Proposed Uk Settlement Visa Changes

[dracos]

It all comes down to individual circumstances, which a general one-rule applies will never be able to cover completely. If they were to use the phrase "Guidelines" as they currently do rather than "Requirements" then this would be easier. My concern would be for others in a similar situation to me that have started their family in Thailand but for whatever reason wish to move back to the UK.

With the uncertainty of how long it will take for (and even if!) the visa will be approved it is difficult to find an employer that will take you on in 1 month or 6 months. Had I had to return to the UK to secure work first I would have had to have given up my job in Thailand and leave the family there to wait for me, again for an unknown period.

Then, what if the visa doesn't get approved? I have given up my good job in Thailand for nothing and have to jump through all of the hoops again to get back to Thailand (and that's even if my previous employer would take me back) to be with my family again. At least by keeping my job here I knew I could still offer the family some kind of security and keep us together if the worst happened and we had to stay in Thailand. (Just for the record I am a qualified professional - not a teacher - and there are only a handful of companies I could work for in Thailand).

Admittedly my post was written before the point was made in relation to cash savings so there is an alternative for people in similar situations, and in my case cash savings was our proof of being able to support ourselves so our application would still be ok, however I appreciate that there are others out there that will not be as fortunate that could be caught out by this

[theoldgit]

In my area, a single guy can live just fine on that, he would expect to pay about £100 a week housing cost for a one bedroom council flat, council tax, electricity etc combined.

Nittshill?

I would suggest though that it would be a lot tougher to surive on that net figure in London or the Home Counties. Swings and roundabouts.

I agree, but even so it can be done, when the first Mrs Oldgit and I split up I moved into an ok one bedroom flat in a very nice Hertfordshire village, and paid five hundred quid a month, I suspect that even now there are similar properties available. Whilst I suspect the new regulations will not affect me, if we were to settle back in the UK I would have to think long and hard.

[ThaiVisaExpress]

Most self employed people according to the tax returns don't earn nothing taxi drivers for example . A lot of people will struggle to show they earn £18600 per year.

[7by7]

I have no problem with the principle, but I do wonder where they got the figure from.

Currently there is no fixed figure, but the courts have ruled that it would be inappropriate for an immigrant family to have an income below the income support level for a British family of the same size, so it is likely that an application would be refused if their income was below this figure.

For a couple this is currently £111.45 per week; £5795.40 p.a.

In addition you also have to have, and pay for, adequate accommodation. http://www.rentindex.co.uk/ says that on 12/6/12 the average rent in England and Wales is £613.30; £7359.60 p.a.

Making a total of £13155.00 p.a.

As already said, there is much regional variation in the cost of living; especially housing costs, but I fail to see why the government feel that an extra £5.5 grand is needed!

[tribalfusion001]

I live in south east Essex and there are not many jobs paying £18,600. I've spent 13 months out of the last 24 months in Thailand, so I'm looking at entry level jobs which pay £14,000 to £15,000 and there are lots of people also going for the same jobs. We got a settlement visa last month and she starts work today, a job that I found her, a kitchen assistant, 30 hours per week at minimum wage. Two years a go I would have met the £18,600 criteria, but I was made redundant with 600 others!

[bobrussell]

A fixed, arbitrary figure for required income is bound to get bogged down in court action sooner or later. I suspect it will prove unworkable and there will be some form of 'U' turn at some stage. I don't have a particular objection to an affordability test as I am less than enthusiastic to see my hard earned tax supporting 'life style choices'. If an applicant can demonstrate they can support themselves the precise figure does not matter.

I do feel we have the right to marry who we chose (within reason!) and as UK citizens also have the right to live in the UK. The government could be far more constructive and make sure the benefits system encourages people into work whoever they are!

Spouse settlement seems to be a fairly easy target for Teresa May. It is illegal immigration and 'inappropriate' EU immigration that should be tackled but that is too politically difficult!

[7by7]

Illegal immigration is being tackled, and I don't know what you mean by 'inappropriate' EU immigration. EEA nationals have the same rights to enter the UK as British citizens have to enter other EEA states. Take away one and you lose the other; much to the chagrin of the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of British pensioners and others living in Spain, Italy, etc.

However, as I have already said, neither are topics for this thread which is about the proposed changes for family immigration from outside the EEA.

