessing an application. Child benefit can take three months or more to receive once they've arrived in the UK and you've applied for it.

I know of one poster on here (I think? it was enquirer) whose son's wife successfully applied for a settlement visa whilst he was receiving benefits, although I think it was a lot more complex than unemployment. Maybe a PM to them might help you.

Good Luck.

Edited May 22, 2010 by sumrit

[Mercury]

The single person's income support amount is £65.45 and a couple's income support amount is £102.75 http://www.dsdni.gov.uk/fs_isr.pdf The difference between these is £37.30. Multiplied by 6 months this is £969.80 and 12 months is £1939.60.

If my partner was to show that she had more than £1936.60 do you think this would allow her application as this amount is the difference between the single and couple's annual income support levels ?

I don't want to put a damper on your figures but, as well as the £102.75 couples allowance, in the income support rates there is also a £17.40 family premium and £57.57 for your child to be included. So the total income support level for a couple with one child is £177.72, a difference of £112.27 per week.

You can claim Income Support for you and your child, but not any extra for your wife.

You can claim child benefit for your child.

I know that, assuming your child is a UK national, you would be entitled to those extra payments once they've arrived in the UK but, unfortunately, I don't think an ECO would allow finance figures that include possible future benefit payments when assessing an application. Child benefit can take three months or more to receive once they've arrived in the UK and you've applied for it.

I know of one poster on here (I think? it was enquirer) whose son's wife successfully applied for a settlement visa whilst he was receiving benefits, although I think it was a lot more complex than unemployment. Maybe a PM to them might help you.

Good Luck.

Thanks for your post. I'll try to cover your points.

The Family Element as you rightly point out of £17.40 per week no longer exists for regular claimants. It was been incorporated into Tax Credits, which as I can claim those alone, are discounted. The only premiums are related to disabilities and even then, because it relates to the child, it must be disregarded, though in our case it does not apply. http://www.dsdni.gov.uk/index/ssa/benefit_...remium_children

The £57.57 a week you quote is presumably the Tax Credits amount and as that could be claimed solely by myself and is not dependent upon my partner, it is also discounted.

I believe that brings us back to the £37.30 a week which is the additional amount a couple would receive and which would, were it so assessed, potentially be a recourse to extra public funds.

If you think I have made a mistake, please do let me know. It is a minefield of facts, figures and rules.

[Mercury]

Your wife cannot claim any of the proscribed public funds; but you can; provided you do not claim any extra due to her joining you.

If I didn't claim for her then it should pass the public funds test as I understand it.

You have a child, who is presumably a dual British/Thai national, and you and that child need somewhere to live. So you can claim housing benefit; that your wife would also be living in the property is irrelevant.

Agreed, as I understand it.

You can claim Income Support for you and your child, but not any extra for your wife.

Agreed, as I understand it.

You can claim child benefit for your child.

Agreed, as I understand it.

And so on; assuming that you yourself are eligible for the claimed benefit.

Agreed, as I understand it.

See this leaflet for more details.

Whilst the sponsor being solely dependent upon public funds is not in itself a bar to applying, if you can show that you do have some savings then this will obviously help.

Yes, we can show money in both our Thai accounts and in my UK accounts. Even update her book and so forth before withdrawing the visa and expenses money

MAA2 Public funds

There is no objection to the British citizen/settled sponsor receiving any public funds to which he/she is entitled in his/her own right.

If the sponsor is in receipt of public funds, it does not mean that they will be unable to support the applicant, although clearly a person who is heavily dependent on the state because they don't have sufficient means of their own will find it difficult to support another person for any length of time.

The important factor to consider is whether there will be a need for the sponsor to claim additional public funds to support the applicant if leave to enter granted.

You basically need to show that you can support yourselves until one or both of you find work.

With capital shown and disallowed benefits in excess of the income support levels.

