UK visa rule challenge rejected by High Court

[7by7]

norrona,

Although a couple where one was British and the other an immigrant can, indeed must, claim tax credits as a couple, they could not be used as a source of funds under the old system for the initial visa.

You say you don't want to fall for right wing propaganda, but your comments about a certain ethnicity milking the system is doing just that!

You also seem to be saying that it was right for your wife to have an appointed translator at her appeal in case there were technical points she couldn't understand but wrong for other's to do the same!

I cannot comment on the circumstances any appellant who was sick as I do not know them; but appellants do not have to appear at the appeal; indeed many can't as they are still outside the UK and it is impossible to obtain a visa just in order to attend an immigration appeal.

[7by7]

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.

Wrong, sorry.

See Income Support.

Many people receiving income support are not working and have no other income. The amounts I have quoted are the maximum amounts available for people in that circumstance. Those working have their income support amount adjusted according to how much they earn.

The figure may be below the average wage, but that average wage is calculated using not only the low paid, but city bankers and lawyers, for example, earning £300,000 pa plus!

£18,600 p.a. is well above the minimum wage, even more above the amount the government expects a couple living solely on income support to survive on and 47% of the working population, especially those working in the public sector, earn less than this.

It can be tedious reading the many posts, but when people keep on posting incorrect information as fact I feel they have to be corrected.

Edited July 8, 2013 by 7by7

[Kevin1908]

As this is a Thai forum it probably makes more sense to see how it impacts on those of us in relationships with Thais. Rather more relevant than taking a dislike to the individuals involved.

It clearly pressurises the government to look at the ways people can meet the required income levels and that has to be a big plus for the future.

Griping about spongers is pointless. We all have opinions but the main concern for us should be fair treatment for EU citizens and their non-EU citizen partners.

Perhaps this judgement is a start!

The thread is about a judgement in the UK about all would be family immigrants into the UK, a partner of an EU citizen bringing in a non EU citizen as a wife is till another immigrant coming into a country where immigration has to be cut down.

I posted about this a couple of weeks back and the post was deleted by the mods. There are 528000 immigrants to the UK as quoted in the press. There are 12000 settlement visas. You do the maths. A mere 10% cut in total immigration would be more than 4 times the total number from settlement visas and where is the Government hitting the hardest. There are over 100000 coming for work, that is more than 100000 that have no right what so ever but the UK allows them to come. 12000 spouses of British citizens is a problem it would appear.

[Jay Sata]

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....

7by7 always cites the 'no recourse to public funds' argument but does not appreciate the huge sums being spent on translators in the UK.

Anyone has the right to demand a translator and solicitors will always insist on using one whatever your ability to speak English.

[Kevin1908]

7by7 always cites the 'no recourse to public funds' argument but does not appreciate the huge sums being spent on translators in the UK.

Anyone has the right to demand a translator and solicitors will always insist on using one whatever your ability to speak English.

With that I think I agree. Given that legal people make questions as difficult as they can then if my Englsih was not perfect I would expect a translator. The answer is for the legal people to speak in plain English.

[norrona]

norrona,

Although a couple where one was British and the other an immigrant can, indeed must, claim tax credits as a couple, they could not be used as a source of funds under the old system for the initial visa.

You say you don't want to fall for right wing propaganda, but your comments about a certain ethnicity milking the system is doing just that!

You also seem to be saying that it was right for your wife to have an appointed translator at her appeal in case there were technical points she couldn't understand but wrong for other's to do the same!

I cannot comment on the circumstances any appellant who was sick as I do not know them; but appellants do not have to appear at the appeal; indeed many can't as they are still outside the UK and it is impossible to obtain a visa just in order to attend an immigration appeal.

I am glad you brought that up...I didn't say it was or wasn't right! I was just pointing out how much money is made/spent/wasted on this whole thing and mostly by people in my eyes don't deserve it.....

I got my opinion from actually appearing at the tribunals courts and as this is still a free country...not literally I will always have an opinion, no way was I aiming my comments at one race of people I was merely saying if you could converse in Urdu then you'd have made a lot of money over the years..I used that race as they are a main example of immigrant that have come here alone, set up home and then sent for the relatives, make of that what you will but they have led the whole system a merry dance....good and bad in everyone, don't make me out to be prejudice please....I experienced that when I lived and worked in Thailand and it wasn't very nice being on the receiving end.

[7by7]

7by7 always cites the 'no recourse to public funds' argument but does not appreciate the huge sums being spent on translators in the UK.

Anyone has the right to demand a translator and solicitors will always insist on using one whatever your ability to speak English.

