Mp's Say New Visa Rules Causing Anguish For British Families.

[matsky13]

Thanks to all those who liked my post , i quickly read through subsequent posts , but don't have time or energy to reply to some wild accusations and miss reading of my post , lots of it has been done already by 7 by 7 and others and I thank you for that .
Mr Zm particularly seems to be looking at the issue through his own perspective only . I am Very happy you overcame the problems in front of you , I will do the same, I hope and will find a sollution some however it maybe we are seperated temporarily at the worst case (but hopefully not ), But in the meantime It is Important that the bad Government policy is Highlighted and complained about, on forums like this , to the press , to government officials etc etc .

Sitting back and not commenting Quote " moaning Brits saying and not doing" is not the way forward , I think I read on this thread that Tony M had even had some of his letters Quoted in the report . This direct involvement is fantastic ,and hopefully it will result in a review and changing of the rules .

I would love to sit and read the posts more thoroughly and reply more robustly , but I have a family that needs my immediate attention and i am frantically trying to drum up business that will get me closer to the financial requirement . Even though at this time we are not even certain that life in the Uk is the right thing for our family , Thats why we are here for the next 5 months so we can try life here before we do go down the settlement route ,

I have just read 7by7 post above and once again he nails the facts quite firmly and correctly to the mast .

It is very hard to say it any better than he already has ,

I always drop in to Thai visa when i have time and will be back soon . Probably to start a new thread asking for help on settlement visa's .

[7by7]

Did you know that for a Norwegian male/female who wish to take there spouse to live as a resident the minimum income requirement is £26,100.

All eu countries have a minimum requirement.

The UK was the last to enforce such limit.

This requirement was set in 2010 in Norway, although they have had many complaints, it is now 3 years and nothing has changed.

UK are a more lenient country, hopefully the rules will be changed, and made fairer.

What is the relevance of your point. Because the EU does something we have to follow suit? Norway hunts whales, should the UK also hunt whales.

And that is the absolute truth,the UK most certainly do have to follow EU Laws and Legislation!

Not when it comes to setting immigration requirements for non EEA nationals!

Nor whale hunting.

[MAJIC]

@ 7by7 Reply to Post No 182

MAJIC

So if what you say is true? then there shouldn't be any challenge to the new rules in the European Courts then!

[Kevin1908]

What is the relevance of your point. Because the EU does something we have to follow suit? Norway hunts whales, should the UK also hunt whales.

And that is the absolute truth,the UK most certainly do have to follow EU Laws and Legislation!

Which EU law states how the UK must implement immigtaion law? Why has Norway been cited as a precedent. Norway is not in the EU.

[7by7]

MAJIC,

The European Court of Justice is the highest court in the EU for matters pertaining to EU law.

The treaty rights of EEA nationals and their family to live and work in another member state is covered by EU law and so is a matter for the ECJ.

An individual member state's immigration law is not covered by EU law and so is not a concern of the ECJ.

I think that you may be confusing the ECJ with the European Court of Human Rights; which rules on matters pertaining to the European Convention on Human Rights; a common mistake among those who don't do their research.

It is to the ECHR that any appeal against a refusal under this, or any other aspect of the immigration rules, would eventually be made; after all avenues in the UK had been exhausted.

The ECHR and it's court are nothing to do with the EU. Although all EU member states are signatories to the ECHR, there are 47 parties to the convention in total, and only 23 member states of the EU.

So you can see that more than half (just!) the parties to the ECHR are not EU members!

With respect, MAJIC, whilst opinions are always welcome, even if others disagree with them; if you are going to present 'facts' then you really should check that they are indeed facts first!

Edited June 21, 2013 by 7by7

[MAJIC]

The most ludicrous aspect of these new financial requirements is, as already stated ad nauseum, that no account is taken of outgoings.

Almost as ludicrous is that because dual British/Thai children do not need a UK visa they are not included in the financial requirement.

So a family of one British parent, one Thai parent and two dual British/Thai children need an income of £18,600 p.a., but a family where the two children are the British parent's step children and so also need visas need an extra £6,200 p.a.!

Does the government think British children are cheaper to feed and clothe than non British ones?

