How Do I Start A Human Rights Legal Case Against The Uk Spouse Visa System.

[AngryParent]

I am completely disgusted with the new UK spouse visa system and think this will result in me not being able to take the family back to the UK. I am sure it will affect thousands of others in Thailand and elsewhere.

I have been a tax payer (in the past in the UK) for many, many years. I have not claimed any benefits - except for a couple of months decades back! I am not a scrounger/dole addict and my family should not be excluded from the UK.

I want to start a human rights legal case against the UK spouse visa system and would appreciate full details as how to do this (from Thailand).

I would appreciate fast-track legal route advice.

I cannot afford a lawyer (at present) - I want to do about 99% of the paperwork myself (using advice) and then maybe subit it to a lawyer to edit/proof it.

Please no irritating replies.

Edited June 19, 2012 by AngryParent

[transam]

Not law yet is it. ?

[AngryParent]

Not law yet is it. ?

Less than 3 weeks to go. By the news reports I have read it looks like it might become law. But I really hope not.

[bobrussell]

It will be necessary for an application to be refused on income grounds. An appeal will need to follow and fail under the immigration rules. Only then will the human rights lawyers get started!

[AngryParent]

It will be necessary for an application to be refused on income grounds. An appeal will need to follow and fail under the immigration rules. Only then will the human rights lawyers get started!

I had thought that one had to have been in such too. But then I thought:

But was there not a case sometime back that might make this not a requirement i.e. a guy who could not apply for a visa as he could not afford the cost of it (I think this was not the UK though)? Any other such cases?

Also, before there was not an officially stated salary - thus applying and refusal were "more" required. Now, as they have set the application criteria, and stated refusal is certain, legally an application and refusal might not be necessary?

[7by7]

As far as I am aware, bobrussell is correct.

You, or rather your spouse, applies and is refused. She then goes through all the UK appeals procedure being refused at every stage. Only then can she take her case to the European court.

However, I am not a lawyer and could very well be wrong.

If you intend to follow this route I suggest that you speak to a lawyer who specialises in such cases in the European court. I doubt that you will find one in Thailand.

Note to all.

Please do not use this topic to discuss the proposals. There is already a topic running in which to do so here.

Off topic posts will be deleted.

[bangkockney]

OP, give your details to the JCWI. They are looking for people like you as we speak. There's a strong chance they'll launch a pro-brono joint action on behalf of a few plaintiffs who have strong cases, as a test case against the new rules.

Regardless, they'd be best placed to help you and your case study could be included in a dossier presented to Government.

[Basil B]

F.Y.I.

I did not now who JCWI was so had to Google.

Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants

http://www.jcwi.org.uk/

115 Old Street

EC1V 9RT London

Tel: 020 7251 8708

Fax: 020 7251 8707

Email: [email protected]

[somtampet]

My brother and his thai wife have spent over 12,000gbp and still been refused twice for her son to come to the uk.Not saying its right or wrong,but to be honest if u cant afford solicitors fees then maybe the uk government are right to bring in minimum yearly income.

[Mario2008]

As far as I am aware, bobrussell is correct.

You, or rather your spouse, applies and is refused. She then goes through all the UK appeals procedure being refused at every stage. Only then can she take her case to the European court.

However, I am not a lawyer and could very well be wrong.

If you intend to follow this route I suggest that you speak to a lawyer who specialises in such cases in the European court. I doubt that you will find one in Thailand.

Note to all.

Please do not use this topic to discuss the proposals. There is already a topic running in which to do so here.

Off topic posts will be deleted.

That is correct. One need first to go through all the possible national appeals/court reviews before the European Court on Human Rights will even consider the case.

[theblether]

I note with interest the amount of people across the various topics that are objecting to the government tightening the immigration rules. You can be assured that the British public are not in agreement with you.

On topic, there is a proposal to abrogate part of the "right to family life" section of the Human Rights Act. This is aimed specifically to prevent terrorists and other serious criminals from claiming that there human right to family life is being denied by being deported ( thanks to Abu Qatada for that ). You'll find that these proposals always have unintended consequences.

The government has quite rightly had enough of churning through the courts to enforce the will of Parliament.

[7by7]

OP, give your details to the JCWI. They are looking for people like you as we speak. There's a strong chance they'll launch a pro-brono joint action on behalf of a few plaintiffs who have strong cases, as a test case against the new rules............

As I am sure you know, bangkockney, but others may not; Article 8 is a qualified right. Paragraph 2 saying

There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The government have already made it clear that in their opinion, and that of their lawyers one assumes, the proposed changes they are making to family migration, asylum etc. fall under this paragraph and they are prepared to defend this postion all the way up to the highest court necessary. (See Paras 27 to 69 of the statement of intent.)

So, good luck to JCWI and their guinea pigs. I wish them success, but I fear they wont get it.

[VisasPlus]

OP, give your details to the JCWI. They are looking for people like you as we speak. There's a strong chance they'll launch a pro-brono joint action on behalf of a few plaintiffs who have strong cases, as a test case against the new rules............