[VisasPlus]

It is pretty much nonsensical, or maybe I'm reading it wrong. I haven't had much time to sit and read it all. It seems to me, at first glance, that I wouldn't need a job if I can show 62,500 GBP in the bank in UK for 6 months. That would be enough to meet the "income requirement" to get my wife a visa. So, we go to UK, live with my parents, spend the money, and then what ? I claim benefits ?

I think that, under the current requirements, my wife wouldn't qualify, or it would quite tough to do so, if I had only savings and no prospect of any future income.

Somebody tell me I'm wrong.

Edited June 12, 2012 by VisasPlus

[bobrussell]

Illegal immigration is being tackled, and I don't know what you mean by 'inappropriate' EU immigration. EEA nationals have the same rights to enter the UK as British citizens have to enter other EEA states. Take away one and you lose the other; much to the chagrin of the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of British pensioners and others living in Spain, Italy, etc.

However, as I have already said, neither are topics for this thread which is about the proposed changes for family immigration from outside the EEA.

Inappropriate was in inverted commas but my definition would be EU citizens travelling to the UK for the sole purpose of claiming on UK benefits or travelling to the UK and getting involved in illegal activity. Not a legal definition but an opinion, hence the inverted commas.

[dracos]

Per the transitional arrangements (Appendix E), "if you applied or were granted visa before 9 July the old rules still apply to you until settlement (ILR), if you qualify for it."

Leaving the Life in the UK test and B1 level English to one side for now, what I am not sure about is the time it takes to qualify for settlement or exactly what it means by if you qualify for it - qualify for it under the new rules or the old rules?.

Does the above just mean that your current visa is still valid until it expires, at which point you need to apply for further leave to remain under the new rules or does it mean that you can still qualify for ILR under the old rules. I.E. if visa was granted before 9 July do you qualify for ILR after 2 years of living in the UK or after 5 years of being a partner?

I am asuming it has to still be the 2 years otherwise those that complete their 2 years on 10 July will be a bit disappointed!

Guess there will be a lot of applications rushed in over the next 4 weeks.

[7by7]

Illegal immigration is being tackled, and I don't know what you mean by 'inappropriate' EU immigration. EEA nationals have the same rights to enter the UK as British citizens have to enter other EEA states. Take away one and you lose the other; much to the chagrin of the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of British pensioners and others living in Spain, Italy, etc.

However, as I have already said, neither are topics for this thread which is about the proposed changes for family immigration from outside the EEA.

Inappropriate was in inverted commas but my definition would be EU citizens travelling to the UK for the sole purpose of claiming on UK benefits or travelling to the UK and getting involved in illegal activity. Not a legal definition but an opinion, hence the inverted commas.

Such immigration from the EEA would not be 'inappropriate'; it would be illegal!

Back on topic now, please. If you want to discuss EEA immigration into the UK please start a new topic.

[dracos]

It is pretty much nonsensical, or maybe I'm reading it wrong. I haven't had much time to sit and read it all. It seems to me, at first glance, that I wouldn't need a job if I can show 62,500 GBP in the bank in UK for 6 months. That would be enough to meet the "income requirement" to get my wife a visa. So, we go to UK, live with my parents, spend the money, and then what ? I claim benefits ?

I think that, under the current requirements, my wife wouldn't qualify, or it would quite tough to do so, if I had only savings and no prospect of any future income.

Somebody tell me I'm wrong.

I'm not going to tell you you're wrong, but there are other factors to consider. Without reworking the figures I will take your word for the 62.5k in the bank. Yes this would generate income for you in the form of interest and you would reach the requirement.

To put a bit more perspective on this figure, if you earn 18,600 gross, your take home salary after tax and NI contributions would be 15,180. Your savings of 62,500 would support you just as well for 4 years as earning the gross minimum income would. I would hope that over that period someone would be able to find employment.

In terms of spending all of the money and then claiming benefits, firstly if you were aboe to save that much money then I would presume the person understands the value of this money and would not just blow it all quickly (savings accumulated not windfalls like inheritence etc). Secondly you can't just go out spend it all and then go claim unemployment benefit. If they can see that you have not been prudent with your savings to deliberately get you below the savings threshold you do not qualify for benefits.

