Proposed Uk Settlement Visa Changes

[hotwinter]

i was just thinking, with these new rules do you think the settlement processing time will go down? now all the ECO needs to see is that you have met, have contact, married, tb and english test. the finace side will just be confirmation of salary and they cant really deny you if you earn enough? so now its just hoops to jump threw rather than trying to convince the ECO?

[theoldgit]

@hotwinter

I don't think the actual processing time is too long, but I do suspect there could possibly be fewer applicants.

[pigeonjake]

i cant for the life of me see why you all want to go running back to the uk,!!!,

better to live in thailand, and the wife is happier

[bangkockney]

i cant for the life of me see why you all want to go running back to the uk,!!!,

better to live in thailand, and the wife is happier

Horses for courses.

[transam]

i cant for the life of me see why you all want to go running back to the uk,!!!,

better to live in thailand, and the wife is happier

Perhaps you can elaborate for us a little on your post and conclusion.

[all done]

i cant for the life of me see why you all want to go running back to the uk,!!!,

better to live in thailand, and the wife is happier

Perhaps you can elaborate for us a little on your post and conclusion.

Maybe once all the moneys been made and the bones need constant warmth... but for now the Wife and I agree... London is where its at...London or Phetchabun...mmmm difficult one.

[7by7]

i cant for the life of me see why you all want to go running back to the uk,!!!,

better to live in thailand, and the wife is happier

Perhaps you can elaborate for us a little on your post and conclusion.

But not in this topic.

Back on topic, please.

[7by7]

An off topic rant in response to a post made 4 weeks ago has been deleted.

[VisasPlus]

Having had a look at some of the newly required appendices to the new VAF4a, I think there are errors in the printed guidance. I have sent an email to UKBA in Bangkok, asking them for their further guidance. So far, all I have is the standard response stating that I can expect a reply within 20 working days. That won't actually help applicants who want to apply now.

I have been unable to find the published new VAF4a and appendices ( which were on the UKBA website yesterday ) so maybe they have been taken down to be corrected. One possible error that I found is that the guidance on who needs to complete either the Appendix vaf4a1 or the vaf4a2 seems to be identical, in that it says, on both forms :

The child of settled parents or with one parent who has limited leave as a partner or parent granted under the Rules in force before 9 July 2012

whereas the guidance printed on the application form vaf4a says ( in the case of the vaf4a2 ) that the vaf4a2 should be completed by :The child of a parent who has limited leave as a partner or parent granted under the Rules in force on 9 July 2012.

Logic should dictate which form is appropriate, but UKBA need to keep customers informed of any errors.

[VisasPlus]

Having had a look at some of the newly required appendices to the new VAF4a, I think there are errors in the printed guidance. I have sent an email to UKBA in Bangkok, asking them for their further guidance. So far, all I have is the standard response stating that I can expect a reply within 20 working days. That won't actually help applicants who want to apply now.

I have been unable to find the published new VAF4a and appendices ( which were on the UKBA website yesterday ) so maybe they have been taken down to be corrected. One possible error that I found is that the guidance on who needs to complete either the Appendix vaf4a1 or the vaf4a2 seems to be identical, in that it says, on both forms :

The child of settled parents or with one parent who has limited leave as a partner or parent granted under the Rules in force before 9 July 2012

whereas the guidance printed on the application form vaf4a says ( in the case of the vaf4a2 ) that the vaf4a2 should be completed by :The child of a parent who has limited leave as a partner or parent granted under the Rules in force on 9 July 2012.

Logic should dictate which form is appropriate, but UKBA need to keep customers informed of any errors.

EDIT:

I have today received a response from UKBA in Bangkok. They confirm that the guidance on the Appendix 2 is incorrect. This is their response:

I have noted your comments with regard to the discrepancy in the wordings in Vaf4a and those directions given in Vaf4a2. You are correct in identifying this discrepancy and I have alerted my colleagues in the UK with regard to this error. As you rightly point out, the directions given in Vaf4a are correct.

To sum up. The Appendix vaf4a2 ( the financial requirement ) is for use in applications for, for instance, children under the new rules who are joining a parent(s) who has Limited Leave to Remain granted under the new rules. If the sponsoring parent has Indefinite Leave to Remain, under the old rules, then Appendix vaf4a1 is required.

[7by7]

Now that the changes are in force, my personal view on the major changes which will effect members here.

Financial requirement.

This is the biggie, the one which causes the most controversy and the most difficulties for people.

