Uk Spouse Visa: New Rules Vs Old Rules

[MrZM]

It's a massive debate and things could be changed in the coming weeks!

After some consideration and debates with other TV members, I have decided to express my opinion.

At first as most thought the rules are a bit unfair and maybe not logical.

Ie:

A sponsor with an income of £18,600 will qualify but could have a majority of his income paying off a mortgage, credit cards, etc

But....

A sponsor who earns £18,599 a year and has no outgoings what so ever would not meet the requirements ( even though I think this figure is a bad example as I'm sure an employer would give you a rise of a pound)!

Last year for a few reasons my wife's spouse visa was refused, one reason was having an overdraft and my statements showed I was using the facility, although I had a regular income I was mostly inside it. Mostly down to money and especially bad advice from an "expert".

But now I have an income, and I meet the requirements, and also this year I have been in my overdraft, as I withdraw my full income every month, so from the 1st to the 1st I am overdrawn or using my overdraft facility.

It occurred to me an hour ago, the new rules allow you to be normal, why shouldn't you have an overdraft, a mortgage to pay, credit card payment etc who doesn't!

Maybe the £18,600 is too high for some, but on the other hand the average wage in the UK is £26,000 a year, which means the £18,600 is quite reasonable requirement, regardless of your outgoings.

Whatever changes that may be made there will still be people complaining.

Last year I was extremely disappointed at the refusal, but it was the kick in the arse I needed, I rectified all and have been successful this year. I made sure I would meet the requirements, to ensure my wife and sons future.

Personally though I think if you have a wife and a child and a subsisting relationship you should be exempt from the new financial rules, as it almost did to me (luckily and with help from a good agent advice I was able to get a visit visa for my wife after the refusal) separation of families I believe is completely wrong.

Thanks for reading

[7by7]

The report and recommendations of the all party review is due to be published on the 10th; it will be interesting read.

However, we do need to remember that they can only make recommendations; which, if any, the government adopt we will have to wait and see.

Meanwhile, as a counter argument to the OP I reproduce my submission to the review:-

I have six points for the committee’s consideration.

1) I have no objection to setting a minimum financial requirement, whether that is income, savings or a combination of both. My objection is that the figure is too high and takes no account of outgoings.

Instead of setting the figure at the level at which a British couple would no longer be eligible for income support and/or other income related benefits the figure should be the amount that a British couple claiming income support would receive; currently £111.45 per week for a couple where both are aged over 18. That is £5795.40 pa. plus housing costs in the form of housing benefit etc.

So I feel that the minimum income should be this figure. That is a couple should show that they can and will be adequately accommodated and once their housing costs, rent or mortgage, have been deducted they have an income left of at least £5795.40 pa. Of course, if they are living with friends or relatives then their housing costs will be minimal.

This figure would need to be increased if the couple have dependent children. The current income support rate is £64.99 per week per child, £3799.48. Which is actually higher than the current extra income required for children; but the total income required will still be less than at present.

2) Savings. Currently the first £16,000 of savings is disregarded at the initial visa stage and at the FLR stage after 30 months, but is used at the ILR stage. Why? If a couple have savings which they can use to support themselves until one or both of them are working, why can they not use all of those savings, as they can in an ILR application?

3) The current rules set a minimum figure which takes no account of outgoings. This means that someone earning just below the minimum, say £18,500, with minimal outgoings, rent or mortgage plus the usual living expenses, wont qualify whilst someone earning above the figure but with debt repayments to service which takes their actual disposable income below £18600 does qualify.

I can see no reason why sponsor's should not submit evidence of all their income and outgoings, e.g. pay slips and bank statements, so the ECO can then calculate whether or not their disposable income is at or above the minimum required.

4) Third party support. Many ex pats return to the UK and, naturally, want to bring their foreign wife with them. They may have no choice in returning, e.g. because their contract has finished.

People in this position may not have been able to secure a job prior to their return, or if they have that job may not pay the required minimum.

They often have family who are not only willing to provide accommodation for the couple, but also willing and able to financially support them until one or both of them have secured work.

This represents absolutely no drain upon the public purse and I can see no logical reason why it is no longer allowed.