If the current UK employment scene is anything to go by maybe the safer applicant is the one with the money in the bank as opposed the pne with the job that could be made redundant at any time.

[VisasPlus]

It is pretty much nonsensical, or maybe I'm reading it wrong. I haven't had much time to sit and read it all. It seems to me, at first glance, that I wouldn't need a job if I can show 62,500 GBP in the bank in UK for 6 months. That would be enough to meet the "income requirement" to get my wife a visa. So, we go to UK, live with my parents, spend the money, and then what ? I claim benefits ?

I think that, under the current requirements, my wife wouldn't qualify, or it would quite tough to do so, if I had only savings and no prospect of any future income.

Somebody tell me I'm wrong.

I'm not going to tell you you're wrong, but there are other factors to consider. Without reworking the figures I will take your word for the 62.5k in the bank. Yes this would generate income for you in the form of interest and you would reach the requirement.

To put a bit more perspective on this figure, if you earn 18,600 gross, your take home salary after tax and NI contributions would be 15,180. Your savings of 62,500 would support you just as well for 4 years as earning the gross minimum income would. I would hope that over that period someone would be able to find employment.

In terms of spending all of the money and then claiming benefits, firstly if you were aboe to save that much money then I would presume the person understands the value of this money and would not just blow it all quickly (savings accumulated not windfalls like inheritence etc). Secondly you can't just go out spend it all and then go claim unemployment benefit. If they can see that you have not been prudent with your savings to deliberately get you below the savings threshold you do not qualify for benefits.

If the current UK employment scene is anything to go by maybe the safer applicant is the one with the money in the bank as opposed the pne with the job that could be made redundant at any time.

You are probably right. The point I'm making ( I think ) is that the Home Office have now given an "absolute" figure. Up to now, you have had to satisfy the ECO that you can maintain your dependant, etc, etc. With this absolute figure, as with any absolute in these new rules, if you have it, you must qualify on financial grounds. If you have the funds, then the ECO cannot refuse on financial grounds, unless he can show that the money is not under your absolute control. That will be difficult for him as you must already have had the money in your own account for 6 months in order to qualify. It can't go to appeal as it's either you qualify or you don't. It may even be that, if you qualify on the financial requirement ( having maybe an income whatever ), but you are in debt to the tune of thousands, you will still fulfill the requirement. I'll have a look for that later. In my quick look I didn't see anything about being overdrawn, in debt, bankrupt, etc. Of course, there are the other requirements to fulfill, but if you have the savings, then this isn't so bad. It will give you time to find a job ( if you are returning to the UK from working overseas, for instance). You can even go out and buy a car, or whatever, and then look for a job

EDIT: Very strange. I can't find anything about actually having any disposable income in order to support your partner/spouse/children. It looks like you just need to meet the income levels. So, even if you earn 18,600, and spend 50,000 a year, your dependant can still qualify ? This is very weird. It must mean that there is no longer any requirement at all to be able to maintain your dependants. I must be missing something ?

Edited June 12, 2012 by VisasPlus

[bobrussell]

Not sure this has been dealt with but it states in the Statement of Intent:

"We will abolish immediate settlement on arrival in the UK for the non-EEA spouse, civil partner, unmarried partner or same sex partner where a couple have been living together for at least four years overseas. It is not fair that some migrant partners, who may never have been to the UK before or made any tax or National Insurance contribution, should get immediate settlement and full access to the welfare system."

Quite a big change there so it would appear all spouse settlement cases will be dealt with in the same way!

If I am reading this right the ESOL with citizenship materials will go. I assume the courses will then be used to prepare the candidate for the test!

Edited June 12, 2012 by bobrussell

[VisasPlus]

It is pretty much nonsensical, or maybe I'm reading it wrong. I haven't had much time to sit and read it all. It seems to me, at first glance, that I wouldn't need a job if I can show 62,500 GBP in the bank in UK for 6 months. That would be enough to meet the "income requirement" to get my wife a visa. So, we go to UK, live with my parents, spend the money, and then what ? I claim benefits ?

I think that, under the current requirements, my wife wouldn't qualify, or it would quite tough to do so, if I had only savings and no prospect of any future income.

Somebody tell me I'm wrong.

