Minimum income threshold for family migrants

[ThaiVisaExpress]

The UKBA website has this today. It seems that the Home Office is appealing against the High Court judgment. I'm not sure exactly which parts of the judgment they are appealing against as the Judge upheld the 18,600 GBP threshold, but made recommendations on other areas of the financial requirements. As before, applications, where the only reason for refusal is that the threshold of 18,600 has not been met, are on hold.

26 July 2013

The Home Office today, 26 July 2013, filed its appeal against a High Court judgment on the minimum income threshold for spouses/partners and children applying in the family route.

The judgment affects non-EEA national spouses/partners and children applying to settle in the UK with someone who is already resident here.

The Home Office will continue to put on hold decisions in some spouse/partner and child settlement visa and leave to remain applications until the case is finally determined by the Courts.

A Home Office spokesperson said:

'Our family changes were brought in to make sure that spouses coming to live in the UK would not become reliant on the taxpayer for financial support and would be able to integrate effectively. We are pleased that the High Court judgment of 5 July supports the basis of our approach.

'However, we believe matters of public policy, including the detail of how the minimum income threshold should operate, are for the Government and Parliament to determine, not the Courts. We also believe the detailed requirements of the policy are proportionate to its aims. We are therefore pursuing an appeal against the judgment.

'We have asked the Court of Appeal to expedite this. In the meantime, where an applicant does not meet the minimum income threshold and there is no other reason to refuse it, the application will be put on hold.'

Edited July 27, 2013 by ThaiVisaExpress

[7by7]

It looks like, despite this ruling and the report of the all party inquiry, that the government are sticking to their guns.

So it will mean that an appeal will have to go all the way to the ECHR before anything changes; if it does..

As an aside; the out come of this case is very important. I hope that posters stick to the case this time and do not try to drag the topic into irrelevant arguments about legal aid and benefits.

[bangkockney]

However, we believe matters of public policy ... are for the Government and Parliament to determine, not the Courts.

That's a funny statement.

[Basil B]

However, we believe matters of public policy ... are for the Government and Parliament to determine, not the Courts.

That's a funny statement.

Is not part of the issue that this is a decision of the Home Secretary without consent of parliament?

Edited July 27, 2013 by Basil B

[7by7]

I stand to be corrected, but understand the position to be:-

The Home Secretary has the power to amend the immigration rules by means of a statutory instrument; which was the case with these amendments to the family migration rules and most other ones, too.

This means the formal approval of Parliament is not required in the same way as it is to turn a Bill into an Act.

However, a member of either house can put down a motion within 40 days of the SI being published requesting that it be annulled. This is very rare, though, and in the House of Commons wont be debated unless enough members agree or the opposition put down a formal motion.

Debates in the House of Lords are even rarer.

If the motion is debated and carried then the Queen makes an Order in Council annulling the SI.

Depending on how the original Act is worded, in about 10% of cases the SI actually needs formal acceptance by Parliament to become law; but amendments to the immigration rules don't fall into this category.

[Somtamme]

I stand to be corrected, but understand the position to be:-

The Home Secretary has the power to amend the immigration rules by means of a statutory instrument; which was the case with these amendments to the family migration rules and most other ones, too.

This means the formal approval of Parliament is not required in the same way as it is to turn a Bill into an Act.

However, a member of either house can put down a motion within 40 days of the SI being published requesting that it be annulled. This is very rare, though, and in the House of Commons wont be debated unless enough members agree or the opposition put down a formal motion.

Debates in the House of Lords are even rarer.

If the motion is debated and carried then the Queen makes an Order in Council annulling the SI.

Depending on how the original Act is worded, in about 10% of cases the SI actually needs formal acceptance by Parliament to become law; but amendments to the immigration rules don't fall into this category.

@7by7

Yes amendments to the immigration rules don't fall into this category. The Home Secretary has the option to introduce regulations through Parliament. But in this case the Home Office never implemented legislation and instead introduced the proposals of minimum income/savings through policy. Notable human rights lawyers such as Geoffrey Robertson QC have already said that in the 'absence of primary legislation, an indicative motion in this House would not fetter the discretion of or bind the European Court of Human Rights'.

When this policy was debated in Parliament as quoted in Hansard (Parliament, 2012) Yvette Cooper the then shadow Home Secretary quite rightly challenged these proposals;

"The truth is that this announcement does not deal with the growing problem under the Home Secretary’s Government. Too many foreign criminals are staying in Britain—not because of article 8, but, in the words of a borders inspector, because of “difficulty in obtaining travel documentation” resulting from the Border Agency’s weaknesses in enforcement and administration. This is another example of problems that have got worse for the Border Agency in the last two years.

We will work with the Home Secretary to get the detail right and on some of the sensible points she has made, but statements and parliamentary motions are not enough; she also needs to take action on the practical problems that have got worse on her watch."

I'm not sure what the borders inspector was referring to, but this would have been an interesting point to have been clarified.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm120611/debtext/120611-0002.htm#1206117000003

[Jowels]

Sorry to bump an old thread, but does anyone have an update on this?

I'm assuming the 18,600 threshold is still in place, and will be for the foreseeable future.

[ThaiVisaExpress]

Nothing has happened yet to change the current position. It may take some time to go through the judicial process.

The 18,600 threshold is still in place.