(N.B. I say 'Thai' because this is a Thai forum; but the same settlement rules and requirements apply to all non EEA nationals; despite MAJIC's erroneous statement to the contrary above.)

This is a Thai Forum,which is why I was concentrating on the Thai angle. But that doesn't make my statement erronious,I didnt say the same settlement rules and requirements didn't apply to other non EEA Nationals,which of course they do. But EEC Nationals can and do,enter the Country at will and without a need for a Visa. Please reply to me direct if you think I made an erroneous statement,and at least give me a chance to reply!

[7by7]

The erroneous statement to which I referred is

.........as a member state of the EEC, is the agreement to allow the Open Borders System i.e any other member state can walk into our country (as we can theirs) with no Visa required,and stay as long as they wish. Is it fair? of course not,considering the rest of the world (with a few exceptions, such as commonwealth countries) obviously Thailand is not one of the exceptions,so consequently has to abide by the strict terms of obtaining a Visa,into the UK. What could be more stupid and divisive,on the one hand open house for Europe, and Draconian powers for most of the rest of the World.

In the parts I have highlighted you seem to be saying that different immigration rules and requirements apply to Commonwealth countries.

This is not true. The same rules and requirements apply to all countries outside the EEA.

Edit:

To which I should add that the world outside the EEA is, for UK immigration purposes, divided up into Visa Nationals and Non Visa Nationals.

Non Visa Nationals do not need to obtain a visa in advance of travel if they wish to enter the UK for 6 months or less; i.e. as a visitor. However they still may have to satisfy immigration at their port of entry that they meet the requirements for entry as a visitor and could be refused entry if they can't.

Visa National or Non Visa national, anyone who is not an EEA national or qualifying family member of an EEA national who wants to enter the UK for more than 6 months needs to obtain the appropriate visa before leaving home.

Edited June 21, 2013 by 7by7

[MrZM]

Thanks to all those who liked my post , i quickly read through subsequent posts , but don't have time or energy to reply to some wild accusations and miss reading of my post , lots of it has been done already by 7 by 7 and others and I thank you for that .

Mr Zm particularly seems to be looking at the issue through his own perspective only . I am Very happy you overcame the problems in front of you , I will do the same, I hope and will find a sollution some however it maybe we are seperated temporarily at the worst case (but hopefully not ), But in the meantime It is Important that the bad Government policy is Highlighted and complained about, on forums like this , to the press , to government officials etc etc .

Sitting back and not commenting Quote " moaning Brits saying and not doing" is not the way forward , I think I read on this thread that Tony M had even had some of his letters Quoted in the report . This direct involvement is fantastic ,and hopefully it will result in a review and changing of the rules .

I would love to sit and read the posts more thoroughly and reply more robustly , but I have a family that needs my immediate attention and i am frantically trying to drum up business that will get me closer to the financial requirement . Even though at this time we are not even certain that life in the Uk is the right thing for our family , Thats why we are here for the next 5 months so we can try life here before we do go down the settlement route ,

I have just read 7by7 post above and once again he nails the facts quite firmly and correctly to the mast .

It is very hard to say it any better than he already has ,

I always drop in to Thai visa when i have time and will be back soon . Probably to start a new thread asking for help on settlement visa's .

Good Luck, with all.

[MAJIC]

The erroneous statement to which I referred is

.........as a member state of the EEC, is the agreement to allow the Open Borders System i.e any other member state can walk into our country (as we can theirs) with no Visa required,and stay as long as they wish. Is it fair? of course not,considering the rest of the world (with a few exceptions, such as commonwealth countries) obviously Thailand is not one of the exceptions,so consequently has to abide by the strict terms of obtaining a Visa,into the UK. What could be more stupid and divisive,on the one hand open house for Europe, and Draconian powers for most of the rest of the World.

In the parts I have highlighted you seem to be saying that different immigration rules and requirements apply to Commonwealth countries.

This is not true. The same rules and requirements apply to all countries outside the EEA.

Edit:

To which I should add that the world outside the EEA is, for UK immigration purposes, divided up into Visa Nationals and Non Visa Nationals.

Non Visa Nationals do not need to obtain a visa in advance of travel if they wish to enter the UK for 6 months or less; i.e. as a visitor. However they still may have to satisfy immigration at their port of entry that they meet the requirements for entry as a visitor and could be refused entry if they can't.

