Uk Settlement- Financial Evidence

[Seekingasylum]

The absurdity of the dog's dinner that the Rules have now become can easily be dismissed once the family have obtained their first settlement entry. Thereafter, the applicant should simply submit fltr on the basis of her right to family life founded upon her relationship with her partner/husband. If there are British children of the union then so much the better.

There is nothing the UKBA can do about it. The EHRA is not going to go away.

So, don't fret about those income levels or depleted savings, just bung the application in and let it take its course.

The current executive arm is so disengaged from the judiciary one really wonders just how all those caseworkers in UKBA can possibly justify their pay.

They can't remove wives/husbands or children so why bother?

[Somtamme]

Sorry, meant to say outgoings, not savings, but stand by my earleir comments.

Any immigration criteria, which places the focus on UK spouse income up to one year prior to application is incorrect to me, otherwise need in excess of £60,000 savings.

All that was needed was for the Home Office to make settlement conditional to prevent recourse to public funds and make this time weighted. This period would then allow sufficient NI contributions to build and also ensure sufficient time e.g. 5 years or even more, to learn English language to the accepted B1 standard. This would have been far simpler than the absurd system the Tories have allowed to pass. Any immigration policy should not allow recourse to state benefits until there are suffcient NI contributions. It's the same principle in a way as private health care insurance and our pension system.

[somtampet]

It is bizarre because a sponsor can earn £18,600 pa and have £18,600 pa of debt repayments to make yet still meet the financial requirement, even though s/he and his partner would effectively have no income upon which to live (yes, i know it's an extreme example).

Yet a sponsor with an income of £18,599 pa with no debts would not meet the requirement and so be unable to bring their partner to live with them in the UK.

Under the old system the ECO looked at all the sponsor's income and all their regular outgoings; including debt repayments. Not only fairer, in my opinion, but much more sensible, too.

That is why under the old system they wanted bank statements as well as proof of income. Why they need them under the new is a mystery to me; as is much of the reasoning behind this farcical, unfair new financial requirement.

Do u actualy believe that the government would refuse someone a visa because their income is 1 gbp below the threshold,cum on man!!!!!!!!!

[Tony M]

It is bizarre because a sponsor can earn £18,600 pa and have £18,600 pa of debt repayments to make yet still meet the financial requirement, even though s/he and his partner would effectively have no income upon which to live (yes, i know it's an extreme example).

Yet a sponsor with an income of £18,599 pa with no debts would not meet the requirement and so be unable to bring their partner to live with them in the UK.

Under the old system the ECO looked at all the sponsor's income and all their regular outgoings; including debt repayments. Not only fairer, in my opinion, but much more sensible, too.

That is why under the old system they wanted bank statements as well as proof of income. Why they need them under the new is a mystery to me; as is much of the reasoning behind this farcical, unfair new financial requirement.

Do u actualy believe that the government would refuse someone a visa because their income is 1 gbp below the threshold,cum on man!!!!!!!!!

Well, I wouldn't want to waste 850 GBP to find out. Would you ? The law says :

3.2. The level of the financial requirement

3.2.1. Decision-makers cannot exercise any discretion or flexibility with regard to the level of the financial requirement that must be met. It is a matter of public policy to operate a financial requirement based on a minimum income threshold for the sponsorship of partners and children. It must be clear and consistently applied in all cases.

7

3.2.2. The applicant has to demonstrate and evidence the income/savings required to meet the level of the financial requirement relevant to their application. They do not need to provide information in the first instance about any income/savings which they and/or the partner may have beyond this.

3.2.3. The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that the financial requirement is met in their case. Decision-makers will not generally be expected to make further enquiries or request further information in an effort to establish whether the financial requirement is met.

That means that the ECO cannot issue a visa, even if he wants to, if the financial requirement is not met. The ECO has no discretion at all in this matter.

[7by7]

The absurdity of the dog's dinner that the Rules have now become can easily be dismissed once the family have obtained their first settlement entry. Thereafter, the applicant should simply submit fltr on the basis of her right to family life founded upon her relationship with her partner/husband. If there are British children of the union then so much the better.

There is nothing the UKBA can do about it. The EHRA is not going to go away.

So, don't fret about those income levels or depleted savings, just bung the application in and let it take its course.

The current executive arm is so disengaged from the judiciary one really wonders just how all those caseworkers in UKBA can possibly justify their pay.