5) The Government have said that they will increase the minimum income each year, but not said by how much. Inflation? Average earnings? Benefit levels?

Like, I think, most people over the last few years my salary has increased by less than the cost of living, no matter how you calculate that.

What will happen to a couple who meet the income level at the initial visa stage but due to this level being increased at a higher rate than their income fail to meet it at the FLR or ILR stage?

What would happen if, through no fault of their own, one partner lost their job, taking their combined income below the minimum level?

With third party support being abolished, I see no alternative other than the foreign spouse being refuse at their next LTR application and having to leave the UK.

6) These new rules, especially the financial requirements, are ill thought out, break up families, encourage visa fraud and whilst devastating to families will have virtually no effect on the government's aim of significantly reducing immigration.

Most immigrants are economic ones, i.e. coming to the UK to work under the PBS or coming from other EEA countries to live and work in the UK.

These new financial requirements don't apply to them; at most they simply have to show that they can support and accommodate themselves and their families without recourse to public funds.

How is that fair?

[Kevin1908]

I am going to be completely controversial here. Given the proposed changes to the marriage laws in the UK the only criteria should be whether it is a genuine loving relationship. Basing the decision on anything else is a clear breach or artcle 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

That does not say that only an invidual with certain earnings is entitled to a private life. If that is not the case then we should leave the human rights convention.

[7by7]

Not controversial; just wrong.

Article 8 of the ECHR is a qualified right.

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. 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 exceptions mean that imposing requirements on those seeking entry to the UK, or any other signatory country, when those persons are family members of a citizen does not breach the article.

If it did, no signatory country would be able to have any immigration requirements for family members of it's citizens at all; which is obviously not the case.

[Kevin1908]

Not controversial; just wrong.

Article 8 of the ECHR is a qualified right.

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. 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 exceptions mean that imposing requirements on those seeking entry to the UK, or any other signatory country, when those persons are family members of a citizen does not breach the article.

If it did, no signatory country would be able to have any immigration requirements for family members of it's citizens at all; which is obviously not the case.

During the debate on gay marriage it was stated that gays/lesbians were the ONLY group of people not entitled to get married if they were in a loving relationship. Then given the exceptions in Article 8 the quote should have been gays/lesbians and anybody forming a relationship with a non EU citizen.

If Article 8 has this exception then let the likes of Lord Cadbury on Radio 4 this morning, Nick Clegg et al come out and defend the discrimination against UK citizens in relationships with Non EU citizens. Personally I found the torrents of abuse aimed at anybody who opposed gay marriage calling them bigots at the same time that anybody with a non EU partner was being denied the right slightly offensive.

I have never once seen this issue even mentioned in the UK media let alone debated. I suppose it is the old issue that politicians don't really care about minorities if there are little or no votes in it.

[7by7]

What has gay marriage got to do with the immigration rules?

The UK immigration rules do not stop a British citizen from marrying, or entering into a civil partnership or even if it's legal in the country where it took place a gay marriage, a non EEA national.; but if they want to live in the UK together then they have to meet the requirements of the immigration rules. The same as I will have to meet the Thai rules when we eventually move to live in Thailand. or any couple would in any country in the world where one was not a citizen of that country.

The ECHR has been in existence since 1953 and the UK was one of the original signatories.

If having immigration rules and applying those rules to the family of British citizens contravened Article 8, or any other Article, then those rules would have been abolished a long time ago.

Indeed, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that some aspects of the rules have done so in the past and the rules have been changed as a result.

Also, before refusing a family settlement application the ECO has to (or should) consider if it falls for consideration under Article 8; most, especially from Thailand, don't.

Edited June 6, 2013 by 7by7

[Kevin1908]

What has gay marriage got to do with the immigration rules?

The UK immigration rules do not stop a British citizen from marrying, or entering into a civil partnership or even if it's legal in the country where it took place a gay marriage, a non EEA national.; but if they want to live in the UK together then they have to meet the requirements of the immigration rules. The same as I will have to meet the Thai rules when we eventually move to live in Thailand. or any couple would in any country in the world where one was not a citizen of that country.

The ECHR has been in existence since 1953 and the UK was one of the original signatories.