I'm not going to tell you you're wrong, but there are other factors to consider. Without reworking the figures I will take your word for the 62.5k in the bank. Yes this would generate income for you in the form of interest and you would reach the requirement.

To put a bit more perspective on this figure, if you earn 18,600 gross, your take home salary after tax and NI contributions would be 15,180. Your savings of 62,500 would support you just as well for 4 years as earning the gross minimum income would. I would hope that over that period someone would be able to find employment.

In terms of spending all of the money and then claiming benefits, firstly if you were aboe to save that much money then I would presume the person understands the value of this money and would not just blow it all quickly (savings accumulated not windfalls like inheritence etc). Secondly you can't just go out spend it all and then go claim unemployment benefit. If they can see that you have not been prudent with your savings to deliberately get you below the savings threshold you do not qualify for benefits.

If the current UK employment scene is anything to go by maybe the safer applicant is the one with the money in the bank as opposed the pne with the job that could be made redundant at any time.

You are probably right. The point I'm making ( I think ) is that the Home Office have now given an "absolute" figure. Up to now, you have had to satisfy the ECO that you can maintain your dependant, etc, etc. With this absolute figure, as with any absolute in these new rules, if you have it, you must qualify on financial grounds. If you have the funds, then the ECO cannot refuse on financial grounds, unless he can show that the money is not under your absolute control. That will be difficult for him as you must already have had the money in your own account for 6 months in order to qualify. It can't go to appeal as it's either you qualify or you don't. It may even be that, if you qualify on the financial requirement ( having maybe an income whatever ), but you are in debt to the tune of thousands, you will still fulfill the requirement. I'll have a look for that later. In my quick look I didn't see anything about being overdrawn, in debt, bankrupt, etc. Of course, there are the other requirements to fulfill, but if you have the savings, then this isn't so bad. It will give you time to find a job ( if you are returning to the UK from working overseas, for instance). You can even go out and buy a car, or whatever, and then look for a job

EDIT: Very strange. I can't find anything about actually having any disposable income in order to support your partner/spouse/children. It looks like you just need to meet the income levels. So, even if you earn 18,600, and spend 50,000 a year, your dependant can still qualify ? This is very weird. It must mean that there is no longer any requirement at all to be able to maintain your dependants. I must be missing something ?

I guess that when the changes are put before Parliament, then the immigration rules will still include the fact that the there cannot be any recourse to public funds on the part of the applicant. It will be interesting to see how the new rules are worded.

Edited June 12, 2012 by VisasPlus

[dracos]

Not sure this has been dealt with but it states in the Statement of Intent:

"We will abolish immediate settlement on arrival in the UK for the non-EEA spouse, civil partner, unmarried partner or same sex partner where a couple have been living together for at least four years overseas. It is not fair that some migrant partners, who may never have been to the UK before or made any tax or National Insurance contribution, should get immediate settlement and full access to the welfare system."

Quite a big change there so it would appear all spouse settlement cases will be dealt with in the same way!

If I am reading this right the ESOL with citizenship materials will go. I assume the courses will then be used to prepare the candidate for the test!

From the way I am reading the new requirements haven't quite addressed this point completely.

Let's assume you have been married for 5 years not living in the UK and your spouse has never been to the UK.

Under the new rules you apply for Leave to Enter and for arguements sake let's assume its granted (for a period of 27 months still).

Next complete the knowledge tests and English tests. Certificate obtained. To qualify for ILR (skip leave to remain as it does not say you need to have this before ILR) you "must have previously been granted leave for a period of more than 6 months" and "Completed a period of 60 months as a partner". The first is not the same as having to live in the UK for 6 months. As soon as your Leave to Enter has been granted you meet this requirement. Married for over 5 years you have completed 60 months as partner (again does not specify it has to be in the UK). ILR granted. Time to obtain ILR since being in the UK - However long has it taken you to get your certificates.

Maybe they will iron this out in the fine print or I have completely missed the point somewhere.

[Kevin1908]

Can I throw a spanner in the works on this one. The Conservatives are campaigning strongly in favour of gay marriage on the basis that not to allow it is discrimatory to gays who want to marry for "love". Even though a marriage offers nothing additional to the civil partnerships that are allowed at the moment.