I know we have wandered away from the topic a bit; but really!

If this were a topic about requiring immigrants to speak English (or Welsh or Scottish Gaelic), a measure I'm in favour of, then your comment might be relevant; but it isn't.

This topic is about the new financial requirement and the recent high court ruling.

A ruling which, if I may say so, agrees more with my previously posted viewpoint and that of the all party review than with yours.

You really are clutching at straws now, aren't you.

norrona, you not only used that race as the main example of immigrants requiring translators, you also accused them of milking the system.

Are you now withdrawing that particular remark?

As a point of historical interest, the first, and major, wave of immigration from the Indian sub continent occurred because people from that part of the world were invited, yes invited, to come to the UK to fill labour shortages.

Just like immigration from the West Indies.

They came because we asked them to!

Edited July 8, 2013 by 7by7

[ava15]

7by7 I really admire your patience.

Spot the daily mail readers!

[Kevin1908]

Financial requirements should be higher, not lower. The UK is being bankrupted. Not just by poor immigrants but by those that then leech from the welfare state. There's a lot wrong but this is one positive step in the right direction.

If you think you can raise a child on £2,400 a year you are misguided.

The country is being bunkrupted by global corporations paying sod all tax and the £64 billion black economy. 12000 migrants due to settlement doesn't even dent that.

[theoldgit]

Can I remind members that this thread is about the recent High Court Judgement, nothing more.

[norrona]

7by7 always cites the 'no recourse to public funds' argument but does not appreciate the huge sums being spent on translators in the UK.

Anyone has the right to demand a translator and solicitors will always insist on using one whatever your ability to speak English.

I know we have wandered away from the topic a bit; but really!

If this were a topic about requiring immigrants to speak English (or Welsh or Scottish Gaelic), a measure I'm in favour of, then your comment might be relevant; but it isn't.

This topic is about the new financial requirement and the recent high court ruling.

A ruling which, if I may say so, agrees more with my previously posted viewpoint and that of the all party review than with yours.

You really are clutching at straws now, aren't you.

norrona, you not only used that race as the main example of immigrants requiring translators, you also accused them of milking the system.

Are you now withdrawing that particular remark?

As a point of historical interest, the first, and major, wave of immigration from the Indian sub continent occurred because people from that part of the world were invited, yes invited, to come to the UK to fill labour shortages.

Just like immigration from the West Indies.

They came because we asked them to!

If you refer to a Pakistani person as Indian then good luck to you....and vice versa!

I stand by what I wrote and do not read the Daily Mail or am I a racist.

[7by7]

At the risk of incurring theoldgit's wrath for wandering even further off topic and into a geography lesson; the Indian sub continent is a geographical area comprising several countries, including India and Pakistan. Also known as South Asia.

I do wish people would check their facts before posting!

Edited July 8, 2013 by 7by7

[norrona]

Not wanting to go off topic also I wish people would not class others as racist or the like because they made a observation & remarked on it!

[norrona]

Not wanting to go off topic also I wish people would not class others as racist or the like because they made a observation & remarked on it!

[MAJIC]

@ 7by7 Post No 51 ....................(too many quotes to reply normally)

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"?

The same reason that Thailand Immigration demands seasoned money in Thai Bank accounts,because they do not want Foreigners to be a burden on the State.

Needless to say,much more than Thais need to live on!

[MAJIC]

Not wanting to go off topic also I wish people would not class others as racist or the like because they made a observation & remarked on it!I

It's typical of the way some people attempt to gag others! it's called the Race Card, or get off the hook,by dubious means!

[Kevin1908]

@ 7by7 Post No 51 ....................(too many quotes to reply normally)

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"?

The same reason that Thailand Immigration demands seasoned money in Thai Bank accounts,because they do not want Foreigners to be a burden on the State.

Needless to say,much more than Thais need to live on!

Hardly the same issue is it.

[MAJIC]

@ 7by7 Post No 51 ....................(too many quotes to reply normally)

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"?

The same reason that Thailand Immigration demands seasoned money in Thai Bank accounts,because they do not want Foreigners to be a burden on the State.

Needless to say,much more than Thais need to live on!

Hardly the same issue is it.

Yes it is the same issue! every Country has their Immigration rules,why accept it from Thailand,but not the UK,could it be that there are those that think the UK should change their Immigration rules to suit everyone in the world??? or is it we have a very soft Track Record,and we are expected to cave in to every demand.This Home Secretary is on a mission,with the backing of the People,don't expect too many giveaways,on this one!