They can't remove wives/husbands or children so why bother?

'They' can and do remove wives, husbands, children if they don't have or qualify for Leave to Remain.

By 'EHRA' I assume you mean the European Convention on Human Rights and/or the European Court of Human Rights.

Before introducing these requirements the government had their, no doubt very expensive, expert human rights lawyers go over the details with a fine toothed comb!

Their opinion was that these requirements do not breach Article 8 of the ECHR.

Of course, the court itself may differ, if and when a case reaches them. But that would be a long and expensive road for anyone who wishes to take their case there; with no guarantee of success.

[7by7]

Sorry, meant to say outgoings, not savings, but stand by my earleir comments.

Any immigration criteria, which places the focus on UK spouse income up to one year prior to application is incorrect to me, otherwise need in excess of £60,000 savings.

All that was needed was for the Home Office to make settlement conditional to prevent recourse to public funds and make this time weighted. This period would then allow sufficient NI contributions to build and also ensure sufficient time e.g. 5 years or even more, to learn English language to the accepted B1 standard. This would have been far simpler than the absurd system the Tories have allowed to pass. Any immigration policy should not allow recourse to state benefits until there are suffcient NI contributions. It's the same principle in a way as private health care insurance and our pension system.

Yes, I agree totally that it is ridiculous that outgoings are not taken into account; see my earlier posts.

As for a prohibition on claiming public funds, except any to which the person may be entitled to through their NI contributions, until they have ILR, there was and is no need to introduce such a prohibition; there has been one in force for many years.

It was certainly in force when my wife received her spouse visa in November 2000.

This prohibition has not been changed in any way by these new requirements.

[Seekingasylum]

The absurdity of the dog's dinner that the Rules have now become can easily be dismissed once the family have obtained their first settlement entry. Thereafter, the applicant should simply submit fltr on the basis of her right to family life founded upon her relationship with her partner/husband. If there are British children of the union then so much the better.

There is nothing the UKBA can do about it. The EHRA is not going to go away.

So, don't fret about those income levels or depleted savings, just bung the application in and let it take its course.

The current executive arm is so disengaged from the judiciary one really wonders just how all those caseworkers in UKBA can possibly justify their pay.

They can't remove wives/husbands or children so why bother?

'They' can and do remove wives, husbands, children if they don't have or qualify for Leave to Remain.

By 'EHRA' I assume you mean the European Convention on Human Rights and/or the European Court of Human Rights.

Before introducing these requirements the government had their, no doubt very expensive, expert human rights lawyers go over the details with a fine toothed comb!

Their opinion was that these requirements do not breach Article 8 of the ECHR.

Of course, the court itself may differ, if and when a case reaches them. But that would be a long and expensive road for anyone who wishes to take their case there; with no guarantee of success.

Actually, they don't.

There is no instance in the past 10 years where a wife, and her children British or otherwise, has been removed against her will where she is in a substantive relationship with her husband who has supported the application to remain on the the basis of Article 12.

The problem with these fora is that they don't appreciate the reality of applications made in country.

As I said, once in country no wife can be compelled to leave if the marriage/relationship is substantive.

Period.

Article 12?? I meant 8.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Seekingasylum

[Somtamme]

That's my point, under the new rules, the £18,600 income criteria is the Govt's answer to prevent immigrants becoming a burden on the state (Statement of Intent, 2012). But it's not needed because as far as I understand it up to ILR, recourse to public funds prevented. This was the case under the old rules up to when my wife was granted ILR earlier this year. If there was need to protect the state funds and answer ministers' concerns, all that was needed was to prohibit access a short time period after ILR. This is not the case, but instead we have a formula that requires up to £62,500.

This means the income criteria as introduced, does not appear to have any valid basis. Furthermore, without basis it could be argued that this criteria impacts on the rights to a family life. In Thailand the result of the formula for retirement visa for example is set at 800k baht, not £62,500 as it is now in UK. This is an absurd situation and civil servants should have not come up with this formula, and come up with something better than the SOI in response to ministers's concerns.

[7by7]

There is no instance in the past 10 years where a wife, and her children British or otherwise, has been removed against her will where she is in a substantive relationship with her husband who has supported the application to remain on the the basis of Article 12.

The problem with these fora is that they don't appreciate the reality of applications made in country.

As I said, once in country no wife can be compelled to leave if the marriage/relationship is substantive.

Period.