To bar anybody earning less than £18600 the right to marry a person for love from outside the EU is in itself discriminatory. See the sparks fly if this is allowed and they allow gay marriage, especially if 2 gay men want to get married and the UK partner earns less than £18600 and can't marry his non EU b/f.

I can quire rightly marry an unemployed British or EU woman with kids who has never contributed anything and who would have recourse to public funds but I would be denied the right to marry my Thai g/f. I think that the Conservatives have really lost the plot on this one.

[bobrussell]

The 5 year 'probationary' period is split in two with a 33 month initial part and a second 30 month part. I assume there will be a further charge for this period of further permission! An additional £1000 give or take to add to the coffers??

The more I read of the document the more relieved I am that my wife and daughter have ILR stamped in their passports!

[dracos]

Can I throw a spanner in the works on this one. The Conservatives are campaigning strongly in favour of gay marriage on the basis that not to allow it is discrimatory to gays who want to marry for "love". Even though a marriage offers nothing additional to the civil partnerships that are allowed at the moment.

To bar anybody earning less than £18600 the right to marry a person for love from outside the EU is in itself discriminatory. See the sparks fly if this is allowed and they allow gay marriage, especially if 2 gay men want to get married and the UK partner earns less than £18600 and can't marry his non EU b/f.

I can quire rightly marry an unemployed British or EU woman with kids who has never contributed anything and who would have recourse to public funds but I would be denied the right to marry my Thai g/f. I think that the Conservatives have really lost the plot on this one.

They're not denying you the right to get married or even the right to live together - just making it a bit harder for you to live together in the UK. You are free to marry and live together in Thailand (or anywhere else that will accept you as a couple) - but that is an even harder route to go down for getting a Thai visa which leads to equal rights to work, benefits and citizenship compared to what our Thai spouses can get from the UK.

These new rules are the same for gay relationships as they are for man and wife and is not discriminatory from this viewpoint.

[VisasPlus]

Can I throw a spanner in the works on this one. The Conservatives are campaigning strongly in favour of gay marriage on the basis that not to allow it is discrimatory to gays who want to marry for "love". Even though a marriage offers nothing additional to the civil partnerships that are allowed at the moment.

To bar anybody earning less than £18600 the right to marry a person for love from outside the EU is in itself discriminatory. See the sparks fly if this is allowed and they allow gay marriage, especially if 2 gay men want to get married and the UK partner earns less than £18600 and can't marry his non EU b/f.

I can quire rightly marry an unemployed British or EU woman with kids who has never contributed anything and who would have recourse to public funds but I would be denied the right to marry my Thai g/f. I think that the Conservatives have really lost the plot on this one.

They're not denying you the right to get married or even the right to live together - just making it a bit harder for you to live together in the UK. You are free to marry and live together in Thailand (or anywhere else that will accept you as a couple) - but that is an even harder route to go down for getting a Thai visa which leads to equal rights to work, benefits and citizenship compared to what our Thai spouses can get from the UK.

These new rules are the same for gay relationships as they are for man and wife and is not discriminatory from this viewpoint.

It still doesn't get over the fact that the new rules are discriminatory, in that they might prevent lower income workers, and maybe pensioners, from taking a spouse/partner to UK. That will be tested in the European courts, and I'm pretty sure the government will lose.

There is an ECHR judgment - CASE OF G.R. v. THE NETHERLANDS - from January this year, which might come into play. Briefly, an Afghan national wanted to get his residence permit ( to which he was entitled) but couldn't afford it. He took the Netherlands government to the ECHR on the grounds that he wanted to exercise his rights to family life under Article 8 of the Convention but couldn't as he couldn't afford the residence permit. He asserted Article 13 of the Convention, which states :

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

He maintained that the Netherlands government were obliged to provide an "effective remedy" to his problem.

The court said:

46. There is no doubt that the procedure for obtaining a residence permit was “effective in law” in that the applicant was fully entitled to make use of it and in that it was capable of yielding the result sought by the applicant, namely a right under domestic law for him to reside in the Netherlands with his family. The issue is whether it was “available in practice”, given the financial threshold which the applicant states he found insuperable.

The court said further:

51. Turning to the facts of the case, the Court first notes that it is not concerned with administrative charges in the abstract, nor with the level at which the administrative charge in issue was set. Its sole concern is whether it prevented the applicant from seeking recognition of his arguable claim under Article 8 of the Convention.