£18600 is way to high; although it is below the average income in the UK there are many who will struggle to earn this until their immigrant partner is working; especially if both partners have been living abroad and are now returning to the UK

My personal feeling is that it should have been set at the income support level of about £110 per week.

I also feel that abolishing third party support is wrong. If a couple have family who are able and willing to support them until they can support themselves what is wrong with that?

The increase in the probationary period for ILR means that the immigrant partner would not be able to claim public funds for 5 years; and most couples would have sorted themselves out by then, surely.

Five years for ILR.

Broadly in agreement. I have seen relationships where the immigrant partner has done a runner the moment they have their ILR. A longer qualifying period will discourage this and will not really effect genuine couples.

Except for the need to extend one's leave to remain after 30 months. Nothing wrong in that, per se. But having to pay for it; that's wrong, in my opinion and another cynical way for the government to make money which few voters will care about. What Blair and Brown started, Cameron and Clegg follow.

Language requirement for ILR.

Not much change here, except that the ability to pass this when one has effectively no English at all by going from zero to entry level 1 on an ESOL course will be removed in October 2013.

I can see nothing wrong in requiring immigrants to a country to be able to speak that country's language. B1 and the level required for the LitUK test are not that far above basic (see here); and people have 5 years to learn!

Try getting permanent residence in, for example, Thailand without being fluent in Thai; spoken and written. You wont.

The level required for the LitUK test and B1 is not very high and anyone with 5 years in which to study should be able to manage it. Unless they have learning disabilities which prevent them from learning English; in which case they will be exempt from this requirement.

Genuineness of relationship

Not just to try and eliminate sham marriages; but also to protect those who may be forced into a marriage so their 'partner' can enter the UK.

Who here would argue against protecting the victims of forced marriage?

Abolishing ILE for partners

No firm views on this.

I can see that it would be unfair for someone to have ILE after 4 years living outside the UK with their British partner while it would take 5 years if living inside the UK; but that could have been dealt with by increasing the qualifying time for ILE. But, as said, no views on this either way.

So, those are my views; what do others think?

[durhamboy]

So I take it that Parliament agreed the proposals and they came into force on 9th. July.

I think I'm broadly in agreement with 7by7 but I think it is worth reiterating that :-

1) 18600 is gross income p.a. (i.e. before tax and N.I.) not net income. It also includes other earnings such as dividends and interest income.

2) There is a formula reducing the 18600 by any savings the sponsor may have and if he/she is lucky enough to have 62,500 in a bank a/c for +6 months then there is no requirement to show any other income.

[MESmith]

I'm new to this, but we're seriously considering heading back to the UK. Now that the time period is 5 yrs for ILR, do you need to pass the financial requirements just to apply for the settlement visa, or still after 5 years living in UK?

[VisasPlus]

Now that the changes are in force, my personal view on the major changes which will effect members here.

Financial requirement.

This is the biggie, the one which causes the most controversy and the most difficulties for people.

£18600 is way to high; although it is below the average income in the UK there are many who will struggle to earn this until their immigrant partner is working; especially if both partners have been living abroad and are now returning to the UK

My personal feeling is that it should have been set at the income support level of about £110 per week.

I also feel that abolishing third party support is wrong. If a couple have family who are able and willing to support them until they can support themselves what is wrong with that?

The increase in the probationary period for ILR means that the immigrant partner would not be able to claim public funds for 5 years; and most couples would have sorted themselves out by then, surely.

Five years for ILR.

Broadly in agreement. I have seen relationships where the immigrant partner has done a runner the moment they have their ILR. A longer qualifying period will discourage this and will not really effect genuine couples.

Except for the need to extend one's leave to remain after 30 months. Nothing wrong in that, per se. But having to pay for it; that's wrong, in my opinion and another cynical way for the government to make money which few voters will care about. What Blair and Brown started, Cameron and Clegg follow.

Language requirement for ILR.

Not much change here, except that the ability to pass this when one has effectively no English at all by going from zero to entry level 1 on an ESOL course will be removed in October 2013.

I can see nothing wrong in requiring immigrants to a country to be able to speak that country's language. B1 and the level required for the LitUK test are not that far above basic (see here); and people have 5 years to learn!

Try getting permanent residence in, for example, Thailand without being fluent in Thai; spoken and written. You wont.

The level required for the LitUK test and B1 is not very high and anyone with 5 years in which to study should be able to manage it. Unless they have learning disabilities which prevent them from learning English; in which case they will be exempt from this requirement.

Genuineness of relationship

Not just to try and eliminate sham marriages; but also to protect those who may be forced into a marriage so their 'partner' can enter the UK.

