Uk Government Launches Consultation On Family Migration

[vinny]

Government launches consultation on family migration

Family migration

Related News reports:

Immigrant relatives face five-year wait to claim benefits

Crackdown on family visas will mean a longer wait for settlement

[VisasPlus]

It may look like a boring topic but there is some important stuff in here, including taking away the right of appeal for Family Visit visa refusals, introducing minmum income levels for sponsors of spouses, length of relationship before someone can apply for a settlement visa, etc, etc. Hours of discussion will follow.

[Sarge7]

These Government discussion proposals will send shockwaves to those intending to

bring their loved ones to the Uk & to those who are already here on a 2 year temp visa.

Surely evidence that the Government fully intend to curb net migration from non EU

migrants substantially & to save a bundle of cash .

If the right of Appeal for Family Settlement visas is revoked this alone will save in excess

of 40 million pounds. Many of the refusals are overturned on appeal .

My wife is in the Uk on a 2 year settlement visa. She has passed "Life in The UK " test

And she is excited at the prospect of obtaining ILR in 4 months .The Governments proposal

is to increase permanent settlement visa eligibility from 2 to 5 years .Thus affecting my wifes

future plans for Naturalisation & obtaining a British Passport after the current 3 year qualifying

period .

Would the Government introduce a 5 year temporary Visa ". NO WAY ". Would they deprive

themselves the opportunity to increase yearly visa fees far in excess of levels of inflation .

The introduction of minimum income levels for Sponsers of a Spouse is descrimatory &

elitist . There is already a " No Recourse To Public Funds" proviso on temporary visas.

The discussion proposal close date is 06/10/011 . I imagine changes will be Fast

Tracked & not in line with ILR application Visa waiting times of up to 6 months.

[VisasPlus]

These Government discussion proposals will send shockwaves to those intending to

bring their loved ones to the Uk & to those who are already here on a 2 year temp visa.

Surely evidence that the Government fully intend to curb net migration from non EU

migrants substantially & to save a bundle of cash .

If the right of Appeal for Family Settlement visas is revoked this alone will save in excess

of 40 million pounds. Many of the refusals are overturned on appeal .

My wife is in the Uk on a 2 year settlement visa. She has passed "Life in The UK " test

And she is excited at the prospect of obtaining ILR in 4 months .The Governments proposal

is to increase permanent settlement visa eligibility from 2 to 5 years .Thus affecting my wifes

future plans for Naturalisation & obtaining a British Passport after the current 3 year qualifying

period .

Would the Government introduce a 5 year temporary Visa ". NO WAY ". Would they deprive

themselves the opportunity to increase yearly visa fees far in excess of levels of inflation .

The introduction of minimum income levels for Sponsers of a Spouse is descrimatory &

elitist . There is already a " No Recourse To Public Funds" proviso on temporary visas.

The discussion proposal close date is 06/10/011 . I imagine changes will be Fast

Tracked & not in line with ILR application Visa waiting times of up to 6 months.

It's good to see that you have read this, and taken it seriously. I'm surprised that ther have been so few comments. I guess that in a year or so, when the proposals are introduced, we will see lots of comments about how nobody knew it was going to happen, and how unfair it is. There is the opportunity to comment on the proposals but, as you say, the consultation process ends in October. I doubt if our individual comments will do much as I believe the government has already made up its mind, but if enough people have their say then maybe.................... There are some good points and some bad points in the proposals, but if people don't read them, then they will never know.

[bifftastic]

Wow, that survey got the old grey matter working!

Very interesting and with the potential to affect a lot of people.

Worth taking the time to read and participate in it. As you say, some good, some not so good (too much mention of 'the burden on the taxpayer' for my liking!)

I did point out in the comments section that, as a government department processing applications or sponsorships of applications for family members of UK nationals or residents, the UKBA are working for us, we are the taxpayers!

Appeals, they asked how they could cut down the number of appeals for refusal of family visit visas. I said that they should be looking at it as more of a consultation rather than just a one-off sink or swim application. If they need more documentation, then ask for it, contact the sponsor, get a feel for the case if they feel they can't approve it straight away. They should remember that the applicant is a family member of a UK citizen or resident, you know, those people they work for!

Doubt if it will have any affect, but they did ask!

Thanks for posting

[OlafStapleton]

I have friend just return UK after 5 year, they reject Thai wife VISA, he had no money stay Thailand so no choice for him.

Returned to UK with very young Thai/English daughter.

