AngryParent Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 From a quick read of this: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/news/soi-fam-mig.pdf It appears that those who have been RESIDENT/LIVING abroad with their Thai spouse will almost NOT be able to go back to the UK. 1. The minimum income of 18,600 (or 22,000+ if you have children) is needed. Not easy for many. 2. If resident abroad one must show that the family has been earning this IN Thailand for 12 months- I guess most of us will fail on this. 3. If not point 3, one needs to head back to the UK and work for 6 months BEFORE the spouse can apply i.e. minimum 6 months seperation. 4. One will also have to pay for rent of a 2 bedroom house/flat before applying when those rooms will be empty for many months. This is the example in the PDF link: Alan has been working in Thailand for 1 year but has only been with his current employer for 3 months, earning a salary of £17,500 a year; Alan’s total earnings from all employment over the last year are £16,000. Alan also has savings of £17,000 and has income from investments of £600 a year. He has a job offer in the UK paying £16,500 a year. As Alan has not been with his current employer for 6 months or more he cannot use his salary of £17,500 to meet the threshold. Instead he must use his total employment earnings over the last 12 months, which are £16,000, plus income from investments of £600, giving a total income of £16,600. Alan cannot use his savings retrospectively to offset his shortfall in income over the last year and so he will not meet the financial requirement. Even if Alan had earned more over the last year and met the requirement overseas, he would also have to meet it on his return to the UK. His savings could, in that case, be used to offset the shortfall. However, his total income will be £16,500 + £600 = £17,100, which would require savings of £19,750 to meet the financial requirement. As he his savings are £17,000, Alan would still fail the requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VisasPlus Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) There is already a thread going on this subject. I am not sure that your information is correct: Point No 2 is incorrect. It is not necessarily 12 months. It could be 6 months employment, if that employment was with the same employer for the whole 6 months. Where do you get your No 4 ( will have to pay for rent of a 2 bed house/flat ) information from ? You may be right, but I can't find that. You will still have to meet the same accommodation requirements that you would have to meet now. In addition, accommodation can be provided by a third party. Edited June 19, 2012 by VisasPlus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyserSoze01 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 How can a country deny entry to a passport-carrying citizen of the UK? Sounds absolutely insane to me, especially when they allow asylum to any and all, then place them on the dole and provide housing. Sad state of affairs indeed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngryParent Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) There is already a thread going on this subject. I am not sure that your information is correct: Point No 2 is incorrect. It is not necessarily 12 months. It could be 6 months employment, if that employment was with the same employer for the whole 6 months. Where do you get your No 4 ( will have to pay for rent of a 2 bed house/flat ) information from ? You may be right, but I can't find that. You are correct and so is my point 2 (yours is the exclusion or vice versa) - however, in any case, as I said, MOST of us probably do not earn that in any job in Thailand and or year here either. My point 4 was edited in the second post (it was posted twice) but the first post was kept. I had added the exclusion (if one has children). You are indeed correct that there is a similar thread - but it does not focus on those who are resident in Thailand with the spouse. Edited June 19, 2012 by AngryParent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoonman Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 How can a country deny entry to a passport-carrying citizen of the UK? Sounds absolutely insane to me, especially when they allow asylum to any and all, then place them on the dole and provide housing. Sad state of affairs indeed. They are not denying entry for passport carrying citizens of the UK, the requirement is a minimum income threshold of £18,600 to sponsor the settlement in the UK of a non-EEA (non-European Economic Area) partner. nothing to do with a UK passport holder but moreso his/her spouse who is not, IE: A spouse from Thailand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyserSoze01 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 How can a country deny entry to a passport-carrying citizen of the UK? Sounds absolutely insane to me, especially when they allow asylum to any and all, then place them on the dole and provide housing. Sad state of affairs indeed. They are not denying entry for passport carrying citizens of the UK, the requirement is a minimum income threshold of £18,600 to sponsor the settlement in the UK of a non-EEA (non-European Economic Area) partner. nothing to do with a UK passport holder but moreso his/her spouse who is not, IE: A spouse from Thailand. My bad as I misread the OPs post. The US has the same requirements if a citizen wants to sponsor a foreign spouse or family member. Proof of suitable minimum income requirements, along with an affidavit of support. All of which comes under the scrutiny of an embassy official who has the power of god in deciding whether your spouse gets a visa of not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobrussell Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) The aim and reason for the figure is because it is what an independent group worked out was the level of income where there was no entitlement to benefits. The government is therefore making it a requirement that for a visa to be issued a family must be supported without being topped up with benefits. Clearly it is tough for those facing these changes. Edited June 19, 2012 by bobrussell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngryParent Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) The aim and reason for the figure is because it is what an independent group worked out was the level of income where there was no entitlement to benefits. The government is therefore making it a requirement that for a visa to be issued a family must be supported without being topped up with benefits. Clearly it is tough for those facing these changes. As has been stated before - such a family is not even allowed to claim benefits (without wanting to split hairs, the exceptions are not many). In fact, as far as I am aware, they are stamped with such a statement. So, the benefits argument is complete BS and is just used to please the right wing section of the population. And to be honest it is also completly disproportional to the real number of spouse settlement visas: as from the document linked, ONLY 2055 visas for this family spouse visa in 2010 9page 27) where they have been living abroad together i.e. me with 4+ years. 2055 is porbably not even the number of passengers arriving at Heathrow in 1 hour! And this 2055 is the need to exclude my family from the UK???? BS. This policy is complete neonazi right wing in its entirety! Edited June 19, 2012 by AngryParent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobrussell Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) Nobody is arguing that this is anything other than a political move but I suspect the benefits element is actually quite important. Unless someone can meet the requirements then many families will remain abroad and this will reduce benefits claims. I do not support the changes! I think they are inflexible and flawed. I don't want anyone returning from abroad, having paid no taxes for years but expecting the benefits system to feed and house them but that is a completely different discussion. I cannot see anything wrong with expecting a returning UK citizen to show he or she can support a non-EU family adequately. The new rules are inflexible and draconian IMO and will make a lot of peoples lives very difficult. I can see little wrong with a returning family being assisted by members of their family for a transition period. To select a single income figure is IMO wrong. If someone can show they can cope financially then that should suffice. Are we talking large numbers? Probably not. I suspect there will be a legal challenge! Edited June 19, 2012 by bobrussell 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 There is already a thread going on this subject. Indeed, and please restrict discussion of these proposals to that topic. Duplicate topics on this subject will be closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts