UK visa rule challenge rejected by High Court

[hotrod4098]

if any one can bring a thai to the uk..and live on £14k..then thats not much of a life..

half would need to go back to mama..so whats left

[Jay Sata]

The problem Mrs May faces is tinkering with the current rules will have a knock on effect. If the income level was dropped to £14k that would probably allow tens of thousands more migrants to enter the country.

Not a wise move with an election coming up soon.

[steve187]

In 2006 over 53,000 visas were issued to partners to enter the UK,

in 2011 35,000.

in 2012 31,000 (that may reflect the impact of the new salary threshold for overseas spouses).

The top country for partner visas in 2012 was Pakistan -7,000, India - 2,900, Bangladesh - 2,000, USA -1,800. Thailand comes in 5th place

[hotrod4098]

average rent or mortgage is around £7800..council tax..£1000*..£8500..so if its £14000..how can you like with out benefits...

[7by7]

No one is saying it would be a particularly good life; but British couples living on income support prove that it's possible. As I said in this post.

May wont change her mind unless Parliament or the courts make her.

The report of the parliamentary review and this judgement, even though the appeal actually failed, are both a start.

As for reducing the minimum income figure allowing tens of thousands more immigrants to enter the country; the actual family settlement figures quoted by Steve187 show that to be a lie.

As does the 2011 consultation document.

As has been repeatedly said in other threads on this topic, these new requirements are a sop to the right wing of the Conservative party but will do very little to reduce the total number of immigrants entering the UK from outside the EEA. Most of whom enter via the PBS route and this minimum income level doesn't apply to them.

Edited to add link.

Edited July 7, 2013 by 7by7

[Jay Sata]

In 2006 over 53,000 visas were issued to partners to enter the UK,

in 2011 35,000.

in 2012 31,000 (that may reflect the impact of the new salary threshold for overseas spouses).

The top country for partner visas in 2012 was Pakistan -7,000, India - 2,900, Bangladesh - 2,000, USA -1,800. Thailand comes in 5th place

I would imagine the increased language requirements have influenced those figures. Add the requirement for £18600 income and together the numbers come down.

[7by7]

In 2006 over 53,000 visas were issued to partners to enter the UK,

in 2011 35,000.

in 2012 31,000 (that may reflect the impact of the new salary threshold for overseas spouses).

The top country for partner visas in 2012 was Pakistan -7,000, India - 2,900, Bangladesh - 2,000, USA -1,800. Thailand comes in 5th place

I would imagine the increased language requirements have influenced those figures. Add the requirement for £18600 income and together

the numbers come down.

The A1 language requirement came into force 29 November 2010.

As can be seen from the consultation document linked to in my last post, there were 38,440 partner visas issued in 2010.

You imagine wrongly.

[MrZM]

When these rules were made something defiantly went wrong, and one thing for sure is logic.

The figure of £18,600, is about right but some disagree but it would be impossible to please everyone.

Where is the logic??

A British man with a thai wife and has 3 children with dual nationality needs an income of £18,600.

A British man with a thai wife and has 3 children who are thai nationals, needs to meet the requirement of £18,600 plus £2,400 extra per child.

Where's the logic???

An employed man who earns £15,000 per year and has the required savings can meet the requirement.

A self employed man who earns £15,000 per year can not use his savings to meet the requirement.

Where is the logic??

I could go on.

One thing for sure which was a good idea, was ensuring that applicants meet the standard of speaking, reading and writing English. It is very important.

I live in Thailand, though I'm far from fluent, I speak enough to get around, and it's important, and makes life easier without having to rely on my wife.

[Jay Sata]

One key point that has been missed is that someone earning around £14k before tax (a sum 7by7 has suggested as being fair) would be hard pushed to fund a holiday or trip to Thailand to meet a future spouse plus the follow up trips to develop the relationship and marry etc.

As we all know there is also the dowry/sinsod plus all the other extras.

These would be key points exploited by a government barrister in any appeal.

[7by7]

Two points, Mr. Sata.

1) Although this is a Thai based forum and so we do tend to concentrate on that country, these rules and requirements apply to all non EEA nationals seeking entry to the UK under the family migration route.

2) If a person has too low an income to fund a trip abroad then they wont meet a non EEA national they want to marry whilst abroad.

So there wont be a settlement visa to appeal.

So there wont be an appeal at which any barrister can exploit any point about any sponsor not having enough income!

Two words spring to mind more and more often when reading your posts on this subject: straws, clutching.

Of course, sponsor and applicant could meet each other while the applicant was in the UK, or maybe the sponsor had saved enough for a holiday.

The point I'm making, and have made ever since this debate started, is that the government expect a British couple on income support to survive on far less income than they demand a couple has where one of the partners is an immigrant.