Instantly housed in council property as homeless single parent family, +900UKP benefits per month (in addition to house)

Can't work as has young child.

Thai wife speak very good English, can read and write

Could have had working family unit if wife allow in, but now has man and child on benefits.

Council upset with immigration, he upset with immigration.

Council say this becoming big problem for them, returning forced single parent entitled to EVERYTHING.

Edited July 15, 2011 by OlafStapleton

[Richard W]

Two proposals strike me as fundamentally wrong.

The attachment requirement is nasty. It will disqualify many British-Thai couples from settling in Britain. The basic principle is that the couple should be significantly more attached to Britain than any other country. In a great many cases, the attachment to Britain rather than to Thailand is purely financial. Requiring the foreign spouse to have visited Britain twice seems onerous - but I notice from their statistics that a surprisingly high proportion of Thai wives settling in Britain had visited before they settled, so perhaps things have changed over the past decade or so. I notice that the Danes, whose system is given as the example, actually waive the attachment requirements on the foreign spouse when the Danish spouse is reasonably mature and has a *long* association with Denmark, e.g. 28 years residence.

(The Danish points requirement seems a real killer - many Thais could only qualify via self-employment, in the unlikely case that there is no required income level for it.)

On a historical note it appears that Queen Alexandra would not have qualified - no prior visits to Britain! The previous two queens consort, Queen Caroline and Queen Adelaide, would only have got visas under the Danish 28-year waiver, though they wouldn't have got fiancée visas for their marriages under current rules. (Queen Adelaide would only have needed a visitor's visa for her marriage to the future William IV, as they started married life in Hanover. I don't know whether she would have qualified for settlement when they moved to Britain.)

One unpleasant change is the treatment of couples moving to Britain after residence overseas. The probationary period on spouses is intended to discourage foreigners marrying British residents to themselves acquire British residence. On that basis, extending the probationary period from two years to five years is reasonable, provided that recourse to benefits is allowed. However, totally disallowing years spent together overseas is inappropriate.

[VisasPlus]

Two proposals strike me as fundamentally wrong.

The attachment requirement is nasty. It will disqualify many British-Thai couples from settling in Britain. The basic principle is that the couple should be significantly more attached to Britain than any other country. In a great many cases, the attachment to Britain rather than to Thailand is purely financial. Requiring the foreign spouse to have visited Britain twice seems onerous - but I notice from their statistics that a surprisingly high proportion of Thai wives settling in Britain had visited before they settled, so perhaps things have changed over the past decade or so. I notice that the Danes, whose system is given as the example, actually waive the attachment requirements on the foreign spouse when the Danish spouse is reasonably mature and has a *long* association with Denmark, e.g. 28 years residence.

(The Danish points requirement seems a real killer - many Thais could only qualify via self-employment, in the unlikely case that there is no required income level for it.)

On a historical note it appears that Queen Alexandra would not have qualified - no prior visits to Britain! The previous two queens consort, Queen Caroline and Queen Adelaide, would only have got visas under the Danish 28-year waiver, though they wouldn't have got fiancée visas for their marriages under current rules. (Queen Adelaide would only have needed a visitor's visa for her marriage to the future William IV, as they started married life in Hanover. I don't know whether she would have qualified for settlement when they moved to Britain.)

One unpleasant change is the treatment of couples moving to Britain after residence overseas. The probationary period on spouses is intended to discourage foreigners marrying British residents to themselves acquire British residence. On that basis, extending the probationary period from two years to five years is reasonable, provided that recourse to benefits is allowed. However, totally disallowing years spent together overseas is inappropriate.

Good historical notes, Richard W. I hadn't thought about it from that perspective ! Yes, some good debating points in the consultation document.

[vinny]

Consultation on family migration: Tories to reintroduce ‘primary purpose’ rule.

[VisasPlus]

Consultation on family migration: Tories to reintroduce 'primary purpose' rule.

Thanks, vinny. That kind of sums up the "proposals", although I'm not sure that I agree with Freemovements's interpretation of a revised primary purpose rule. That could be a bit of scaremongering.

[7by7]

As is, in my opinion, much, though by no means all, of what Freemovement publish!

This is just consultation, at the moment. Whether the government take any notice of it if the results don't support their proposals we will have to wait and see.

Some of the points I agree with, some I don't.

I may get some flack for this, but 5 years for ILR is something I do agree with; mainly because I personally know of two people whose foreign spouses disappeared the moment they had ILR!