If having immigration rules and applying those rules to the family of British citizens contravened Article 8, or any other Article, then those rules would have been abolished a long time ago.

Indeed, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that some aspects of the rules have done so in the past and the rules have been changed as a result.

Also, before refusing a family settlement application the ECO has to (or should) consider if it falls for consideration under Article 8; most, especially from Thailand, don't.

Gay marriage doesn't have anything to do with immigration it is about the right to a family life. Yes you are right, anybody can up and leave the country, get married then live outside of the UK. Of course a gay person could also go to a country and get married where it is legal the return to the UK to live. Anybody with a non EU spouse can't do that.

For the time being I can have a family but as I understand it by the time of the FLR I must still meet the minimum earning requirements. If I don't then I can expect the Immigration authorities to arrive at my door, arrest my wife, take her to am Immigration Centre then boot her out of the country.

In 5 years I would hope to be retired but if I need to maintain a minimum £18600 I will have to continue working or to retire to Thailand.

Surely it is not asking muck that a UK citizen can have a right to a family like in the UK the same as murderers, drug dealers, other criminals who are immigrants but formed a family realionship and then invoke the Human Rights Act to stay.

I guess the difference is they can get legal aid and the human rights solicitors rake in the legal aid fees, That option is of course not open to me and others in the same situation.

[7by7]

The UK immigration rules and the Human Rights Act (which is the UK Act of Parliament which brings the provisions of the ECHR into UK law) apply equally to all; regardless of race, colour, creed or sexual orientation.

Yes, as I have said many times, there are aspects of the new financial requirement which I consider to be unfair; but using that as an excuse to make racist remarks is inexcusable.

At present anyone making an immigration appeal can access legal aid if they qualify for it; including you.

[Kevin1908]

The UK immigration rules and the Human Rights Act (which is the UK Act of Parliament which brings the provisions of the ECHR into UK law) apply equally to all; regardless of race, colour, creed or sexual orientation.

Yes, as I have said many times, there are aspects of the new financial requirement which I consider to be unfair; but using that as an excuse to make racist remarks is inexcusable.

At present anyone making an immigration appeal can access legal aid if they qualify for it; including you.

What racist remark? I have only raised cases in the UK media that to my mind set a precident

I would not be eligible for legal aid and the prospect of fighting the British Government through the courts is not a realistic prospect.

[MrZM]

But seriously who in England doesn't have a credit card, a mortgage to pay for, bills etc

Everyone does.

Last year I was refused as I was unable to produce my bank statements because of an overdraft and bills going out. My income at the time was over the minimum around £200/£250 a week, but I withdrew it as it came in, basically I had to hide my life. Although this was ill advised and I could have shown my DLA benefit and third party support.

Now I still have a credit card to pay, I have an overdraft with my bank, but I meet the financial requirements, which to some may to high and to others it's easy. I didn't need to hide anything, I could be normal again.

That's another thing you talk about people bypassing and using fraud to gain visas, when you were allowed to use 3rd party support, this basically meant all you needed was bank statements from a family member and a letter claiming they would support you in case of financial difficulties, to me that was a bypass to meet requirements.

I believe the new rules are adequate to reason, as I said the average wage in the UK is £26,000 pa, so the £18,600 required is quite low.

To ones who don't meet it and very likely have bills to pay, just for a simple example a spouse visa costs near enough £900 and a flight one way another £600/£700. These regardless wether your income is £18,599 or £18,600 still have to be paid, so someone who is earning £10,000 a year, £1500 out of that income is quite a lot, with other expenses they have as well.

There is no real answer to the rules, other than to meet the requirements, but whatever happens there will always be someone with a complaint.

Again I repeat myself, my wife was unable to get a spouse visa, as the minimum age requirement was 21 and then as she was turning 21 it changed to 18. But I waited with patience.

Should the age be changed to 16, after all that's the legal age of consent for marriage in the UK.

Who knows????

[Kevin1908]

"I believe the new rules are adequate to reason, as I said the average wage in the UK is £26,000 pa, so the £18,600 required is quite low"

That might seem low but to a retired person that is a stonking amount of money but then they don't have anything like the living expenses of a younger person which makes the process agist and discriminatory.