The court ruled : 3.

Holds

that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;

I have no idea if any of that applies to these new rules, but the judgment might assist if the new rules go to the European courts

Edited June 12, 2012 by VisasPlus

[kp86]

Hi All,

These changes are a very worrying read. My husband is coming to the end of his FLR and we are due to submit his application for ILR at the end of August. From what I can see on the UKBA website, they suggest these changes are defintely happening from 9th July? As I am entering my final year of a degree I only work part time, and my husband is also earning a low wage. I can imagine we would not meet the £18600 they require. However we manage perfectly well on the money we earn and I do not claim any public funds at all.

What will this mean for my husbands application?

[hotwinter]

Hi All,

These changes are a very worrying read. My husband is coming to the end of his FLR and we are due to submit his application for ILR at the end of August. From what I can see on the UKBA website, they suggest these changes are defintely happening from 9th July? As I am entering my final year of a degree I only work part time, and my husband is also earning a low wage. I can imagine we would not meet the £18600 they require. However we manage perfectly well on the money we earn and I do not claim any public funds at all.

What will this mean for my husbands application?

nothing. if you already have your settlement visa before 9th july the old rules apply

[hotwinter]

h.

In respect of paid employment, where the sponsor is in the UK, they must be in that employment (at the required salary level) at the point of application and either have been so continuously for at least the previous six months (at a salary throughout at the level required) or have earned the required amount through salaried employment in the 12 months prior to the application. The same applies to counting the applicant’s earnings from paid employment where or once they are in the UK with permission to work

so now im going to have to work for the next 6 months instead of the 3 i was going to do? this whole thing has screwed me over

[chiang mai]

On the subject of the numbers, here's an article that confirms the student visa route is the backdoor to UK immigration, given that such visa's represent around one half of all immigrants it should come as no surprise:

http://www.standard.co.uk/panewsfeeds/student-visas-back-door-to-uk-7845042.html

http://uk.news.yahoo...-222406383.html

Edited June 12, 2012 by chiang mai

[7by7]

It is not as easy for a student visa holder to remain in the UK once their course has finished as the right wing organisation Migrationwatch would have people believe.

Having said that, as a student visa is valid for more than 6 months it can be converted to settlement whilst in the UK if the holder becomes the spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner of a British citizen or UK resident; provided all the usual criteria for such are met.

[chiang mai]

I'm thinking back to a program on UK TV that did a drains up on some of the language schools in the UK, many of which were bogus and not unlike some of the same in Thailand, existed solely to provide a means for foriegn students to obtain visa's, Totenham Court Road used to be heaving with such places with touts outside handing out their business cards and flyers - fast forward to the present governments statement that it really doesn't know how many overstayers there are in the UK and it makes me wonder what that true pcture looks like in terms of numbers.

[transam]

It is not as easy for a student visa holder to remain in the UK once their course has finished as the right wing organisation Migrationwatch would have people believe.

Having said that, as a student visa is valid for more than 6 months it can be converted to settlement whilst in the UK if the holder becomes the spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner of a British citizen or UK resident; provided all the usual criteria for such are met.

Didn't l read somewhere that the UK is trying to close this loop hole as folk are using the Uni thing to ''really'' get residence.

[7by7]

These bogus language schools were one reason why the rules for student visas were tightened up considerably.

These days students must have been accepted onto a bona fide course at an approved and registered educational establishment to stand any chance of a student visa.

Overstayers are a problem; not helped by Major's government removing passport checks on those leaving the UK as a money saving measure!

But we are wandering off topic again. Back on, please.

[demus20]

so are these changes fully confirmed and all set to be applied from july 9th? as in, there's zero chance of them being voted against/thrown out at all? Has it all been okayed by parliament? I hope to god theres some fuss been kicked up about this

[bobrussell]

so are these changes fully confirmed and all set to be applied from july 9th? as in, there's zero chance of them being voted against/thrown out at all? Has it all been okayed by parliament? I hope to god theres some fuss been kicked up about this

I suspect there is little or no chance of the changes being voted against. Any 'strong' anti-migration policy changes tend to be popular with voters. Only a small number of people are adversely affected but of course it can have a devastating effect on individuals.