Abolishing appeals because too many are successful is, as Freemovement say, ludicrous.

My comments on questions 31 and 32 (how to reduce the number of appeals) were:

Q31 Improve the standard of ECOs. If new evidence is the only factor in 63% of allowed appeals, this means that 37% were allowed because the original refusal was incorrect; i.e. ECO error.

Also, before refusing due to lack of evidence, the ECO should contact the applicant and/or sponsor and request that the missing evidence be submitted.

Q32 As a substantial percentage of refusals are due to ECO error, those refused should be given the choice of an appeal or a new application.

[Arkady]

Abolishing appeals because too many are successful is, as Freemovement say, ludicrous.

My comments on questions 31 and 32 (how to reduce the number of appeals) were:

Q31 Improve the standard of ECOs. If new evidence is the only factor in 63% of allowed appeals, this means that 37% were allowed because the original refusal was incorrect; i.e. ECO error.

Also, before refusing due to lack of evidence, the ECO should contact the applicant and/or sponsor and request that the missing evidence be submitted.

Q32 As a substantial percentage of refusals are due to ECO error, those refused should be given the choice of an appeal or a new application.

My experience is mainly of applications for family visits and I think it is outrageous that the right of appeal should be denied. Yes, they should improve the atrocious quality of ECOs and that would save the taxpayer and the applicants a lot of time and money. A friend's perfectly respectable university graduate Thai wife was rejected by an female ECO who insinuated she was a prostitute in the interview. Fortunately she got the visa on appeal. I have had a similar experience with a European embassy that requested information from my wife they are not entitled to ask for under the Schengen Agreement, even though she has had countless UK, US, Schengen and Australian visas without ever overstaying. What is the point of all this degrading treatment of human beings who are married to their countrymen? I would like to see the right to sue ECOs for inappropriate and degrading treatment of applicants.

[VisasPlus]

Abolishing appeals because too many are successful is, as Freemovement say, ludicrous.

My comments on questions 31 and 32 (how to reduce the number of appeals) were:

Q31 Improve the standard of ECOs. If new evidence is the only factor in 63% of allowed appeals, this means that 37% were allowed because the original refusal was incorrect; i.e. ECO error.

Also, before refusing due to lack of evidence, the ECO should contact the applicant and/or sponsor and request that the missing evidence be submitted.

Q32 As a substantial percentage of refusals are due to ECO error, those refused should be given the choice of an appeal or a new application.

My experience is mainly of applications for family visits and I think it is outrageous that the right of appeal should be denied. Yes, they should improve the atrocious quality of ECOs and that would save the taxpayer and the applicants a lot of time and money. A friend's perfectly respectable university graduate Thai wife was rejected by an female ECO who insinuated she was a prostitute in the interview. Fortunately she got the visa on appeal. I have had a similar experience with a European embassy that requested information from my wife they are not entitled to ask for under the Schengen Agreement, even though she has had countless UK, US, Schengen and Australian visas without ever overstaying. What is the point of all this degrading treatment of human beings who are married to their countrymen? I would like to see the right to sue ECOs for inappropriate and degrading treatment of applicants.

I hope that you have made your feelings known by using the consultation process questionnaire ? I agree with you that it is wrong to remove the right of appeal in family visits. One of the government arguments is that family visit appeals are expensive, yet they seem to be ignoring the fact that they will be charging for appeals from October this year. Personally, I think they want to get rid of the right of appeal in these cases because they lose so many family visit appeals, and the new proposals mean that they will then be liable for the costs of the won appeal.

If people don't make their feelings known during the consultation process then the government will say that there were no adverse comments on their proposals.

You cannot sue crown servants, nor can you sue diplomats ( which ECOs are when on postings overseas ). There is, however, a complaint procedure, and details can be found on the UKBA website.

Edited July 17, 2011 by VisasPlus

[7by7]

There is, however, a complaint procedure, and details can be found on the UKBA website.

Making a complaint or comment

[dean999]

I hope they don't change this rule. I'm in Belgium till 2013 and will be bring the mrs back under this.

EUN2.14 Can family members of British citizens qualify for an EEA family permit? ('Surinder Singh' cases)

As a general rule, family members of British citizens do not qualify for an EEA family permit. Article 3 of the Directive essentially says that an EEA national cannot be considered as exercising freedom of movement in their own State -

This Directive shall apply to all Union citizens who move to or reside in a Member State other than that of which they are a national, and to their family members as defined in point 2 of Article 2 who accompany or join them

However, where an EEA national has exercised a treaty right in another Member State as a worker or self-employed and they wish to return to their own State having exercised that right, certain provisions may apply in order for their non-EEA family members to qualify under the EEA Regulations.