[chris1101]

With due respect to everyone may I ask the following as I live in Thailand and cannot meet the financial requirements for a long term visa for my Thai wife to accompany me to UK due to my ill health: can one of my adult children (two solicitors and one financial manager) sponsor my wife to come to the UK. Can supply more info if required but rather felt someone would reply with a yes or no.

Many thanks.

[7by7]

MrZM,

Was your wife's settlement visa refused because you didn't provide evidence of your finances or because she was under the minimum age or both?

Not providing evidence of your finances was a big mistake, and I have to wonder why you didn't.

Yes, everyone has bills of some sort or another, and most of us have a mortgage or rent to pay. But under the old system the ECO would consider all of this, including debt payments. Even overdrafts were OK as long as they were approved and being serviced to the bank's satisfaction.

Having considered all of this and what was left the ECO could then decide if the applicant and sponsor could adequately support and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds.

I have no idea why you consider a family offering to support sponsor and applicant until they can support themselves to be fraud! I gave the reasons why I think this should be allowed in my first post in this topic.

Any system is going to have winners and losers, people who qualify and people who don't.

But it should be fair, and IMHO the current requirement is unfair, for the reasons I gave previously.

The irony is that as you say you are in receipt of DLA, the minimum income requirement doesn't apply to you!

[7by7]

With due respect to everyone may I ask the following as I live in Thailand and cannot meet the financial requirements for a long term visa for my Thai wife to accompany me to UK due to my ill health: can one of my adult children (two solicitors and one financial manager) sponsor my wife to come to the UK. Can supply more info if required but rather felt someone would reply with a yes or no.

Many thanks.

If by long term visa you mean settlement, then I'm afraid not.

Under the new rules third party financial support for family settlement is no longer allowed. The finances have to come from your income, your and/or your wife's cash savings or a combination of both.

But, if you are in receipt of certain UK benefits, the situation is different and there is no minimum income required. See part 3.6 of this document.

If you are asking about a visit visa, then yes, they can provide the finance. But as a visitor she could only spend a maximum of 6 months in the UK on any visit and, usually, no more than 6 months out of 12 in the UK.

I suggest that if you have more questions on this that you start a new topic as they could easily get lost in a general discussion such as this.

Edited June 6, 2013 by 7by7

[MrZM]

MrZM,

Was your wife's settlement visa refused because you didn't provide evidence of your finances or because she was under the minimum age or both?

Not providing evidence of your finances was a big mistake, and I have to wonder why you didn't.

Yes, everyone has bills of some sort or another, and most of us have a mortgage or rent to pay. But under the old system the ECO would consider all of this, including debt payments. Even overdrafts were OK as long as they were approved and being serviced to the bank's satisfaction.

Having considered all of this and what was left the ECO could then decide if the applicant and sponsor could adequately support and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds.

I have no idea why you consider a family offering to support sponsor and applicant until they can support themselves to be fraud! I gave the reasons why I think this should be allowed in my first post in this topic.

Any system is going to have winners and losers, people who qualify and people who don't.

But it should be fair, and IMHO the current requirement is unfair, for the reasons I gave previously.

The irony is that as you say you are in receipt of DLA, the minimum income requirement doesn't apply to you!

Actually I cancelled my DLA last year, before I applied for the spouse visa, as I thought it would affect the application, Sod's law ey.

I guess someone had a grudge against me, which is why my agent screwed up my application.

Will pm you when I'm ready.

[MrZM]

Also I'm not a benefit cheat. My DLA was issued from december 2009 to december 2012 and then I needed to check up. And as it states in DLA rules you are allowed to be out of the country for 180 days in a year and no more.

I cancelled it before my wife applied for her visa, as I was told it would affect my application.

How stupid was I, as I was told otherwise.

Anyway I went home with my wife and child, obtaining a visit visa for my wife, thanks to TVE for advice. I got a job, earning the required income, I then returned to Thailand with my wife and child, whilst continuing to be paid and then applied in April, met all the requirements and my wife was issued a visa. Am currently still in Thailand and will return in August, and the UKBA know this information, and I will return to work on my return to the UK.