As I am sure you know, bangkockney, but others may not; Article 8 is a qualified right. Paragraph 2 saying

There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The government have already made it clear that in their opinion, and that of their lawyers one assumes, the proposed changes they are making to family migration, asylum etc. fall under this paragraph and they are prepared to defend this postion all the way up to the highest court necessary. (See Paras 27 to 69 of the statement of intent.)

So, good luck to JCWI and their guinea pigs. I wish them success, but I fear they wont get it.

You may well be right, 7x7, but this quote from me, in another thread on these new changes, shows that the European courts do believe that administrative charges by governments can lead to article 13 of the Convention, and therefore Article 8, being violated. The judgment 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;

So, there could possibly be case that the UK government hasn't provided any effective remedy to those who can't achieve the financial levels set ? I have no idea, but it seems that it might be possible.

Edited June 20, 2012 by VisasPlus

[a99az]

I sympathize whole heartedly. The problem is that your wife is a good person like your self. You need to become a terrorist with an anti British attitude, and a hook for a hand, Then sneak into the UK and scream for your human rights, as you have a pet gold fish that needs your constant attension.

Seams to work for many others, the UK is full of them.

Or, why not go down the other route, and get a Schengen visa. OK so you won't be able to live in the UK but you would only be a short hop from it.

[AngryParent]

OP, give your details to the JCWI. They are looking for people like you as we speak. There's a strong chance they'll launch a pro-brono joint action on behalf of a few plaintiffs who have strong cases, as a test case against the new rules.

Regardless, they'd be best placed to help you and your case study could be included in a dossier presented to Government.

Thanks for that!!! Should do that after the 9th of next month.

Any other such groups? The more the merrier!

[AngryParent]

So, good luck to JCWI and their guinea pigs. I wish them success, but I fear they wont get it.

The Acts of Parliament have been ruled many many times before to be breaking human rights law even after "careful consideration" by the government's lawyers etc.

So, you could quite possibly be wrong.

My guess on this matter is that the government knows that it is against human rights law but is using it to increase their neonazi right wing supporters and to reduce immigration during the time it takes to go through all the legal channels to rule against it.

By not being part of the guinea pigs, one might find it difficult to get compensation at a later date.

[7by7]

You need to become a terrorist with an anti British attitude, and a hook for a hand, Then sneak into the UK and scream for your human rights, as you have a pet gold fish that needs your constant attension.

Seams to work for many others, the UK is full of them.

My guess on this matter is that the government knows that it is against human rights law but is using it to increase their neonazi right wing supporters and to reduce immigration during the time it takes to go through all the legal channels to rule against it.

Criticism of the proposals is one thing, but comments such as the above two, while they do express opposing views, are not welcome and further such will be deleted and the poster given a posting holiday.

Keep to the topic, which is whether or not the new proposals may or may not violate the convention and so whether or not a legal challenge would succeed.

[theblether]

So, good luck to JCWI and their guinea pigs. I wish them success, but I fear they wont get it.

The Acts of Parliament have been ruled many many times before to be breaking human rights law even after "careful consideration" by the government's lawyers etc.

So, you could quite possibly be wrong.

My guess on this matter is that the government knows that it is against human rights law but is using it to increase their neonazi right wing supporters and to reduce immigration during the time it takes to go through all the legal channels to rule against it.

By not being part of the guinea pigs, one might find it difficult to get compensation at a later date.

Give it a rest with the neo nazi crap.

Apologies 7x7, we were posting at the same time.

Edited June 20, 2012 by theblether

[MB1]

My brother and his thai wife have spent over 12,000gbp and still been refused twice for her son to come to the uk.Not saying its right or wrong,but to be honest if u cant afford solicitors fees then maybe the uk government are right to bring in minimum yearly income.

Many people living in the UK can't afford solicitors fees which is why we have legal aid for some cases, but for you to say....below

"but to be honest if u cant afford solicitors fees then maybe the uk government

are right to bring in minimum yearly income".

Is an absolute load of crap IMO, do you really expect someone who just fails to meet the financial criteria to be able to afford to pay solicitors fees to fight the case.

Do you even know how much a solicitor costs in the UK.?.

Edited June 20, 2012 by MB1

[AngryParent]

@7by7 "Keep to the topic, which is whether or not the new proposals may or may not violate the convention and so whether or not a legal challenge would succeed." Actully it is HOW to make a legal challenge i.e. the process and documents etc. So, any help on this (others)?

[7by7]

@7by7 "Keep to the topic, which is whether or not the new proposals may or may not violate the convention and so whether or not a legal challenge would succeed." Actully it is HOW to make a legal challenge i.e. the process and documents etc. So, any help on this (others)?

You, or rather your spouse, applies and is refused. She then goes through all the UK appeals procedure being refused at every stage. Only then can she take her case to the European court.

However, I am not a lawyer and could very well be wrong.