Visa National or Non Visa national, anyone who is not an EEA national or qualifying family member of an EEA national who wants to enter the UK for more than 6 months needs to obtain the appropriate visa before leaving home.

The erroneous statement to which I referred is

.........as a member state of the EEC, is the agreement to allow the Open Borders System i.e any other member state can walk into our country (as we can theirs) with no Visa required,and stay as long as they wish. Is it fair? of course not,considering the rest of the world (with a few exceptions, such as commonwealth countries) obviously Thailand is not one of the exceptions,so consequently has to abide by the strict terms of obtaining a Visa,into the UK. What could be more stupid and divisive,on the one hand open house for Europe, and Draconian powers for most of the rest of the World.

In the parts I have highlighted you seem to be saying that different immigration rules and requirements apply to Commonwealth countries.

This is not true. The same rules and requirements apply to all countries outside the EEA.

Edit:

To which I should add that the world outside the EEA is, for UK immigration purposes, divided up into Visa Nationals and Non Visa Nationals.

Non Visa Nationals do not need to obtain a visa in advance of travel if they wish to enter the UK for 6 months or less; i.e. as a visitor. However they still may have to satisfy immigration at their port of entry that they meet the requirements for entry as a visitor and could be refused entry if they can't.

Visa National or Non Visa national, anyone who is not an EEA national or qualifying family member of an EEA national who wants to enter the UK for more than 6 months needs to obtain the appropriate visa before leaving home.

You are misreading my point, The Immigration Rules for EEC Members are different than for those that are Non EEC Members i.e Thailand for one. I can't simplify it any more that. And IMHO Opinion is very unfair on those with Thai Spouses,and one could call it a two Tier Immigration Policy,

Edited June 21, 2013 by MAJIC

[MrZM]

Sorry, missed this bit last night.

Visas were being granted under this scenario under the old rules.

In the scenario you describe it is extremely unlikely that the application would have met the maintenance requirement under the old rules; i.e. able to be supported and accommodated without recourse to public funds.

Yes, once in the UK the couple would have been able to claim tax credits and child benefit (child care? not sure), if they otherwise qualified, and in fact still can. But this would not have been an acceptable source of income for the actual application.

What would have been acceptable, but no longer is, was any income the applicant would have received had they a job offer in the UK and any support coming from a third party; and why not?

You seem obsessed with pensioners attempting to obtain visas for younger women and their children. I don't know about your circumstances, but mine and that of every couple we know where one partner is an immigrant suggest that in most situations the UK partner is working and quite capable of supporting their immigrant family; except that their actual income is below the limit set by the government.

I don't think anyone posting here believes that immigrant families should not be able to support themselves; yet you seem to think that this is what we are saying!

What I am saying is that the criteria used in judging whether an immigrant family has adequate finances should be the same as that used for a British family receiving income support. (Edit; I mean the actual amount received; not the cut off level where they would receive nothing.)

I am also saying that all sources of available finance should be taken into account; sponsor, applicant and any third party.

Finally I am also saying that it is not just income and/or savings which should be looked at; but outgoings as well. In other words it is disposable income after all regular outgoings which should count; not a set figure which takes no account of outgoings at all.

Taking outgoings as well as income into account would penalise those whose income is above the limit but have large outgoings, such as debt repayments. But the system would be fairer overall.

Although the majority of couples where the sponsor lives and works in the UK probably can meet this new income requirement; three groups are being unfairly penalised.

The self employed, who need to have been earning the required amount for at least 12 months, not six, and cannot use savings if they have them.

Expats who are returning home and have a definite job offer with an income over the limit, but have been earning less than the limit whilst abroad.

Couples where the British sponsor does not have a job in the UK, usually because they are the mother of young children, or does have a job with an income below the limit; whilst the immigrant partner does have a frim job offer once in the UK, but his income is ignored.

That other countries may or may not have requirements which are stricter than the UK's is irrelevant. Some other countries have public floggings; does that mean it's acceptable to introduce same to the UK?

I know first hand visas were being granted under this scenario, and there were even more lenient cases, especially with the grant of third party support.

I agree with the majority of what you have wrote but one thing that's stand out.

"3rd party support"

This shouldn't and never should have been allowed.