Who here would argue against protecting the victims of forced marriage?

Abolishing ILE for partners

No firm views on this.

I can see that it would be unfair for someone to have ILE after 4 years living outside the UK with their British partner while it would take 5 years if living inside the UK; but that could have been dealt with by increasing the qualifying time for ILE. But, as said, no views on this either way.

So, those are my views; what do others think?

Concerning the Financial Requirement, there is a section ( Section 80 ) in the government's Statement of Intent that bears remembering. The government will not, I think, leave the required income level at 18,600 for long. Section 80 says:

80.

The Government expects to review the level of the financial requirement (minimum income threshold) annually. In doing so it will take into account the roll-out from October 2013 of Universal Credit, which will replace income-related benefits and Working Tax Credit, as this change may also have an impact on the level at which the financial requirement is set

I think the level will be stealthily increased until the government achieves its objective of considerably lowering the number of migrants. Be prepared for an increase in the minimum income requirement next year, and every year after that !

[VisasPlus]

I'm new to this, but we're seriously considering heading back to the UK. Now that the time period is 5 yrs for ILR, do you need to pass the financial requirements just to apply for the settlement visa, or still after 5 years living in UK?

Yes, the applicant and sponsor need to meet the new financial requirement in order to apply for a settlement visa.

[MESmith]

I'm new to this, but we're seriously considering heading back to the UK. Now that the time period is 5 yrs for ILR, do you need to pass the financial requirements just to apply for the settlement visa, or still after 5 years living in UK?

Yes, the applicant and sponsor need to meet the new financial requirement in order to apply for a settlement visa.

But what about when applying for ILR after 5 years?

[VisasPlus]

I'm new to this, but we're seriously considering heading back to the UK. Now that the time period is 5 yrs for ILR, do you need to pass the financial requirements just to apply for the settlement visa, or still after 5 years living in UK?

Yes, the applicant and sponsor need to meet the new financial requirement in order to apply for a settlement visa.

But what about when applying for ILR after 5 years?

Yes, and still after 5 years. The financial requirement needs to be met at each stage - application for a visa, after 30 months in the UK, and after 60 months in the UK.

[MESmith]

I'm new to this, but we're seriously considering heading back to the UK. Now that the time period is 5 yrs for ILR, do you need to pass the financial requirements just to apply for the settlement visa, or still after 5 years living in UK?

Yes, the applicant and sponsor need to meet the new financial requirement in order to apply for a settlement visa.

But what about when applying for ILR after 5 years?

Yes, and still after 5 years. The financial requirement needs to be met at each stage - application for a visa, after 30 months in the UK, and after 60 months in the UK.

Thanks for the reply, not that I like it

What would happen if the financial requirements change while you're in UK waiting for the 5 yrs to pass. Do you think you'd have to pass increased requirements, or only those in place when you applied for the initial visa? Predicting your job status & finiancial status 5 yrs from now seems a bit tricky.

Edited July 17, 2012 by MESmith

[soihok]

MESmith.

Off topic but that wouldn't be Mark E Smith of the northern uk band "The Fall" would it?

Bought your 7" single, "Totally Wired".

[MESmith]

MESmith.

Off topic but that wouldn't be Mark E Smith of the northern uk band "The Fall" would it?

Bought your 7" single, "Totally Wired".

Just a fan

Hoping to "hit the north" of England again.

Edited July 17, 2012 by MESmith

[7by7]

What would happen if the financial requirements change while you're in UK waiting for the 5 yrs to pass. Do you think you'd have to pass increased requirements, or only those in place when you applied for the initial visa? Predicting your job status & finiancial status 5 yrs from now seems a bit tricky.

The financial requirement is almost certain to change each year, as Visa Plus posted earlier.

I imagine that at each application stage you will need to meet the then current requirement.

What would happen if for some reason you couldn't; who knows?

But I reckon some lawyers will be making big money taking the first case where this happens all the way to the European court!

[bobrussell]

The statement of intent indicates an annual review of the figures involved but does not make it clear if changes will only apply to new applicants or everyone.

I assume that for FLR applications after the first part of the probationary period the rules in place at the time will apply!

[Basil B]

Just read this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18888241

Although it refers to the introduction of the points based system back in 2008, would the latest changes also fall foul of this? may get very intereting...

This is a Supreme Court ruling concerning Mr Alvi who was refused "Leave to Remain"

But Mr Alvi said the decision was unlawful because Parliament had not actually scrutinised the specific Home Office-set rules relating to his occupation.