So either the income support level is to low, or the financial requirement is too high.

Which, Mr. Sata, do you think it is?

[Northpoint]

When I heard this on the news today I wondered if anyone would have posted anything about it.

Glad to see that TVE is on the ball.

Not glad to see that the usual suspects from both sides have already used this topic to yet again air there ignorant prejudices rather than discus this very important ruling!

Getting back to the actual topic; does anyone know if the appellants have been given leave to appeal to a higher court?

Yes they have, but the Home Secretary has also been given leave to appeal the recommendation regarding proportionality

The guest speaker at the Pattaya Expats Club yesterday was one of our sponsors, the owner of Key Visa CO. His company is highly regarded by our members. He and his staff deal with Brittish and Australian clients. He mentioned that a decision on the Highcourt appeal should be made in about three weeks time. He was cautiously confident that the appeal will be successful. I hope he is right and wish our Brittish cousins luck.

On a side note, he mentioned that the application fee for an English settlement visa was THB 43000, compared to our Australian Embassy fee of THB 84000, which is not refundable. He mentioned to me in private, that dealing with the Australian Embassy in Bangkok was a pain in the backside, compared to dealing with yours.

[7by7]

With respect to your members, if they hold Key Visa and it's owner in any sort of regard; they do not know him.

The total cost of visa and leave to remain fees for the UK comes to a lot more than 43,000 baht; and none of them are refundable.

Wonder why he didn't mention that.

[norrona]

One key point that has been missed is that someone earning around £14k before tax (a sum 7by7 has suggested as being fair) would be hard pushed to fund a holiday or trip to Thailand to meet a future spouse plus the follow up trips to develop the relationship and marry etc.

As we all know there is also the dowry/sinsod plus all the other extras.

These would be key points exploited by a government barrister in any appeal.

there may have been for you but not for everyone? definitely not me!

my personal opinion on qualifying is this is what is called for and in order to keep out even more drains on the purse of the U.K...I am all for it and really believe if you can't afford to pay for yourself and your wife and her/your kids then don't bring them here!

[7by7]

Norrona,

As has been said many, many times:

• Under the old rules sponsors and applicants had to prove they could be supported and accommodated without recourse to public funds.
• Under both the old and these new rules, applicants cannot claim public funds (with a couple of exceptions) until they have ILR.
• So under both sets of rules, family migrants did and do not represent a drain on the public purse!

Don't fall for the government's and right wing press's propaganda.

[Northpoint]

With respect to your members, if they hold Key Visa and it's owner in any sort of regard; they do not know him.

The total cost of visa and leave to remain fees for the UK comes to a lot more than 43,000 baht; and none of them are refundable.

Wonder why he didn't mention that.

I think he was referring to the initial visa application fee only. I am not familiar with your remain fees or many of your other immigration rules, so I better keep my mouth shut and stick to Australian Immigration matters. Congratulation on Andy Murray winning Wimbledon and the Lions beating the Wallabies in the decider. You will probably flog us in the Ashes series as well.

[Jay Sata]

I share your opinion Norrona.

Marrying someone from outside the EU is expensive and can't be done on the cheap.

If you read the detail of the court case none of the applicants had any prospect of not being a burden on the

state.

Two of the three were already on benefits and would have supported their wives out of the taypayers money.

In all three cases tens of thousands of legal aid funded the appeal.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Jay Sata

[ava15]

Someone earning 14k and living with their parents for example could be putting away 700 or more a month.

Love all these generalisations.

Once again, people arriving on these types of visa cannot claim benefits. They arent a drain.

Edited July 8, 2013 by ava15

[7by7]

Indeed.

Even if the sponsor were in receipt of public funds, they would not be able to claim any extra due to their immigrant family members living with them.

Therefore the immigrant family members would not be any drain on the public purse.

Sorry for the use of bold, but some members still don't seem to have grasped this simple fact.

Unless they are deliberately ignoring it!

[7by7]

In all three cases tens of thousands of legal aid funded the appeal.

I have found nothing to confirm or deny this statement; can you direct me to it?

Whether or not anyone involved in this case, or any other, received legal aid is irrelevant, anyway.

One of the fundamental principles of British justice is that it should be available to all; that is what the legal aid system, though far from perfect, is for.

From your many posts on the subject you obviously believe that only the rich should be able to marry a foreigner and live in the UK with them.

Now it seems you also believe only the rich should be able to access justice!

[Jay Sata]

I'd like to read your defence of the applicants in the case we are discussing.

Of course they had legal aid as they were on benefits. The guy from Lebanon had only met his wife a couple of times in two years and had married by proxy.