Article 12?? I meant 8.

I do not know if you are correct in your first statement or not and, to be honest, can't be bothered to check; but as you can't even get the name of the convention and the court correct, one does have to wonder! (ECHR, not EHRA!)

However, whether you are correct or not is somewhat moot. Under the old rules refusals of LTR applications by partners where the couple were in a substantive relationship and the application supported by the British partner were rarer than hen's teeth!

But the goalposts have been moved considerably by the government with these new financial requirements.

What will happen when, not if, an LTR application is refused due to the financial requirement not being met we will have to wait and see; the first such application under the new rules wont be until January 2015 at the earliest (if I've worked the dates out correctly).

The government and their lawyers think these requirements don't breach Article 8, will the ECHR agree?

But before the ECHR will hear a case, all avenues of appeal in the UK will need to have been exhausted.

BTW, this is an English language forum, not a Latin one; and the English plural of forum is forums, not fora.

Somtamme, I think we're saying the same thing in different ways.

Edited May 6, 2013 by 7by7

[Seekingasylum]

Oh dear, I think you have missed the point.

My use of EHRA is shorthand for the European Human Rights Act. The EU member states are signatories to it, including Britain. Article 8 provides the right to privacy and family life.

Applications to remain in the UK under Article 8 submitted to the Home Office are in the main decided by our judges in our courts or tribunals. The only cases which are decided by the CJEU are those fought by the government seeking a favourable ruling on a point of law e.g McCarthy or on the grounds of national interest etc viz the removal of Muslim terrorists.

Article 8 cases submitted by applicants who do not otherwise meet the requirements of the rules rarely if ever go to the CJEU. Our judges consistently find for the applicant at the first level. That is why foreign prisoners on completion of their sentences are not removed because they have successfully applied to remain because of their rights under Article 8, and those of their family members who would have their own rights breached if the applicant were to be removed.

You are quite right in identifying that under the previous system Article 8 was invariably honoured in practice. But May in her silliness thinks a piffling piece of accounting legislation can change things. It can't.

At the point when the first LTR application is due and the applicant's family cannot bear the financial burdens placed upon it the applicant has only to submit it acknowledging the deficiency but adding that they wish to remain invoking Article 8. The Home Office will refuse it but on appeal they will lose.

Eventually, the system will revert to the sensible approach which prevailed before that hormonally challenged old witch May got her claws into it.

The point is, is family life determined by a bank account or by the same principles which currently apply to British people who choose to marry Brits or Europeans? Happily, our judges full well know the answer.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Seekingasylum

[7by7]

There is no European Human Rights Act to which EU member states are signatories.

There is the European Convention on Human Rights, which predates the EU and has 47 signatories, including all 27 EU member states.

The UK has The Human Rights Act, which wasn't passed until 1998 and incorporated the articles of the ECHR into UK law, giving UK courts jurisdiction over such matters. I do not know how many, if any, of the other 46 signatories have similar; but there is no one Act covering all 47 signatories because there is no one legislative body governing all 47 signatories.

The European Court of Justice, what you refer to the CJEU which is actually a lower court than the ECJ, is an entity of the EU and has nothing to do with the ECHR. The highest court for matters pertaining to the convention is the European Court of Human Rights; which is not an EU entity.

Family LTR refusals have been extremely rare to date, not because of any consideration of Article 8 but simply because the requirements were extremely easy to meet.

You say "Article 8 cases submitted by applicants who do not otherwise meet the requirements of the rules rarely if ever go to the CJEU. Our judges consistently find for the applicant at the first level"

Wrong. The first level of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal will only consider whether or not any refusal of LTE or LTR was correct under the UK immigration rules. If an appeal is turned down at the first tier and the appellant wishes to proceed on human rights grounds they have to go to higher courts. It is only after all avenues of appeal in the UK are exhausted then the appellant can take their case to the ECHR; not the CJEU nor the ECJ, neither of which have any jurisdiction over the convention.

The new financial requirements introduced last July mean that the financial requirements for LTR as a family member are more difficult and although both incomes will count, in many cases only one partner will be working and may not have sufficient income.

As previously said, in their statement of intent the government made it clear that they (or rather their expensive, well qualified lawyers) had carefully considered whether or not the changes breached Article 8, and in their opinion did not.

Remember that Article 8 is a qualified right, the government and their lawyers opinion is that these qualifications are the reasons why the new rules do not breach the article.