The only benefit I claim is a child benefit which is £20 a week, I receive it and use for whatever my son requires. But it does not again affect your income or add to your income.

I'm not here to lie or cheat to anyone.

I am 25 years old, if I can sort this out for my wife and child I'm sure everyone can. Like me as well before people spend more time moaning than actually doing something.

[TCA]

But seriously who in England doesn't have a credit card, a mortgage to pay for, bills etc. Everyone does.

You seem hung up on the fact that people have outgoings and expenses. Of course they do. The question is how much in comparison to their income.

From your other thread and forgetting tax, if Mr £100k salary spends £80k on his mortgage, credit card, loan, car, booze and mistress, then he still has sufficient left to meet the current financial requirement. If he decides to spend another £20k per year on whatever then he clearly doesn't. Forget lifestyles and high salaries, it's net income which should be the important factor.

[MrZM]

But seriously who in England doesn't have a credit card, a mortgage to pay for, bills etc. Everyone does.

You seem hung up on the fact that people have outgoings and expenses. Of course they do. The question is how much in comparison to their income.

From your other thread and forgetting tax, if Mr £100k salary spends £80k on his mortgage, credit card, loan, car, booze and mistress, then he still has sufficient left to meet the current financial requirement. If he decides to spend another £20k per year on whatever then he clearly doesn't. Forget lifestyles and high salaries, it's net income which should be the important factor.

Regardless of what one spends and earns, the net income is always the same.

I think you mean disposable income.

The new rule is £18,600 p/a gross income. Leaves you with a net income of around £15,400 doesn't sound a lot now does it.

Someone who earns £10,000 p/a gross income. Leaves you with a net income of £9,600

The one who earns more pays more tax, but also has more of a disposable income.

[wooloomooloo]

Fifteen years ago I wouldn't have been able to bring a non-EU wife to the UK under the current rules.

I could barely look after myself financially let alone a Thai bride.

I spread my wings when I had a better and more regular income.

Twenty years ago I dreamed of owning a Porsche, but I couldn't afford that either. I still can't.

[TCA]

Regardless of what one spends and earns, the net income is always the same.

I think you mean disposable income.

Ha ha. You're cracking me up. No, I don't mean disposable income. I tried to simplify for your benefit as you don't seem to comprehend that just because someone has a high salary it doesn't automatically mean that they have more money than the next guy. I used the word "net" (bad choice on reflection) to mean after all mortgage, loan and credit card payments, etc... have been deducted.

Sure, disposable income would be a fairer gauge than gross income, but if you want a label for what I'm describing, it's closer to discretionary income. Still probably not the exact term but we're talking about available income after all necessary (perhaps nearly contractual) expenditure. The real amount that is actually available to support any visa applicants. That's why the regulations are non-sensical.

Edited June 6, 2013 by TCA

[MrZM]

Regardless of what one spends and earns, the net income is always the same.

I think you mean disposable income.

Ha ha. You're cracking me up. No, I don't mean disposable income. I tried to simplify for your benefit as you don't seem to comprehend that just because someone has a high salary it doesn't automatically mean that they have more money than the next guy. I used the word "net" (bad choice on reflection) to mean after all mortgage, loan and credit card payments, etc... have been deducted.

Sure, disposable income would be a fairer gauge than gross income, but if you want a label for what I'm describing, it's closer to discretionary income. Still probably not the exact term but we're talking about available income after all necessary (perhaps nearly contractual) expenditure. The real amount that is actually available to support any visa applicants. That's why the regulations are non-sensical.

No your just slightly confused.

Gross income is £18,600 for the requirement

Net income is what you earn after tax and ni

Disposable income is what remains after you have paid your bills etc

And if you did that the majority would have nothing....

[TCA]

No, actually you're confused. Net income (after tax and NI) is the same as disposable income. Discretionary income is what's left after all necessary bills.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_and_discretionary_income

MrZM " And if you did that the majority would have nothing...."

This is the point. If the majority had nothing left as you say, then how do they financially support a spouse?