Some members of the community live in extended family situations which would allow for indirect cross subsidy

from brothers/sisters who are not the sponsor but claiming benefits and housing.

The total cost of legal aid for immigration and asylum cases in 2009/10 was £90 million.

That would be better spent on the health service.

Your scheme would help a few farangs with Thai partners but would also allow tens of thousands more immigrants to come here.

A better scheme would be to allow some discretion for the few genuine borderline cases near the threshold. I doubt there are more than a handful of Thai partners barred by the current rules.

The number of partner and other family route entry clearance visas issued in the year ending March 2013 is 37,470. It has fallen by 16% compared with the year ending March 2012.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2013-07-04a.1385.0

Debate in the Lords July 4th

Edited July 8, 2013 by Jay Sata

[7by7]

I'd like to read your defence of the applicants in the case we are discussing.

All the necessary information is in the various links to the judgement and commentary on same already linked to in this topic; by yourself as well as others.

Is this another case where you haven't read a document you yourself linked to?

But to sum up; if the applicant's in this case, or any other, can show that they will be adequately supported and accommodated in the UK without anyone claiming any extra public funds due to their presence, which is still the rule, then that is, in my opinion, all that should be required to satisfy the maintenance and accommodation requirements.

In other words; the old system.

Some members of the community live in extended family situations which would allow for indirect cross subsidy

from brothers/sisters who are not the sponsor but claiming benefits and housing.

More straw clutching from you!

Under the old system it didn't matter who provided the accommodation or the financial support and whether or not that person or persons were receiving any public funds nor whether or not they lived in social housing.

No extra public funds could be claimed due to the immigrant family member(s) living with them; and that included social housing.

That rule has not changed.

Of course they had legal aid as they were on benefits.......The total cost of legal aid for immigration and asylum cases in 2009/10 was £90 million.

Proof, please. Also do you have any evidence to back up your £90million claim?

But thanks for confirming your belief that only the rich should be allowed access to justice in the UK.

Your scheme would help a few farangs with Thai partners but would also allow tens of thousands more immigrants to come here.

So? If they meet all the requirements of the rules, why not?

Ah, but as well as you only wanting rich people to be able to marry foreigners and live with them in the UK, as already shown, you also only want them to marry people from countries you approve of!

As official government figures already posted here, and now linked to by you, show, whilst devastating to some families these new rules have not caused a drop in family migration of 'tens of thousands;' 7137 over a year is not 'tens of thousands!'

Therefore reverting to the old rules is highly unlikely to cause the sudden influx you fear.

The better and fairer solution would be to revert to the old maintenance and accommodation rules; using, as I have said elsewhere, the relevant income support level for a British family of the same size as a guide; or even setting that, plus housing costs, as the minimum.

As the government expects a British couple to survive on £5852.60 p.a. plus rent, why do they demand an immigrant couple earn so much more?

Edited July 8, 2013 by 7by7

[vinny]

Divided Families Day of Action 9 July 2013.

[Jay Sata]

The total cost of legal aid for immigration and asylum cases in 2009/10 was £90 million.

Kenneth Clarke http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7895199/Kenneth-Clarke-to-slash-Legal-Aid-budget.html

[7by7]

OK, I will accept that figure.

Now, where is your proof that the people involved in this case received legal aid.

Will you confirm or deny that you believe only the rich, i.e. those that can afford it without legal aid, should have access to justice in the UK?

[MaprangHolmes]

The total cost of legal aid for immigration and asylum cases in 2009/10 was £90 million.

Kenneth Clarke http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7895199/Kenneth-Clarke-to-slash-Legal-Aid-budget.html

A more detailed link http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmpublic/legalaid/memo/la75.htm it is a lot of money but you have to look at why so much money is being spent in the first place. Maybe they should be looked at the barristers, this feature makes interesting reading http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10099863/Legal-firms-rake-in-millions-from-legal-aid.html so maybe it is not so much the immigrants that are abusing the system maybe it is the people that are working within that sector.

Edited July 8, 2013 by MaprangHolmes

[7by7]

Divided Families Day of Action 9 July 2013.

From the link

Sarah Teather, Liberal democrat MP for Brent Central, gets is spot on.....

Why are the rules being so rigidly and inflexibly enforced? It is because income probably has nothing to do with it. It is not really about trying to prevent a burden on the taxpayer; it is actually about the Government trying to demonstrate that we are reducing the number of foreigners coming into the UK. That is driving it. If anything else were driving it, it would be implemented in a far more common-sense way, there would be much more flexibility around it, and it would not have been set at a level to keep out as many people as possible.

Indeed.