MAA10 Assessing adequate means of maintenance

The following list, which is not comprehensive, is intended as a guide to the factors which may need to be considered when assessing means of maintenance:

the applicant's past and current employment;

Not too much there since the child was born but some self employment.

do the applicant's / sponsor's educational qualifications and any other skills or qualifications offer a reasonable chance of obtaining employment? If so, that should be viewed as sufficient to meet the maintenance requirement without having to make further enquiries.

Mine are degree and professional qualifications, years of experience, good long term employment prospects. In 2008/9 she studied something at university but I don't know the exact level of that qualification.

the sponsor's current or proposed employment;

As per my field with 15 years experience.

any plans the applicant has for employment in the UK;

I can advise of my contacts and professional recruiters in my field whom I speak to daily.

What is the unemployment situation in the area in which the couple intend to settle? High unemployment in a particular area or amongst a certain age group with particular skills (or lack of them), is not in itself sufficient to show that the maintenance requirement has not been met. It would be a relevant factor if the couple's plans were not realistic or if they did not have any skills or qualifications.

I think I pass this requirement.

any arrangements which have been made, or could be made, by the sponsor, any other relatives, friends or contacts in the UK in connection with the plans for employment;

Again, current searches and contact with potential employers.

satisfied that job offers are genuine and the work likely to last for the foreseeable future?

Not applicable at present.

any support which will be forthcoming from others.

Each application is judged on it's own merits, and as you can see from the above if you can provide evidence to show that, on the balance of probabilities, your current unemployment is going to be short term then you do stand a very good chance, in my opinion. Remember that for spouse or unmarried partner applications your partner's employment prospects count, too.

I guess that I could talk up her prospects and potentially contact prospective employers who would value her linguistic skills.

On a separate point; how long have you and your partner been living together? If more than 4 years, you may find this topic of interest.

We have been together for over 5 years apart from time when I was away working. Our relationship has been continuous, living together as husband and wife. I am listed as the father of our child and the child has both UK and Thai passports.

Thank you very much for all your comments and especially for the new links and so forth. They are an invaluable new source of information.

I am trying to think through what objections they could have. I think we can cover the single versus couple income support levels. If I don't ask for extra benefits for her then I think we satisfy the non recourse to public funds.

In terms of structuring the letter, would you put forward all the numbers and let them make their own assumptions or would you note the disallowing of my benefits, making the point about covering the single versus couple income support level, using the relevant authorities etc. and basically saying here are the rules, here are the exceptions and here is where we are, stating at each point where you think you fulfil the requirements ?

My fear is that being too clinical could come across as pushy, as if you know you are right and asking them to find a hole in your argument but on the other hand, can I really expect them to really do all the maths themselves without making a mistake and truly understand that for at least a year we are self sufficient (discounting my benefits) ? I fear they would just see "unemployed" and move it to the not allowed pile, meaning an appeal.

I'm not sure I trust them to know things down to the lowest level and that detailing it all would be better ? Just not sure.

Also, would you make any mention about our child's schooling in the UK ? We were in the UK at the end of last year for a month (she on tourist visa) and we went through some of the school options then. Then there is the continuing upheaval in Thailand's political landscape. What else would you include as reasons why you want to settle in the UK ?

[ThaiVisaExpress]

Public Funds

Regards Paul

[Mercury]

Public Funds

Regards Paul

Thank you.

[NALAK]

i was unemployed when i took my GF back, we got tourist visa, 2 year join unmarried partner, then Indefinate Leave to Reamin every time i was unemployed

i had to show i had a property and funds sufficent to support her, i my case at the time it was 60K sterling. you will never really know until you apply.

have you mailed the Border Agency or Embassey in BKK and asked them. thats how i did it plus my MP contacted the Home Office for clarifycation. that helped that he got involved.

[Mercury]

i was unemployed when i took my GF back, we got tourist visa, 2 year join unmarried partner, then Indefinate Leave to Reamin every time i was unemployed

i had to show i had a property and funds sufficent to support her, i my case at the time it was 60K sterling. you will never really know until you apply.

have you mailed the Border Agency or Embassey in BKK and asked them. thats how i did it plus my MP contacted the Home Office for clarifycation. that helped that he got involved.