A British national and his / her non-EEA national family members can only benefit from free movement rights if they meet the criteria established in the ECJ case of Surinder Singh. The case stated that nationals of a Member State who are exercising an economic Treaty right (that is, as a worker or self-employed person) in another Member State will, on return to their home state, be entitled to bring their non-EEA family members to join them under EC law.

Example: A British national is exercising an economic Treaty right in Germany and living with his non-EEA national spouse and children. On the British national's return to the UK, his non-EEA national family members can apply for an EEA family permit to join him under EC law.

The Surinder Singh judgement is incorporated into the EEA Regulations in Regulation 9. Family members of British nationals who meet the requirements of Regulation 9 are treated as family members of EEA nationals for the purposes of the EEA Regulations.

Applications for EEA family permits must meet the following criteria:

• The British citizen is residing in an EEA Member State as a worker or self-employed person or was doing so before returning to the UK.
• If the family member of the British citizen is their spouse or civil partner, they are living together in the EEA country or they entered into the marriage or civil partnership and were living together in that EEA country before returning to the UK.

Because EEA nationals have an initial three months right of residence in the UK, there is no requirement for the British national to be a qualified person on arrival. Therefore, an EEA family permit can be issued to the non-EEA national family member of a British national even if they are only visiting the UK with the British national before returning to the Member State where they are resident.

It does not matter if the only reason the British national went to another Member State was to exercise an economic Treaty right was so that he/ she could come back to the UK with his/ her family members under EC law.

The ECO should seek advice from ECCCAT where unsure about the decision to be taken in applying the Surinder Singh judgement.

[7by7]

As the guidance you quote says, this is a result of a European Court judgment and has been incorporated into the EEA regulations, which apply to all member states, including the UK. The UK government cannot change these regulations unilaterally.

This consultation is about possible changes to the UK immigration rules, not the EEA regulations. As your wife will be applying under the EEA regulations she will not be affected by any changes to the UK immigration rules.

[bobrussell]

I have some sympathy with the five year rule as well. My wife has met several individuals on her ESOL course who have 'upped sticks and run' once the two year probationary period has resulted in ILR.

Five years seems a bit stiff but not inappropriate. I may have missed the bit about getting a UK passport once settled. I am not sure if there are plans for this to be changed. If not after three years an application can be made for citizenship. If a marriage is still going at three years by today's standards that is probably good going!

Perhaps three years temporary leave with a further less onerous probationary period of two years where some benefits can be claimed? I cannot see why more rigorous questioning of couples to try to identify bogus marriages would be considered a bad thing by anyone.

[RAZZELL]

Recently got married in the UK...my wifes 2 years FLR will be "up" at the end of May 2013, and 3 years will be "up" in June 2013.

If this consultation document did in fact become law, surely it would only apply to new applications and not those on existing settlement visas?

RAZZ

[Arkady]

I knew some one with a Ukrainian wife in London who was not generally an early riser but she always seemed to be up and waiting for the post to arrive. He was puzzled as she never seemed to receive letters from her family. One day he left the house before the postman came and when he got home in the evening she, their baby and many of their possessions were gone and he has never seen any of them again. You guessed it. Her ILR notification had arrived. He got his revenge by selling all his properties in the UK and remitting the proceeds abroad, so there was nothing for her to get in the divorce court. Then he exported himself in hot pursuit of another Eastern European floozie and was last heard of in Riga.

[7by7]

I may have missed the bit about getting a UK passport once settled. I am not sure if there are plans for this to be changed. If not after three years an application can be made for citizenship

Citizenship is not mentioned in the consultation; but in order to apply for citizenship one needs to have no restriction on one's stay in the UK; i.e. ILR or the equivalent. So if the probationary period for ILR is increased, then effectively so will the qualifying period for citizenship.

If this consultation document did in fact become law, surely it would only apply to new applications and not those on existing settlement visas?

A good question.

When the KOL requirement was introduced it applied to those already in the UK, even if their existing leave to enter/remain was about to expire. Many were forced to apply, and pay, for FLR as they simply could not book a LitUK test in time!

I've been trying to remember what happened when the probationary period was increased from 1 year to 2; but can't. Can anyone?