Why should somebody use, someone else's money in order to gain a spouse visa?

Using 3rd party support clearly makes one statement, you can't afford to look after your family with out help.

Sponsor and partner income should be allowed, though how many thai women actually work. My wife doesn't, none of her friends do, and others I know don't either.

Asking for 12 months from a self employed sponsor is correct, there is no guarantee on earnings. So a track record is provided.

For some reason you seem to assume, that all sponsors under the new rule, have no money. Your favourite comment.

"Someone earning £18,600 p/a and has no disposable, will gain a visa, but someone earning £18,599 with no outgoings will not get a visa"

Yes it's a correct statement on assumption.

99.9% of adults have outgoings in the UK. Of course some more than others.

Having a minimum requirement is a good idea. As you have said and we all agree its too high, and should be at the level the UK government claim is enough, not double or more.

[7by7]

MAJIC,

1) EEA nationals and their family members are not covered by the UK's immigration rules, just as British nationals and their family members are not covered by the immigration rules of other EEA states. They are all governed by various EEA freedom of movement treaties.

You may think those treaties unfair, but I bet the hundreds of thousands of British pensioners living in Spain, Cyprus, Greece, etc. don't!

2) If you were talking about EEA nationals and the rest of the world, why say "the rest of the world (with a few exceptions, such as commonwealth countries)" and "most of the rest of the World."?

You made a mistake; accept it.

[7by7]

Sorry, missed this bit last night.

Visas were being granted under this scenario under the old rules.

In the scenario you describe it is extremely unlikely that the application would have met the maintenance requirement under the old rules; i.e. able to be supported and accommodated without recourse to public funds.

I know first hand visas were being granted under this scenario, and there were even more lenient cases, especially with the grant of third party support.

Are you saying that you know of a situation where a family settlement visa was granted under the old rules, even though sponsor and applicant did not have sufficient funds available, either from their own or a third parties resources, to support and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds?

I'd very much like to know how they managed it!

"3rd party support"

This shouldn't and never should have been allowed.

Why should somebody use, someone else's money in order to gain a spouse visa?

Using 3rd party support clearly makes one statement, you can't afford to look after your family with out help.

Third party support was most commonly used when the sponsor was an expat and had no definite job upon their return to the UK.

The guidance used to say that ideally third party support should be seen as a temporary arrangement until the sponsor and/or applicant could support themselves; although no specific timescale was mentioned.

If a third party, usually a family member, has the means to support the family until they can support themselves, what is wrong with that?

They would not be a drain on the public purse.

Sponsor and partner income should be allowed, though how many thai women actually work. My wife doesn't, none of her friends do, and others I know don't either.

Most of the Thai women we know do work; those who don't have young pre school children. My wife started looking for a job the moment she arrived; even though it did take her about 6 months to get one.

If the applicant does have a job to start once in the UK, why shouldn't that income be allowed. remember that in many, though probably not the majority of, cases it is the wife who is the sponsor and the husband the applicant.

I sort of see your point on self employed income; but still feel the rules should be the same for all.

For some reason you seem to assume, that all sponsors under the new rule, have no money.

I am not assuming that all sponsor's have no money! Where have I said so? Read my posts again.

Your favourite comment.

"Someone earning £18,600 p/a and has no disposable, will gain a visa, but someone earning £18,599 with no outgoings will not get a visa"

Not quite, I'm saying that someone whose sponsor has an income of £18,600 but lots of outgoings will meet the requirement, but someone whose sponsor has an income of £18,599 and no outgoings wont.

Yes it's a correct statement on assumption.

No assumption at all. The ECOs have absolutely no discretion on this matter. If the sponsor's income is below the limit, even 1 penny below, the ECO must refuse.

Edited June 21, 2013 by 7by7

[Waterloo]

The all-party parliamentary group report states that 68% of non-EEA partner applications in 2010 were made by female applicants, which is further problem with the minimum income level.

From experience I beleive this is not reflected in the Thai community as all the couples I know the man is the sponsor.