Whether they are correct or not will be a matter for the courts to decide; and should a court in the UK decide against them you can be sure that the government itself will appeal all the way to the ECHR to obtain a definitive, binding ruling.

I think you and I share the same opinion of these new rules, but your making statements like "At the point when the first LTR application is due and the applicant's family cannot bear the financial burdens placed upon it the applicant has only to submit it acknowledging the deficiency but adding that they wish to remain invoking Article 8. The Home Office will refuse it but on appeal they will lose." is extremely overoptimistic.

It is also irresponsible as you may easily convince people that they have nothing to worry about, that all they have to do is wave the ECHR in the air proclaiming "Article 8!" and their partner will be granted permission to remain in the UK with open arms.

You are, sadly, mistaken; I dearly wish you were not.

If you were correct, then applications for the initial leave to enter as a partner of family member would never be refused! All applicant and sponsor would need to do was show that they were a family. Clearly this is not the case.

As already explained, any appeal of a LTR refusal under these new rules invoking Article 8 will go all the way to the ECHR; a long and expensive road with no guarantee of success.

Edited May 7, 2013 by 7by7

[Seekingasylum]

Gosh, we are saying hello to Mr. Pedantic this morning, aren't we.

Anyway, you are quite wrong in thinking immigration judges cannot find for the appellant on Article 8 grounds on appeal against a decision by the Home Office. Proportionality and compliance need to be considered and any carte blanche statement from the HO that their rules are compliant with HR generically is no grounds for not considering the issue.

In the event of a Thai wife, say a mother of British children who may not speak Thai and who is married to a British husband without any right of residence in Thailand, seeking to remain on the grounds of family life I think you will find there is absolutely no question whatsoever she will be removed against her will.

Any caseworker would tell you that and it is only a matter of time before we start seeing those applications and May's feeble attempt at currying favour with the lumpen British electorate will be shown up yet again as just so much piss and wind.

Incidentally, the whole point of the HRA was to obviate the need for one to apply to the European Court in order to seek redress against administrative decisions not compliant with the divers Articles.

[7by7]

If you didn't post the wrong information, I wouldn't have to correct your mistakes.

Call that pedantic if you like, but I think members reading this deserve accurate information.

As for the rest of the above; read what I have previously posted, all the points you raise in your latest post have previously been dealt with there.

[Seekingasylum]

Problem with these fora is that lay people trawling the net are no substitute for the actuality. Rather than risk loss of face why not simply accept you know nothing other than what you might glean from others.

The point is, and one worthy of note by those who may fret if they don't meet the current settlement rules for in country applications, is that if your relationship is substantive you can't be compelled to leave. The inevitable congruence of EU regulations and domestic legislation is an increasing fact.

So, the watchword is, don't worry and enjoy the security of your relationship. It's impervious to the mytherings of May, the Tories, the UKIP and the idiocy of Daily Mail editorials.

[7by7]

I have no interest in indulging you by continuing a circular argument.

Neither am I going to respond further to your pathetic baiting.

All I have to say to you and in response to your posts I have already said.

Others can read our respective posts and decide for themselves who is more correct.

[Kevin1908]

"Neither am I going to respond further to your pathetic baiting"

Thank God for that.

[bobrussell]

The new rules were introduced to respond to voter pressure. It makes the government look tough and will prevent a small number of non-EU citizens coming to the UK in the first place.

It is highly unlikely that anyone will actually be made to leave the UK after 30 months for human rights or other reasons but that will all happen after May 2015 which is the latest date for the next general election.

The legislation will either have bolstered the Conservatives vote so the are back in power (and can worry about it then!) or it will be someone else's problem if they are voted out.

My suspicion is that it will all be small news compared to the EU argument. Call me a cynic!

[Kevin1908]

The next election is going to be interesting but a I suspect that no conservative canvessor will dare show their face anywhere near where I live. Like the last one, not one single Labour supporter dared to show their face.

The Liberal Democrats will be out for every vote thet can get which will be interesting given that they have gone along with all of this this and not a squeak of opposition.

Cameron really needs to start dealing with real issues rather than tinkering with issues that at best affect only a few thousand people.

Ignorant rant or not, he needs to start dealing with bigger issues that affect the electorate.

[theoldgit]

As interesting as this debate is, can we keep answers directly related to the Financial Evidence in support of a Settlement Visa please.