Remember, I'm not saying a sponsor should have £18,600 left in his pocket every year. Obviously he/she doesn't have to fork out double mortgage/rent when the spouse arrives, so the level should be set far lower and be based on discretionary income. As 7by7 suggested, around the lines of the income support amount of £5,795 p.a, after all necessary bills.

Edited June 7, 2013 by TCA

[MrZM]

No, actually you're confused. Net income (after tax and NI) is the same as disposable income. Discretionary income is what's left after all necessary bills.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_and_discretionary_income

MrZM " And if you did that the majority would have nothing...."

This is the point. If the majority had nothing left as you say, then how do they financially support a spouse?

Remember, I'm not saying a sponsor should have £18,600 left in his pocket every year. Obviously he/she doesn't have to fork out double mortgage/rent when the spouse arrives, so the level should be set far lower and be based on discretionary income. As 7by7 suggested, around the lines of the income support amount of £5,795 p.a, after all necessary bills.

If you base it on discretionary income, who do you think is more likely to have it.

Really in my opinion every case should be personal with no actual limits on anything, but this would probably require more ECO staff and make there job a lot harder.

Everyone has a different situation.

[7by7]

Really in my opinion every case should be personal with no actual limits on anything, but this would probably require more ECO staff and make there job a lot harder.

That is what they did under the old rules.

it may have taken longer to process each application and so there were longer waiting times; but they managed it!

These rules were not introduced to make the ECOs lives easier; they were introduced to make family migration harder!

You talk about how much a sponsor has left after paying his bills. How much will those bills increase by should his spouse come to live with him? Not much, I reckon.

We have seen posts on this forum from people who have been working in Thailand and are now returning home. They have a job when the return and that job pays more than £18,600.

But because they were not earning that amount in Thailand for the 6 months prior to returning they can't bring their spouse with them!

You may say that £18,600 is below the UK average income, and it is; even though many of us earn less than the average.

But it is around 70,000 baht per month; how many expats in Thailand earn that?

In UKAIT 00065 KA and Others (Pakistan), 2006 the tribunal said in it's ruling

8.It perhaps does not necessarily follow that in order to be adequately maintained one has to have resources at least equivalent to those which would be available to a family on income support. But there are very good reasons for taking that view. A family of British (or EU) citizens resident in this country will not have less than that level. It is extremely undesirable that the Rules should be interpreted in such a way as to envisage immigrant families existing (and hence being required to exist, because social security benefits are not available to them) on resources less than those which would be available through the social security system to citizen families. To do so is to encourage the view that immigrant families need less, or can be expected to live on less, and in certain areas of the country would be prone to create whole communities living at a lower standard than even the poorest of British citizens. It is for this reason that a number of Tribunal cases, including Islam (13183), Momotaz Begum (18699), Uvovo (00 TH 01450) (which alone was the subject of reference by the Immigration Judge in this case) and RB [2004] UKIAT 00142 have held that the basic task for Appellants attempting to show that there maintenance will be "adequate" is to show that they will have as much as they would have if they were able to claim income support. Similar considerations apply to the different benefit structure when there is a disabled person in the family, as Munibun Nisa v ECO Islamabad [2002] UKIAT 01369 shows. There have been one or two cases which have indicated that a frugal life style can be taken into account in deciding whether maintenance would be "adequate", but in our view those cases should not be followed. In particular, we doubt whether it would ever be right to say that children could be maintained "adequately" at less than the level which would be available to the family on income support, merely because one of their parents asserts that the family will live frugally. The purpose of the requirement of adequacy is to ensure that a proper standard, appropriate to a family living in a not inexpensive western society, is available to those who seek to live here.

My view is that for the same reasons it is unfair to demand that an immigrant family have an income higher than the minimum the government expects a British family to live on.

[Kevin1908]

My view is that for the same reasons it is unfair to demand that an immigrant family have an income higher than the minimum the government expects a British family to live on.

Isn't that because the British Government is trying to encourage skilled high earners and discourage unskilled low earners.