Under a 40-year-old law, Parliament's Scrutiny Committee must examine all changes to immigration rules.

[VisasPlus]

Just read this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18888241

Although it refers to the introduction of the points based system back in 2008, would the latest changes also fall foul of this? may get very intereting...

This is a Supreme Court ruling concerning Mr Alvi who was refused "Leave to Remain"

But Mr Alvi said the decision was unlawful because Parliament had not actually scrutinised the specific Home Office-set rules relating to his occupation.

Under a 40-year-old law, Parliament's Scrutiny Committee must examine all changes to immigration rules.

Yes, the latest changes may well fall foul of this. The reasoning being ( I think ) that the guidance concerning where the applicant/sponsor's minimum income level comes from has never been laid before Parliament, and is, therefore, not law. It is merely "guidance". Now where have we heard this argument before ( and UKBA lost that battle too ) ? As I read it, the immigration rules specify that the source of income must be " specified", but at the moment it is only guidance ( not specified in the immigration rules). So, the 18,600 a year, or the savings required, can come from anywhere ( including, I guess, from third party support ).

[VisasPlus]

Just read this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18888241

Although it refers to the introduction of the points based system back in 2008, would the latest changes also fall foul of this? may get very intereting...

This is a Supreme Court ruling concerning Mr Alvi who was refused "Leave to Remain"

But Mr Alvi said the decision was unlawful because Parliament had not actually scrutinised the specific Home Office-set rules relating to his occupation.

Under a 40-year-old law, Parliament's Scrutiny Committee must examine all changes to immigration rules.

Yes, the latest changes may well fall foul of this. The reasoning being ( I think ) that the guidance concerning where the applicant/sponsor's minimum income level comes from has never been laid before Parliament, and is, therefore, not law. It is merely "guidance". Now where have we heard this argument before ( and UKBA lost that battle too ) ? As I read it, the immigration rules specify that the source of income must be " specified", but at the moment it is only guidance ( not specified in the immigration rules). So, the 18,600 a year, or the savings required, can come from anywhere ( including, I guess, from third party support ).

Here is an interesting snippet from The Guardian: ( my bold type)

As a result, legal commentators anticipate an onslaught of legal challenges to the new rules, which rely extensively on accompanying guidance. Yet this is not the only challenge that Theresa May faces. On July 6 the High Court granted permission for a judicial review challenging the minimum income threshold required of certain applicants, and on July 4 the House of Lords issued a report questioning the validity of May's approach to garnering parliamentary support for changes to the way in which human rights law should apply in immigration decisions.

Here is the full article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jul/18/supreme-court-immigration-rules

[Eff1n2ret]

Yes, the latest changes may well fall foul of this. The reasoning being ( I think ) that the guidance concerning where the applicant/sponsor's minimum income level comes from has never been laid before Parliament, and is, therefore, not law. It is merely "guidance". Now where have we heard this argument before ( and UKBA lost that battle too ) ? As I read it, the immigration rules specify that the source of income must be " specified", but at the moment it is only guidance ( not specified in the immigration rules). So, the 18,600 a year, or the savings required, can come from anywhere ( including, I guess, from third party support ).

Here is an interesting snippet from The Guardian: ( my bold type)

As a result, legal commentators anticipate an onslaught of legal challenges to the new rules, which rely extensively on accompanying guidance. Yet this is not the only challenge that Theresa May faces. On July 6 the High Court granted permission for a judicial review challenging the minimum income threshold required of certain applicants, and on July 4 the House of Lords issued a report questioning the validity of May's approach to garnering parliamentary support for changes to the way in which human rights law should apply in immigration decisions.

Here is the full article:

http://www.guardian....migration-rules

It looks like they've now tried to overcome the "Alvi" judgement, with another Statement of Changes to the Rules laid before Parliament yesterday and effective immediately. It includes this little gem:-

"3.2 The Government regrets that for these changes it has not been possible to comply

with the convention that changes should be laid before Parliament no less than 21 days

before they will come into force, but invites the Committee to note that these changes

have no operational impact on applicants, sponsors or caseworkers. The changes only

incorporate existing requirements, currently set out in guidance or lists external to the

Immigration Rules, into the Rules themselves to protect against further legal challenge."

I wonder whether they'll get away with that....