From what others have kindly put in this thread and from my research, it appears the bottom end of the adequacy test for income is the level of income support which would be payable in your circumstances. Given that they cannot look for cover for much farther into the future than one year as an absolute maximum I guess, when you are unemployed and your situation is expected to change (would be different if retired or with no future prospect of income), a capital sum equal to the annual income support amount payable for your situation would seem the minimum requirement. Thus, if you would have received £200 per week on income support, a £10k capital sum would suffice.

I have no cause to believe that one year is a statutory maximum but the term of one year is widely used as the time period, beyond which one is assumed to be unable to plan to commit suicide and claim life assurance on your own policy. As that is a far greater issue than the time it may take to get a job, it would appear reasonable for any time period to limit itself to that one year or indeed to substantially less than one year.

As you were able to show £60k then using this logic, the assessment would be a weekly income of £1200, which is far higher than any income support level and thus, you were able to pass the minimum level of support required.

[sumrit]

Thanks for your post. I'll try to cover your points.

The Family Element as you rightly point out of £17.40 per week no longer exists for regular claimants. It was been incorporated into Tax Credits, which as I can claim those alone, are discounted. The only premiums are related to disabilities and even then, because it relates to the child, it must be disregarded, though in our case it does not apply. http://www.dsdni.gov.uk/index/ssa/benefit_...remium_children

The £57.57 a week you quote is presumably the Tax Credits amount and as that could be claimed solely by myself and is not dependent upon my partner, it is also discounted.

I believe that brings us back to the £37.30 a week which is the additional amount a couple would receive and which would, were it so assessed, potentially be a recourse to extra public funds.

If you think I have made a mistake, please do let me know. It is a minefield of facts, figures and rules.

Mercury, I think you're missing my point.

You're a couple and have one child to support so you have to show you have the income/funds to support both your wife AND your child.

The total amount needed for a couple with one child IS £177.72 per week (AFTER any housing costs have been accounted for). It doesn't matter how it's made up, for regular claimants, irregular claimants, via child tax credits, child benefit or any other method the previous government thought up to confuse the figures, at the end of the day it's still at least £177.72 per week that you have to show as income/savings on the visa application form.

The ECO won't take into account any child benefit/tax credits that you MAY OR MAY NOT be entitled to AFTER your child arrives in the UK, he doesn't work for the benefits agency so he can't tell what you're entitled to.

So you'll have to show him you already have the £177.72 per week income/savings necessary for that support when your wife applies for her visa. If you get £65.45 income support then you must show you have income/savings to cover the other £112.72.

Edited May 22, 2010 by sumrit

[Mercury]

Mercury, I think you're missing my point.

You're a couple and have one child to support so you have to show you have the income/funds to support both your wife AND your child.

The total amount needed for a couple with one child IS £177.72 per week. It doesn't matter how it's made up, for regular claimants, irregular claimants, via child tax credits, child benefit or any other method the previous government thought up to confuse the figures, at the end of the day it's still at least £177.72 per week that you have to show as income/savings on the visa application form.

The ECO won't take into account any child benefit/tax credits that you MAY OR MAY NOT be entitled to AFTER your child arrives in the UK, he doesn't work for the benefits agency so he can't tell what you're entitled to.

So you'll have to show him you already have the £177.72 per week income/savings necessary for that support when your wife applies for her visa. If you get £65.45 income support then you must show you have income/savings to cover the other £112.72.

I do see your point. I was probably going to go out first for a week or so and I guess I could bring our child back with me to remove that extra requirement. It would also mean the mother wanting to be repatriated with her child and partner, if that is a consideration ?

[sumrit]

Mercury, I think you're missing my point.

You're a couple and have one child to support so you have to show you have the income/funds to support both your wife AND your child.