Even if following bangkockney's advice and contacting the JCWI for their assistance, I still believe that you would have to follow the above procedure.

[AngryParent]

@7by7 "Keep to the topic, which is whether or not the new proposals may or may not violate the convention and so whether or not a legal challenge would succeed." Actully it is HOW to make a legal challenge i.e. the process and documents etc. So, any help on this (others)?

You, or rather your spouse, applies and is refused. She then goes through all the UK appeals procedure being refused at every stage. Only then can she take her case to the European court.

However, I am not a lawyer and could very well be wrong.

Even if following bangkockney's advice and contacting the JCWI for their assistance, I still believe that you would have to follow the above procedure.

OK, for this, let's assume I do not have to apply (please read my post above). Now, I am not asking to go through UKBA appeals. I am seeking to fast-track direct to the court to challenge the rules - I am sure this is possible but do not know the procedure.

If it fails in the UK court, then I can submit to the ECHR.

[7by7]

OK, for this, let's assume I do not have to apply (please read my post above). Now, I am not asking to go through UKBA appeals. I am seeking to fast-track direct to the court to challenge the rules - I am sure this is possible but do not know the procedure.

An assumption I believe it is not possible to make. I may be wrong, though.

Have you actually contacted the JCWI or a human rights lawyer for their opinion? Or is this like your Thai citizenship and EEA topics, i.e. hypothetical?

Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants

http://www.jcwi.org.uk/

115 Old Street

EC1V 9RT London

Tel: 020 7251 8708

Fax: 020 7251 8707

Email: [email protected]

[AngryParent]

OK, for this, let's assume I do not have to apply (please read my post above). Now, I am not asking to go through UKBA appeals. I am seeking to fast-track direct to the court to challenge the rules - I am sure this is possible but do not know the procedure.

An assumption I believe it is not possible to make. I may be wrong, though.

Have you actually contacted the JCWI or a human rights lawyer for their opinion? Or is this like your Thai citizenship and EEA topics, i.e. hypothetical?

Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants

http://www.jcwi.org.uk/

115 Old Street

EC1V 9RT London

Tel: 020 7251 8708

Fax: 020 7251 8707

Email: [email protected]

I have sent them an email.

[AngryParent]

OK, for this, let's assume I do not have to apply (please read my post above). Now, I am not asking to go through UKBA appeals. I am seeking to fast-track direct to the court to challenge the rules - I am sure this is possible but do not know the procedure.

An assumption I believe it is not possible to make. I may be wrong, though.

Have you actually contacted the JCWI or a human rights lawyer for their opinion? Or is this like your Thai citizenship and EEA topics, i.e. hypothetical?

Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants

http://www.jcwi.org.uk/

115 Old Street

EC1V 9RT London

Tel: 020 7251 8708

Fax: 020 7251 8707

Email: [email protected]

I have sent them an email.

I knew my assumption was right!!!

A victim, under the Act, can be defined in the following ways:

• An individual who has been affected or is at risk of being directly affected by something done by a public authority;

http://hmctsformfinder.direct.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex503-eng.pdf

The above means I do not have to have applied for a spouse visa.

[7by7]

Of course you do not need to have applied for a spouse visa; you are, I assume, a British citizen. Whether or not you wife needs to have done is the question.

From that document

A public authority will not be considered to have acted incompatibly if, as a result of an Act of Parliament, they could not have acted differently.

Does this mean the UKBA would not be able to have acted differently due to the regulations they follow being set by Parliament?

I don't know. Hopefully the JCWI will be able to clarify this.

It would be of great interest to all, I'm sure, were you to post the reply you receive from the JCWI; deleting your personal details, of course.

Until then, in the absence of a confirmed legal opinion, I feel that further comment is superfluous.

Edited June 20, 2012 by 7by7

[somtampet]

My brother and his thai wife have spent over 12,000gbp and still been refused twice for her son to come to the uk.Not saying its right or wrong,but to be honest if u cant afford solicitors fees then maybe the uk government are right to bring in minimum yearly income.

Many people living in the UK can't afford solicitors fees which is why we have legal aid for some cases, but for you to say....below

"but to be honest if u cant afford solicitors fees then maybe the uk government

are right to bring in minimum yearly income".

Is an absolute load of crap IMO, do you really expect someone who just fails to meet the financial criteria to be able to afford to pay solicitors fees to fight the case.

Do you even know how much a solicitor costs in the UK.?.

I think u are talking crap,chill out and read my post again,then u will realise that i do know how much solicitors fees are,my brother paid them,and not claimed it for free,he has some money,unlike many who want to take their two week lover back to the uk

[MB1]

Can someone delete the troll post above and this one please.

Thanks.

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Thaivisa Connect App

[somtampet]

Can someone delete the troll post above and this one please.

Thanks.

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Thaivisa Connect App

stop acting like a spolied brat,u started the insultsd

[7by7]

MB1 and somtampet; if you want to exchange childish insults, do so in your playground, not here!

Anymore from either of you will result in a posting holiday.