For the record all the Thai women I know work & work extremely hard with the only 2 exceptions being my own wife (we have 2 very young children both under 3) and a freinds wife, but as he is a millionaire I don't suppose that is a problem

Edited June 21, 2013 by Waterloo

[MAJIC]

MAJIC,

1) EEA nationals and their family members are not covered by the UK's immigration rules, just as British nationals and their family members are not covered by the immigration rules of other EEA states. They are all governed by various EEA freedom of movement treaties.

You may think those treaties unfair, but I bet the hundreds of thousands of British pensioners living in Spain, Cyprus, Greece, etc. don't!

2) If you were talking about EEA nationals and the rest of the world, why say "the rest of the world (with a few exceptions, such as commonwealth countries)" and "most of the rest of the World."?

You made a mistake; accept it.

As

MAJIC,

1) EEA nationals and their family members are not covered by the UK's immigration rules, just as British nationals and their family members are not covered by the immigration rules of other EEA states. They are all governed by various EEA freedom of movement treaties.

You may think those treaties unfair, but I bet the hundreds of thousands of British pensioners living in Spain, Cyprus, Greece, etc. don't!

2) If you were talking about EEA nationals and the rest of the world, why say "the rest of the world (with a few exceptions, such as commonwealth countries)" and "most of the rest of the World."?

You made a mistake; accept it.

"You may think those treaties unfair, but I bet the hundreds of thousands of British pensioners living in Spain, Cyprus, Greece, etc. don't!"

Yes of course the thousands of British pensioners living in Spain,Cyprus,Greece, are agreeable,they and every other Country in Europe can bring their Spouses into the UK, regardless of Nationality, as long as they are classed as EEC Members. Expats from Thailand can't bring their Spouses in quite so effortlessly. which is what this Topic is about.

So to sum up English man living in Europe,can bring in a wife to the UK, Englishman living in Thailand can bring in a wife from Thailand,after enormous efforts to satisfy UK Immigration! Does this sound fair to you?

[Jay Sata]

Fair or not fair those are the rules for a spouse coming from anywhere outside the EEC be they Thai,Americans, Russians, South Africans or whatever.

The question is what can be done now that the new rules have been adopted?

[MrZM]

7by7

MrZM wrote:

7by7 wrote:

Sorry, missed this bit last night.

MrZM wrote:

Visas were being granted under this scenario under the old rules.

In the scenario you describe it is extremely unlikely that the application would have met the maintenance requirement under the old rules; i.e. able to be supported and accommodated without recourse to public funds.

I know first hand visas were being granted under this scenario, and there were even more lenient cases, especially with the grant of third party support.

Are you saying that you know of a situation where a family settlement visa was granted under the old rules, even though sponsor and applicant did not have sufficient funds available, either from their own or a third parties resources, to support and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds?

I'd very much like to know how they managed it!

"Yes with minimum income and minimal savings, a subsisting relationship etc.."

"3rd party support"

This shouldn't and never should have been allowed.

Why should somebody use, someone else's money in order to gain a spouse visa?

Using 3rd party support clearly makes one statement, you can't afford to look after your family with out help.

Third party support was most commonly used when the sponsor was an expat and had no definite job upon their return to the UK.

The guidance used to say that ideally third party support should be seen as a temporary arrangement until the sponsor and/or applicant could support themselves; although no specific timescale was mentioned.

If a third party, usually a family member, has the means to support the family until they can support themselves, what is wrong with that?

"The simple fact is majority were not legitimate"

They would not be a drain on the public purse.

"A British citizen returns to the UK with no job and no money, day 1 signs on to the dole. Draining starts."

Sponsor and partner income should be allowed, though how many thai women actually work. My wife doesn't, none of her friends do, and others I know don't either.

Most of the Thai women we know do work; those who don't have young pre school children. My wife started looking for a job the moment she arrived; even though it did take her about 6 months to get one.

"How can a thai woman's income from the UK be used for a spouse visa if she hasn't yet received a visa. The point was using joint income."

If the applicant does have a job to start once in the UK, why shouldn't that income be allowed. remember that in many, though probably not the majority of, cases it is the wife who is the sponsor and the husband the applicant.

I sort of see your point on self employed income; but still feel the rules should be the same for all.

For some reason you seem to assume, that all sponsors under the new rule, have no money.

I am not assuming that all sponsor's have no money! Where have I said so? Read my posts again.

Your favourite comment.