[Jay Sata]

This thread is about the case in the High Court funded by legal aid that may or may not have some future influence on the financial gate that permits a spouse to enter the UK. The three applicants were funded by legal aid. How do I know that? Well the first person from Lebanaon, a refugee, stated he was only earning around £15k before tax and the other two were on benefits.

7by7 accuses me of not knowing they were on legal aid but the truth is if they could afford the legal fees they'd have passed the financial barrier so would not have to have brought the case.

From a previous poster

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

So we can now assume that less than 1800 and I suspect around 1200 visa's were issued in 2012 to those of us with Thai partners.

No big problem? The success rate is pretty good and it weeds out the non genuine applicants.

As others have suggested the issue we cannot talk about here is ethnicity.

7by7 will only ever talk about how easy it is to live on peanuts.

He won't answer direct questions as to why this case was funded by you and me from our taxes on what for the applicants was a lost cause but for the lawyers was a money spinner.

[MAJIC]

This thread is about the case in the High Court funded by legal aid that may or may not have some future influence on the financial gate that permits a spouse to enter the UK. The three applicants were funded by legal aid. How do I know that? Well the first person from Lebanaon, a refugee, stated he was only earning around £15k before tax and the other two were on benefits.

7by7 accuses me of not knowing they were on legal aid but the truth is if they could afford the legal fees they'd have passed the financial barrier so would not have to have brought the case.

From a previous poster

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

So we can now assume that less than 1800 and I suspect around 1200 visa's were issued in 2012 to those of us with Thai partners.

No big problem? The success rate is pretty good and it weeds out the non genuine applicants.

As others have suggested the issue we cannot talk about here is ethnicity.

7by7 will only ever talk about how easy it is to live on peanuts.

He won't answer direct questions as to why this case was funded by you and me from our taxes on what for the applicants was a lost cause but for the lawyers was a money spinner.

I wish he would give me some tips,on how to live cheaply. £18,600,which is buttons,considering the average UK Income is £26500. Tailor made arguments are never impressive! ......Even Cleric Choudrey,gets 26,000 in benefits.

[Bladefire]

You will struggle to get anywhere near that wage here in the Midlands believe me!

[Bladefire]

Luckily i do, but work hard up and down the country in all weathers.

[Kevin1908]

@ 7by7 Post No 51 ....................(too many quotes to reply normally)

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"?

The same reason that Thailand Immigration demands seasoned money in Thai Bank accounts,because they do not want Foreigners to be a burden on the State.

Needless to say,much more than Thais need to live on!

Hardly the same issue is it.

Yes it is the same issue! every Country has their Immigration rules,why accept it from Thailand,but not the UK,could it be that there are those that think the UK should change their Immigration rules to suit everyone in the world??? or is it we have a very soft Track Record,and we are expected to cave in to every demand.This Home Secretary is on a mission,with the backing of the People,don't expect too many giveaways,on this one!

No it isn't the same issue. Thailand is making the Immigrant pay. The UK is making the Sponsor pay so it is not the same issue. In the UK the immigrant has no recourse to public funds.

The Home Secretary has the backing of the people. I wonder if the people realise that over half a million immigrants are coming to the UK and settlement visas number 12000. The Home Secretary has you fooled.

[Morakot]

How new UK spouse visa rules turned me into an Englishman in exile

Changes to UK visas for foreign spouses are barring thousands of citizens from going home. My choice? Exile in Australia, or breaking up my family

Richard Fabb guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 9 July 2013 02.57 BST

Think of exiles in modern history, and you think of people forced to live away from where? Castro’s Cuba? Franco’s Spain? Apartheid South Africa? Well, now you can add David Cameron’s UK to that list. And no, that’s not a typo – nor am I about to make a leftie jibe about people who can’t bear to live under the Tories or another series of Downton Abbey. I’m talking about real exiles; people who cannot go back to their homeland. People like me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/09/uk-australia-spouse-visa

[MaprangHolmes]

This thread is about the case in the High Court funded by legal aid that may or may not have some future influence on the financial gate that permits a spouse to enter the UK. The three applicants were funded by legal aid. How do I know that? Well the first person from Lebanaon, a refugee, stated he was only earning around £15k before tax and the other two were on benefits.

7by7 accuses me of not knowing they were on legal aid but the truth is if they could afford the legal fees they'd have passed the financial barrier so would not have to have brought the case.

From a previous poster

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

So we can now assume that less than 1800 and I suspect around 1200 visa's were issued in 2012 to those of us with Thai partners.