Lord Taylor of Warwick, as quoted in the article:

“No blacks, no Irish, no dogs”; that was the sign in many windows in Britain in the late 1940s when my father was looking for accommodation. Growing up in Jamaica, he had thought of Britain as the mother land. After fighting for the British Army in the Second World War, he was shocked to be asked, when he came to Britain, when he would be going back home to the Caribbean. But after scoring a century for Warwickshire County Cricket Club he changed overnight from being described in the local Sports Argus as a “Jamaican immigrant” to “local Brummie hero”.

Let us fast forward to August of last year. Instead of racist signs in windows, millions of British TV viewers and thousands in the Olympic stadium cheered a Somali immigrant running to double Olympic gold. What was also significant was that the man from Mogadishu, Mo Farah, was wearing a British vest. Today, many of Britain’s high flyers in public life, business, entertainment and sport are from immigrant backgrounds. This is why the all-party parliamentary group report is so important. It is not an inquiry just about a minority group; it is about the Britain of the future.

[7by7]

The total cost of legal aid for immigration and asylum cases in 2009/10 was £90 million.

Kenneth Clarke http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7895199/Kenneth-Clarke-to-slash-Legal-Aid-budget.html

A more detailed link http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmpublic/legalaid/memo/la75.htm it is a lot of money but you have to look at why so much money is being spent in the first place. Maybe they should be looked at the barristers, this feature makes interesting reading http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10099863/Legal-firms-rake-in-millions-from-legal-aid.html so maybe it is not so much the immigrants that are abusing the system maybe it is the people that are working within that sector.

Indeed.

It would be interesting to see figures showing how many immigration appeals funded by legal aid were successful.

In other words, how much time and money was wasted, and grief and heartache caused, because the UKBA and their employees got the original decision wrong?

I suspect quite a few. After all, this government have abolished the right of appeal in family visitor cases simply because so many of those appeals were successful!

Edited July 8, 2013 by 7by7

[norrona]

Norrona,

As has been said many, many times:

• Under the old rules sponsors and applicants had to prove they could be supported and accommodated without recourse to public funds.
• Under both the old and these new rules, applicants cannot claim public funds (with a couple of exceptions) until they have ILR.
• So under both sets of rules, family migrants did and do not represent a drain on the public purse!

Don't fall for the government's and right wing press's propaganda.

I appreciate the no re-course to public funds, even experienced it myself when my wife first came here but..... under the old rules and labour there are lots of people who got here and cannot afford to be here without the help of working tax credits etc or top ups on their wages, my problem is those who suffer are like myself and the others who are genuinely married and doing things by the book....all because certain ethnicity's have milked the system and made a mockery out of it over the last 30 or so years, if you spoke and wrote Urdu for the last 20 years you would have been kept in work by the civil service and probably be commanding a top salary!

So my problem is not what they are doing now in order to stem the flow but why it has been allowed and the people who have been milking it!

Falling for the right wing propaganda I will not do..... I live here and my eyes are wide open as to how it got to such a mess!

Next stop for my wife and I is Croydon on Wednesday for ILR..... rant over

[norrona]

To follow up on my post I will also share my personal experience from approx 2 years ago when we had some problems with my wifes FLR visa and it got rejected and we had to appeal, we were given a date to appear in front of the judge at Tribunals House in London.....

When we checked our names in with the court clerk there were lots of people playing the game with the 'no English' when they were being asked questions then looking round for the appointed translator....how do I know they were appointed? because we had our own Thai translator just in case my wife was asked questions in their jargon and didn't understand...I was told I couldn't translate as I could be dictating the answers, our translator was 'free of charge' and supplied by the courts.

My barrister that day(paid for by me)actually said it makes a change for him to be there in a 'private' job, when I questioned him on it he was a bit embarrassed and said he normally gets paid for by the state 'legal aid'

It was 2 years ago but I distinctly remember 99% of that place and the people inside it, one lady was there on behalf of her husband who was meant to appear that day but was at home sick...no doctors note etc, there were a few like that from memory....

[MrZM]

This topic is going nowhere, like the previous topics it has ended up in a conflict as such between 2 members.

If you are claiming income support, means you are already working and earning money on top of this. So no they are not living solely on income support. "Support" hence the meaning.

The figure of £18,600 is fair and just. It is only a small proportion who can't apply and I bet from that small proportion, they wouldn't even qualify under the old rules, without public help ie 3rd party support.

Using such bypasses does not show you are able to take care of your family.

The figure is set at a low amount in comparison to the average wage in the UK.

In the cases shown as example, 2 of the 3 were receiving benefits which were there income, how in any world should that be suffice, regardless of a financial limit.

The taxpayer should benefit others because.....

Most comments are through knowledge if what your being told, no one is thinking logically. Even the rules of how the financial can be met isn't thought out logically.