"Someone earning £18,600 p/a and has no disposable, will gain a visa, but someone earning £18,599 with no outgoings will not get a visa"

Not quite, I'm saying that someone whose sponsor has an income of £18,600 but lots of outgoings will meet the requirement, but someone whose sponsor has an income of £18,599 and no outgoings wont.

Yes it's a correct statement on assumption.

No assumption at all. The ECOs have absolutely no discretion on this matter. If the sponsor's income is below the limit, even 1 penny below, the ECO must refuse.

"Therefore in theory the minimum requirement should be dropped, to as you said what the UK believe us enough to live on. But then if they drop it to £12000, then someone with a £11,999 with no outgoings. Then that will be unfair"

I think The limit was set up to stop fraudulent visas.

But on the other hand it is now affecting families and in some cases forcing them to separate, which is completely wrong as we all know.

[TCA]

Visa fraud wouldn't be prevented by imposing minimum income levels.

[7by7]

You may think those treaties unfair, but I bet the hundreds of thousands of British pensioners living in Spain, Cyprus, Greece, etc. don't!

Yes of course the thousands of British pensioners living in Spain,Cyprus,Greece, are agreeable,they and every other Country in Europe can bring their Spouses into the UK, regardless of Nationality, as long as they are classed as EEC Members.

I meant british pensioners living in other EEA countries with their British spouses; which I thought was obvious; evidently not.

My (obvious, I thought) point being that the EEA freedom of movement rules apply equally to all EEA nationals allowing all EEA nationals freedom of movement throughout the EEA.

Whether or not you think this is fair or not is a matter of opinion; as it applies equally across the EEA, I think it is.

Note; the European Economic Area is different from the old European Economic Community, which no longer exists, and the European Union which replaced it. The EEA comprises all members of the EU plus Iceland Liechtenstein and Norway. Switzerland is not a member, but it is party to these freedom of movement treaties.

[MrZM]

Visa fraud wouldn't be prevented by imposing minimum income levels.

Elaborate

[7by7]

Mr ZM.

Firstly you seemed to be saying that you knew of at least one case where someone was granted a spouse visa under the old rules when neither they nor their sponsor had sufficient funds to support themselves without recourse to public funds.

Now you say that they did it with "Yes with minimum income and minimal savings, a subsisting relationship etc.."

Either they could support themselves without recourse to public funds, in which case no problem, or they couldn't. In which case, how did they satisfy the ECO that they could?

You say that the majority of cases where third party support was used were not legitimate. How do you know? What evidence of this do you have? What do you mean by it?

Are you saying that the third party did not have sufficient means to support the sponsor and applicant? Impossible; if third party support was being used the third party had to show they had the finances to enable such support.

Or are you saying that despite offering such support and being able to afford to do so, once sponsor and applicant were in the UK the offer was withdrawn? If so, how did the couple live as they could not claim public funds?

Yes, whatever the limit there will be those who cannot meet it. But not taking outgoings into account when calculating if an income requirement is or is not met is grossly unfair; for the reasons I have explained previously.

I have already posted what I believe is a fair minimum income and how it should be calculated. I do not intend to repeat myself just because you can't remember what I have said; go back and read it again.

The new rules and this financial requirement were not set up to combat visa fraud; They were brought in as a sop to the right wing and their complaints about excessive immigration.

Reducing immigration from the EEA is fraught with difficulty, and would certainly involve the UK breaking several international treaties and probably leaving both the EU and the EEA. (Please, MAJIC, this is not the place to discuss whether that is a good idea or not!)

Reducing immigration for both workers and Students has already been tried by making entry via the PBS stricter with little effect.

But family migration from outside the EEA is an easy target; so the government went for it to produce "Government gets tough on immigration" type headlines in the right wing press.

Even though family migration accounts for less than 25% of all immigration to the UK.

In fact, these new requirements wont stop visa fraud at all. If anything they will encourage it.

You, yourself, have already in this topic suggested ways in which people can use false documentation to show they meet the requirement!

Edited June 21, 2013 by 7by7

[MrZM]

Mr ZM.

Firstly you seemed to be saying that you knew of at least one case where someone was granted a spouse visa under the old rules when neither they nor their sponsor had sufficient funds to support themselves without recourse to public funds.