[MrZM]

Really in my opinion every case should be personal with no actual limits on anything, but this would ;

In UKAIT 00065 KA and Others (Pakistan), 2006 the tribunal said in it's ruling

8.It perhaps does not necessarily follow that in order to be adequately maintained one has to have resources at least equivalent to those which would be available to a family on income support. But there are very good reasons for taking that view. A family of British (or EU) citizens resident in this country will not have less than that level. It is extremely undesirable that the Rules should be interpreted in such a way as to envisage immigrant families existing (and hence being required to exist, because social security benefits are not available to them) on resources less than those which would be available through the social security system to citizen families. To do so is to encourage the view that immigrant families need less, or can be expected to live on less, and in certain areas of the country would be prone to create whole communities living at a lower standard than even the poorest of British citizens. It is for this reason that a number of Tribunal cases, including Islam (13183), Momotaz Begum (18699), Uvovo (00 TH 01450) (which alone was the subject of reference by the Immigration Judge in this case) and RB [2004] UKIAT 00142 have held that the basic task for Appellants attempting to show that there maintenance will be "adequate" is to show that they will have as much as they would have if they were able to claim income support. Similar considerations apply to the different benefit structure when there is a disabled person in the family, as Munibun Nisa v ECO Islamabad [2002] UKIAT 01369 shows. There have been one or two cases which have indicated that a frugal life style can be taken into account in deciding whether maintenance would be "adequate", but in our view those cases should not be followed. In particular, we doubt whether it would ever be right to say that children could be maintained "adequately" at less than the level which would be available to the family on income support, merely because one of their parents asserts that the family will live frugally. The purpose of the requirement of adequacy is to ensure that a proper standard, appropriate to a family living in a not inexpensive western society, is available to those who seek to live here.

Without going in to detail, surely you can see that reference is a contradiction,

[TCA]

If you base it on discretionary income, who do you think is more likely to have it.

Really in my opinion every case should be personal.

"more likely" doesn't enter into it. It would be a point of fact based on personal circumstances. You either have enough left after your necessary bills to meet the required level to support your spouse, or you dont.

[MrZM]

I still believe the income level is satisfactory.

At the end of the day, my opinion is, it all comes down to the receiving of public funds. This is the UK biggest problem, and it is continuing to be cut. Someone who earns £18,600 is unable to claim majority if not all of the family benefits, as we have established you are able to claim child benefit, well unless you are earning over £50,000 a year that is.

It's getting closer, to the possible change in rules.

But I don't see how they can be changed to make things fair for everyone it's impossible.

If anything I can only see he income requirement dropped slightly, as benefits values are decreasing it is likely to happen.

The next possibility that as well, as people on DLA and careers allowance, they could exempt people who receive child tax benefits, who are on the lower incomes from the financial requirements.

The level of savings are too high, I understand how it is calculated, but £65.000 is a massive amount of money and should definitely be changed, to £18,600. Which would then give someone who earns a smaller income but may have savings from before, to meet he requirements.

[Seekingasylum]

The underlying problem is that this government is desperately committed to curtailing migration insofar as it might be demonstrated to a largely ignorant public. Restricting non EU family member migration is a drop in the ocean compared to EU migration but it is important to Theresa May et al as a token of their " UKIP " commitment.

In truth, the only logical step is a convergence between EU and domestic immigration law but that is anathema to the Tories who are more than content to preserve the current discrimination against British folk in their own country whilst they vainly rail against the EU.

The irony of course is that in seeking to maintain a supposed sovereignty they are hurting the very people they claim to be protecting.

Thus we have the grotesque farce of a British man married to a Thai wife with, say, two adolescent British children unable to return to his country as a family unit because he has been earning the equivalent of only £16,000, but who has a realistic prospect of earning much more upon his return, yet a Romanian knife grinder earning £40 a day is permitted to live on a fly tip in North London with his Romanian girlfriend as long as he chooses.

Only the British could be so stupid.

[7by7]

Seekingasylum,

A British knife grinder can live on a fly tip in north Bucharest with his girlfriend earning the equivalent of £40 per day whilst the non EEA national spouse of a Romanian citizen would have to meet whatever the criteria of the Romanian immigration rules are.

Such is the way the EEA freedom of movement treaties work.

The UK abides by these treaties because not doing so would mean leaving not just the EU but the EEA as well, effectively cutting ourselves off from Europe.

Some may consider that a good thing, others a bad one; but it would be a long and complex process.