No big problem? The success rate is pretty good and it weeds out the non genuine applicants.

As others have suggested the issue we cannot talk about here is ethnicity.

7by7 will only ever talk about how easy it is to live on peanuts.

He won't answer direct questions as to why this case was funded by you and me from our taxes on what for the applicants was a lost cause but for the lawyers was a money spinner.

I wish he would give me some tips,on how to live cheaply. £18,600,which is buttons,considering the average UK Income is £26500. Tailor made arguments are never impressive! ......Even Cleric Choudrey,gets 26,000 in benefits.

If you take that the UK government say that a single person can live on £71.70 per week (Income support level) so £286 per month they person would also get an housing allowance of £88.44 so £380.29 (Assuming the person is over 35 if under then it would be less and living in Leicester) this would make a total annual income of £7995. That would be the total amount the law says a single person over 35 would be entitled too. Now why would a person who is bringing his wife over to the UK need to have an income of £18,600, when the UK government say that an English person can live on £7995 would you really need an extra £10,605.

As another poster has already said, trying to earn that amount in areas outside of London would not be easy in the current climate and surely cost of living has to be a factor, you are not going to rent say a 1 bedroom flat for £350 per month in London but you could in the Midlands.

I have used a single persons figures as everyone knows you can not claim any extra money for your wife until she has ILR and have also assumed there are know children.

http://www.nwleics.gov.uk/pages/current_lha_rates

https://www.gov.uk/income-support/what-youll-get

[Waterloo]

Just because someone cannot meet the magical figure of £18,600 does not necessarily mean that they do not contribute to society or are a scrounger.

There are plenty of people out there who work long hard hours in jobs that society needs doing who would not be able to meet this figure.

Yes immigration has been badly managed for a number of years, but these new rules are not dealing with the real problem, they are just window dressing so Theresa May can pretend she is doing something.

The real issue is freedom of movement rules in europe, but that is a much harder issue so lets pick on the vulnerable.

[Waterloo]

I for one will try and leave work early to attend the meeting today

Edited July 9, 2013 by Waterloo

[7by7]

The UK government believes a couple can live on £5852.60 p.a. plus rent; otherwise they would increase the income support level.

No one, as far as I am aware, wants immigrants coming into the UK and being a burden upon the state; which they can't as they can't claim public funds until they have ILR (except contribution related benefits that they qualify for through their NICs)!

How many more times have people got to be told that before they believe it?

Just because Thailand does it as well doesn't make it right.

Norrona, who called you racist?

Wasn't me, all I accused you of was falling for right wing propaganda.

Immigrants do not come into the UK and 'milk the system' simply because they can't.

Despite what the anti immigrant lobby say.

[MAJIC]

Just because someone cannot meet the magical figure of £18,600 does not necessarily mean that they do not contribute to society or are a scrounger.

There are plenty of people out there who work long hard hours in jobs that society needs doing who would not be able to meet this figure.

Yes immigration has been badly managed for a number of years, but these new rules are not dealing with the real problem, they are just window dressing so Theresa May can pretend she is doing something.

The real issue is freedom of movement rules in europe, but that is a much harder issue so lets pick on the vulnerable.

"The real issue is freedom of movement rules in Europe"

I have to agree with that statement!

[7by7]

7by7 accuses me of not knowing they were on legal aid but the truth is if they could afford the legal fees they'd have passed the financial barrier so would not have to have brought the case.

Pure supposition on your part.

They may have had their costs paid by friends or relatives, friends or relatives who could also afford to support them and their spouses if need be until they could support themselves if the government hadn't abolished third party support.

Maybe the lawyers took them on as pro bono, particularly as the chamber concerned is actively campaigning to have the financial requirement changed to a more reasonable level.

He won't answer direct questions as to why this case was funded by you and me from our taxes on what for the applicants was a lost cause but for the lawyers was a money spinner

Well, you've not asked before!

Who says this case was funded by the tax payer? Only you. Evidence that all three (edit) any of the appellants in this case received legal aid, please.

7by7 will only ever talk about how easy it is to live on peanuts

I have never said it is easy to live on peanuts.

I have said that it is possible for a couple to live on a lot less than £18,600 p.a. Especially if, like many couples, us included, housing is provided by a friend or relative, in our case my parents, until both partners are working and can afford a place of their own.

Many, especially in the public sector and outside London and the South East earn less than £18,600p.a. As an example, have a look at this pay scale for nurses.

You will see that they have to rise quite a long way up the pay scale before they earn over £18,600p.a.!

Edited July 9, 2013 by 7by7