Now you say that they did it with "Yes with minimum income and minimal savings, a subsisting relationship etc.."

Either they could support themselves without recourse to public funds, in which case no problem, or they couldn't. In which case, how did they satisfy the ECO that they could?

You say that the majority of cases where third party support was used were not legitimate. How do you know? What evidence of this do you have? What do you mean by it?

Are you saying that the third party did not have sufficient means to support the sponsor and applicant? Impossible; if third party support was being used the third party had to show they had the finances to enable such support.

Or are you saying that despite offering such support and being able to afford to do so, once sponsor and applicant were in the UK the offer was withdrawn? If so, how did the couple live as they could not claim public funds?

Yes, whatever the limit there will be those who cannot meet it. But not taking outgoings into account when calculating if an income requirement is or is not met is grossly unfair; for the reasons I have explained previously.

I have already posted what I believe is a fair minimum income and how it should be calculated. I do not intend to repeat myself just because you can't remember what I have said; go back and read it again.

The new rules and this financial requirement were not set up to combat visa fraud; They were brought in as a sop to the right wing and their complaints about excessive immigration.

Reducing immigration from the EEA is fraught with difficulty, and would certainly involve the UK breaking several international treaties and probably leaving both the EU and the EEA. (Please, MAJIC, this is not the place to discuss whether that is a good idea or not!)

Reducing immigration for both workers and Students has already been tried by making entry via the PBS stricter with little effect.

But family migration from outside the EEA is an easy target; so the government went for it to produce "Government gets tough on immigration" type headlines in the right wing press.

Even though family migration accounts for less than 25% of all immigration to the UK.

In fact, these new requirements wont stop visa fraud at all. If anything they will encourage it.

You, yourself, have already in this topic suggested ways in which people can use false documentation to show they meet the requirement!

I never said they used false documentation, but I'll happily repeat myself.

I clearly said someone who is self-employed, who has a willing friend with a business, can be paid through that business, where he would receive pay slips, pay the taxes etc. Whats wrong with that? It is not illegal.

It's no different to a male owner of a business paying his wife a salary who never actually works or vice versa. It's actually works out that the business owner would be paying less tax as he would have less profit. It's very logical actually. And thesis does happen, but I'm sure you will find a way to twist it.

Lets put it this way I can't name or shame.

Simply I saw with my own eyes, a man on a pension, and minimal savings, but with no outgoings at all, except for every day life, was issued a visa for his wife. Why do you find it so hard to believe? If the ECO decided it was suffice then so be it. There was no minimum requirement on the old rules, it was only to show you had sufficient funds to support your spouse and or children.

3rd party.

Without answering all.

Are you very confident that, if a british citizen was unemployed, and returned to the UK on a promise of support, that he can't walk in to a job centre and start claiming benefits. When a visa is issued, it states "no recourse to public funds" that is for the spouse not for the British citizen. The fact is the sponsor didn't have to show much at all, the 3rd party support would cover the financial aspect.

Does everyone agree that the savings requirements of £64,500 is fair?

[7by7]

Mr ZM,

You seem to be backtracking on your pensioner friend somewhat!

First you said, or at least implied, that he and his wife did not have the finances with which to satisfy the old maintenance requirement; now you are saying that they showed an ECO that they did!

Which is it?

I know the old rules; I have been advising people about them for nearly 10 years and have mentioned them on numerous occasions in this very topic!

I want this ludicrous and unfair financial requirement abolished and the old rules reintroduced!

What has someone claiming JSA got to do with the issue of third party support?

Yes, if s/he otherwise qualifies, the British sponsor could start to claim JSA as soon as they arrived in the UK; but using this to satisfy the old maintenance requirement would not have been sufficient. Remember that s/he can only claim as a single person until their spouse/partner has ILR; that hasn't changed.

But how does that justify your claim that the majority of applications involving third party support were illegitimate?

Whether the employment scam you describe is legal or not, I'll leave to a lawyer.

But the fact remains that the new financial requirement was not, as you claim, introduced as an anti fraud measure. It was introduced for the reasons I stated earlier; check Mrs May's and the UKBA's press releases at the time if you don't believe me.

As previouilsy stated, these measures can only encourage fraud, not reduce it.