The total amount needed for a couple with one child IS £177.72 per week. It doesn't matter how it's made up, for regular claimants, irregular claimants, via child tax credits, child benefit or any other method the previous government thought up to confuse the figures, at the end of the day it's still at least £177.72 per week that you have to show as income/savings on the visa application form.

The ECO won't take into account any child benefit/tax credits that you MAY OR MAY NOT be entitled to AFTER your child arrives in the UK, he doesn't work for the benefits agency so he can't tell what you're entitled to.

So you'll have to show him you already have the £177.72 per week income/savings necessary for that support when your wife applies for her visa. If you get £65.45 income support then you must show you have income/savings to cover the other £112.72.

I do see your point. I was probably going to go out first for a week or so and I guess I could bring our child back with me to remove that extra requirement. It would also mean the mother wanting to be repatriated with her child and partner, if that is a consideration ?

But you WON'T be removing that extra requirement. It doesn't matter where your child lives, you will STILL be a couple with one child to support so exactly the same £177.72 will still apply.

To get child benefit/tax credits for the first time for a child coming into the UK will take anything from three to six months (It took me nearly five months and a friend of mine six months to get child benefit and the quickest I've been aware of in the last two years or so is twelve weeks) so if you're planning to get these benefits first you should be aware of what the wait might be before your wife can apply for her visa.

[Mercury]

But you WON'T be removing that extra requirement. It doesn't matter where your child lives, you will STILL be a couple with one child to support so exactly the same £177.72 will still apply.

To get child benefit/tax credits for the first time for a child coming into the UK will take anything from three to six months (It took me nearly five months and a friend of mine six months to get child benefit and the quickest I've been aware of in the last two years or so is twelve weeks) so if you're planning to get these benefits first you should be aware of what the wait might be before your wife can apply for her visa.

I am not introducing a strict timeframe for this application merely trying to assess whether by careful presentation of the facts, my partner might be able to obtain a settlement visa during a period when I am in receipt of public funds. I have taken on board what you have said, please believe me, but be assured that either the relevant paperwork showing benefit awards or finances to cover the shortfall will be in place. As far as finances are concerned, I am confident that we can meet the requirement of having funds or benefits equivalent to the income support levels required to meet the adequacy requirements.

[Mercury]

Using simple numbers, say your personal public funds amount is £150 and as a family it is £200, then you would appear to need to show £50 per week for ? whatever period ? One year, the length of the visa ?

Surely the maximum would be 27*((200-150)*52/12)=£5850 but one year would be 12*((200-150)*52/12)=£2600.

Any thoughts on this logic ?

What about the time, I cannot see how they can look to 27 months and even 12 months seems very far into the distance.

[7by7]

MAA4 Maintenance: General requirements

There is no explicit minimum figure for what represents sufficient maintenance. If dependants of the main applicant are going to accompany him / her to the United Kingdom, resources must be available for the whole family unit to be maintained.

The ECO should bear in mind the position taken by the UK Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (UKAIT):

In 2006, the UKAIT in UKAIT 00065 KA and Others (Pakistan), strongly suggested that it would not be appropriate to have immigrant families existing on resources that were less than the Income Support level for a British family of that size.

More information is available on the British & Irish Legal Information Institute website (BAILII)

If it is more likely than not that the total amount that the applicant and sponsor will have to live on will be below what the income support level would be for a British family of that size, then it may be appropriate to refuse the application on maintenance and accommodation grounds.

(My emphasis)

May be appropriate; not will be!

The immigration rules do not give a minimum figure, Para 281(v) simply says

the parties will be able to maintain themselves and any dependants adequately without recourse to public funds

Were I you I would stop doing endless calculations and instead start looking for suitable employers in the area where you intend to live, sending out CVs etc. to show the ECO that even though both you and your partner will be unemployed upon arrival in the UK, that situation, for one of you at least, isn't likely to last for very long.