The Family Members stuff is from page 276 onwards.

http://www.ukba.home...pdf?view=Binary

[VisasPlus]

Yes, the latest changes may well fall foul of this. The reasoning being ( I think ) that the guidance concerning where the applicant/sponsor's minimum income level comes from has never been laid before Parliament, and is, therefore, not law. It is merely "guidance". Now where have we heard this argument before ( and UKBA lost that battle too ) ? As I read it, the immigration rules specify that the source of income must be " specified", but at the moment it is only guidance ( not specified in the immigration rules). So, the 18,600 a year, or the savings required, can come from anywhere ( including, I guess, from third party support ).

Here is an interesting snippet from The Guardian: ( my bold type)

As a result, legal commentators anticipate an onslaught of legal challenges to the new rules, which rely extensively on accompanying guidance. Yet this is not the only challenge that Theresa May faces. On July 6 the High Court granted permission for a judicial review challenging the minimum income threshold required of certain applicants, and on July 4 the House of Lords issued a report questioning the validity of May's approach to garnering parliamentary support for changes to the way in which human rights law should apply in immigration decisions.

Here is the full article:

http://www.guardian....migration-rules

It looks like they've now tried to overcome the "Alvi" judgement, with another Statement of Changes to the Rules laid before Parliament yesterday and effective immediately. It includes this little gem:-

"3.2 The Government regrets that for these changes it has not been possible to comply

with the convention that changes should be laid before Parliament no less than 21 days

before they will come into force, but invites the Committee to note that these changes

have no operational impact on applicants, sponsors or caseworkers. The changes only

incorporate existing requirements, currently set out in guidance or lists external to the

Immigration Rules, into the Rules themselves to protect against further legal challenge."

I wonder whether they'll get away with that....

The Family Members stuff is from page 276 onwards.

http://www.ukba.home...pdf?view=Binary

The government was obviously ready to lose ALVI as they had all of this ready to put before Parliament within 24 hours. So why didn't they just concede, put it all before Parliament, and save thousands of Pounds in legal costs ?

[bobrussell]

There is clearly a bit of a showdown coming up between the government and the courts.

With the original Statement of Intent it was odd that many of the changes involved actions available related to criminality. Easing the route for deporting criminals at the end of their sentence really should not be linked with the ability of an ex-pat to return with family to the UK..

Miss May has had her nose put out of joint and been embarrassed by the courts more than a few times and it smacks of pettiness and control. The courts will be around long after the government have gone!

[bangkockney]

Yes, the latest changes may well fall foul of this. The reasoning being ( I think ) that the guidance concerning where the applicant/sponsor's minimum income level comes from has never been laid before Parliament, and is, therefore, not law. It is merely "guidance". Now where have we heard this argument before ( and UKBA lost that battle too ) ? As I read it, the immigration rules specify that the source of income must be " specified", but at the moment it is only guidance ( not specified in the immigration rules). So, the 18,600 a year, or the savings required, can come from anywhere ( including, I guess, from third party support ).

Here is an interesting snippet from The Guardian: ( my bold type)

As a result, legal commentators anticipate an onslaught of legal challenges to the new rules, which rely extensively on accompanying guidance. Yet this is not the only challenge that Theresa May faces. On July 6 the High Court granted permission for a judicial review challenging the minimum income threshold required of certain applicants, and on July 4 the House of Lords issued a report questioning the validity of May's approach to garnering parliamentary support for changes to the way in which human rights law should apply in immigration decisions.

Here is the full article:

http://www.guardian....migration-rules

It looks like they've now tried to overcome the "Alvi" judgement, with another Statement of Changes to the Rules laid before Parliament yesterday and effective immediately. It includes this little gem:-

"3.2 The Government regrets that for these changes it has not been possible to comply

with the convention that changes should be laid before Parliament no less than 21 days

before they will come into force, but invites the Committee to note that these changes

have no operational impact on applicants, sponsors or caseworkers. The changes only

incorporate existing requirements, currently set out in guidance or lists external to the

Immigration Rules, into the Rules themselves to protect against further legal challenge."

I wonder whether they'll get away with that....

The Family Members stuff is from page 276 onwards.

http://www.ukba.home...pdf?view=Binary

Successive governments have been flippant in this regard.

In reality the impact is very small. Slap on the wrist, laid before Parliament, passed in one session.

This happened with Tier 4 PBS. I think affected applicants still had to seek legal redress - there was no automatic review of refused applications during the period. If memory serves me well of course.

[kateharper]

Hi does anyone know the rules for applying for a UK settlement visa if you are pregnant?? I am trying to get a visa for my husband and we're trying. I obviously couldn't work in the UK and i don't earn the amount they are saying. Is there another way? Would it fall under compassionate cases?? Thanks for any help