No, I do not agree that the level of savings is fair.

Firstly, the same savings criteria should be used at all stages; not a higher figure for the initial visa and FLR then a reduced figure for ILR.

Secondly, I don't believe in an arbitrarily set minimum, but one which takes all the families finances into account; income (all income, not just that over a set limit), living expenses etc.

Edited June 21, 2013 by 7by7

[Bladefire]

Well put 7. Im with you. Awaiting visas as i type - settlement and self-employed. Extremely difficult and fingers and more crossed!

[TCA]

Visa fraud wouldn't be prevented by imposing minimum income levels.

Elaborate

Sorry, I don't have the strength. 7by7 has explained anyway and has also eloquently summarised the pitfalls of the new rules in several posts (with saint-like patience), so I'll leave further explanations to others. Life is too short. I need to be spending the £62,500 in my bank for my wife's visa application, before she does!

[MrZM]

7by7

We seem to be going round in circles!

So I will agree to disagree.

I would like to ask a few questions.

Under the old rules, are ecos able to check what if any debts an applicant may have, if not already disclosed?

Did anyone complain about the old rules? Other than the age requirement which was changed November 2011 exactly 3 years after the rule was originally changed.

Under the old rules, a British citizen living abroad, with no money or income, wishing to bring his spouse to settle in the UK, with 3rd party support would the visa be issued? (possible scenario a father who has been supporting his son, who lives abroad)

You said before family migration amounted to around 25% of migration! What percentage are unable to apply under the current rules?

How many visas 2011/2012 were refused under the old rules? How many were refused 2012/2013 under the new rules?

Or how many were issued?

I have been unable to find the statistics.

[MAJIC]

@ 7by7 reply to Post No 182

British Pensioners and, their British Spouses eh! ........why did you suddenly bring that "Red Herring" into the discussion,(which is irrelevant)when we were talking about a British person bringing over a foreign partner from Europe,without needing a Visa.

Whereas a British Citizen can't bring a Non EEA, EU, EEC, (Whatever) Spouse into the UK without fulfilling a great deal of Immigration stipulations to obtain a Visa.

As I previously stated:it seems like the UK has a two Tier Immigration Policy. With European Countries seemingly at Tier 1. and Thailand in Tier 2!

It also seems Ironic that the MPs that voted for the new Visa Rules,Which are Causing the Anguish to British Families,are the very ones that voted to pass the new Rules/Legislation,as required by the Home Office,before implimentation.

[MrZM]

7.1.1. An amount based on the cash savings above £16,000 held by the applicant, their partner, or both jointly for at least the 6 months prior to the date of application and under their control can count towards the financial requirement where applicable. (£16,000 is the level of savings at which a person generally ceases to be eligible for income-related benefits)

It's strange why they allow savings to be joint.

But they won't allow joint earnings.

[7by7]

MAJIC,

We are supposed to be talking about the new UK family migration rules!

It is you who keeps on bringing up the red herring of EEA migration; I merely pointed out that the EEA rules work both ways and that many British people take advantage of them to live in other EEA countries.

For some reason you twisted this to bring up the Surinder Singh ruling!

I guess the only way to deal with your off topic rants and your factual errors is to ignore them; which I will do in future.

[7by7]

Mr ZM,

1) Under the old rules, anyone contributing towards the financial support of sponsor and applicant had to provide evidence of their ability to do so in the form of proof of income, for example pay slips if employed or accounts if self employed, and their overall financial situation by means of bank statements or similar.

So yes, the ECO did know about debt repayments and other regular outgoings.

2) Having been involved in forums like this for a considerable period, I would say that yes, lot's of people complained about the old rules! Whatever the rules are, there will always be people who don't qualify and they will, usually, complain. All we can hope for is a system which is as fair as is possible; this current system is not that.

3) It is impossible to say whether or not a visa would be issued in such general terms as you describe, each application was treated on it's own merits; still is apart from this arbitrary financial requirement.

However, if the couple were relaying solely on third party support and the person offering that support could show they had the means to do so then the financial requirement would have been met.

I am unable to answer your questions re statistics without doing some research; which I'm not going to do at this time of night.

[theoldgit]

Off topic post removed as well as a response.

This thread is about the recent report by MP's, not about who may have beaten the system.