A search of this forum's archives will show that NALAK is not the only person to have got a settlement visa for their partner whilst unemployed.

[Mercury]

I simply asked for an opinion on presenting the facts against the rules. It is already established that there is a figure. That figure is never referred to as a number because it changes all the time but it is the income support which would be payable were there no immigration control. If someone says less than a certain figure is unacceptable, then it holds that more than that figure is enough. We don't need to debate that.

We also do not need to go into employment or other potential future possibilities as those are outside of the scope of this thread. This thread was about benefits and settlement visas. Needless to say, that evidence is available in triplicate.

Now either there is evidence or knowledge of someone using a lump sum instead of benefits or there is not. If there is, then I can refer to direct experience but if there is not, then I ask for opinion, based not on emotion but on fact.

I provide the calculations simply to explain the argument I put forward. They take no time to compute but give a visual reference for those who might have something constructive to add. To me it seems logical but I know that others may not view it in the same way.

I would agree that a couple going to the UK would have no benefits information already and they would be more inclined to want to show a potential future but that is not my position. When I apply, I will have the evidence of benefits income. It is merely the shortfall which I am interested in.

[7by7]

You seem to have missed my point. There is no minimum figure; the income support level is only a guide, not a set minimum.

Search the archives and you will find people in your position who have been successful.

You do not need to go into "employment or other potential future possibilities" on this thread, and no one has asked you to. But you will need to go into those details in the application; and in my opinion, although you are already in the UK and made claims for some benefits, your potential employment prospects will carry more weight there than the calculations you seem intent on making.

My advice is: yes, show what capital and income (from any and all sources) you have; but it's more important to show what your employment prospects are, to show that you are already actively seeking such work.

Up to you whether you want to follow that advice or not.

[Mercury]

You seem to have missed my point. There is no minimum figure; the income support level is only a guide, not a set minimum.

Search the archives and you will find people in your position who have been successful.

You do not need to go into "employment or other potential future possibilities" on this thread, and no one has asked you to. But you will need to go into those details in the application; and in my opinion, although you are already in the UK and made claims for some benefits, your potential employment prospects will carry more weight there than the calculations you seem intent on making.

My advice is: yes, show what capital and income (from any and all sources) you have; but it's more important to show what your employment prospects are, to show that you are already actively seeking such work.

Up to you whether you want to follow that advice or not.

I do see your point on potential employment and hopefully that could even change as I do the preparatory work. I can gather evidence from specialist agencies in my area of work who deal with nigh on 100% of vacancies in my field. I have already interviewed a few times so the prospects are reasonable to good I'd say, within the next few months.

You don't like numbers it seems. On the other hand, I do. I don't hold that there is no minimum figure or that it is merely a guide at all. The authority in that case was very specific, there was nothing vague in the judgement. I do not say that all cases will fail if they do not show that level, that is not what I mean, but the underlying point made in the case law authority is that the minimum is the level of income support. We can argue on our individual interpretation of that judgement but that solves nothing. What is certain, is that having given that statement in their judgement, we can attribute a number to it.

You may argue that there is no stated figure at which you are accepted but I disagree. I state that it is not possible to have a figure below which it is unacceptable, if that figure is not the level of acceptability itself. To argue otherwise would appear nonsensical to me. Therefore we do have a figure to be used in the majority of cases.

I accept that the overall application is said to be assessed on the balance of probabilities but were that simply the case, then we would not have been the appeal court establishing the authority on income. Overcome that mathematical conundrum and one more box is ticked. Now of course one would put forward a scene where any state assistance should be anticipated for only a limited time but what we really need to cover is only the extra public funds and then, only until ILR. In a week of research and hundreds if not thousands of pages of text, it all comes back to these numbers. I don't think they can be so easily dismissed.

I will have a look here at your archives but there does not seem to be much in the way of a scientific approach in the past, merely hit and hope. I find that rather odd and disconcerting, given that there is a virtual equation which you can use to derive a minimal income level.