Update on Home Office appeal against spouse minimum income judgment

[ThaiVisaExpress]

Blatantly borrowed from another website, the latest on the Home Office appeal :

There have been "quite a few queries asking for updates on the spouse minimum income case, MM & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 1900 (Admin). The challenge to the rules essentially succeeded in the High Court but the Home Office have appealed to the Court of Appeal. ...........the Home Office appeal in the Court of Appeal is to be heard between 3 and 5 March 2013 ( sic). Judgment is likely to come some time after that."

I'm assuming that they mean 2014, not 2013.

Tony M

[theoldgit]

Thanks Tony, watch this space.

What's the position with those who are still in the application process, rules still stand?

[ThaiVisaExpress]

Yes, Rules still stand. Any applications where the applicant and sponsor don't meet the financial requirement ( and this is the only thing holding up a decision) are being held "pending", until the outcome of the appeal is known.

Tony M

[7by7]

Still a long way to go, I fear.

If the Court of Appeal rule against the Home Office, they'll no doubt take it to the Supreme Court.

If they lose there, then they'll take it to Brussels.

But progress is being made, and hopefully the judiciary at each level will have more sense than the government.

[bobrussell]

The key common sense comments seem to be:

"There are a variety of less intrusive responses available. They include:

i. reducing the minimum income required of the sponsor alone to £13,500; or thereabouts;

ii. permitting any savings over the £1,000 that may be spent on processing the application itself to be used to supplement the income figure;

iii. permitting account to be taken of the earning capacity of the spouse after entry or the satisfactorily supported maintenance undertakings of third parties;

iv. reducing to twelve months the period for which the pre estimate of financial viability is assessed."

Not too many of us would have an argument with these ideas!

Quite heavy reading but perhaps the Secretary of State should do some thinking before taking the appeal further IMO. No doubt she will not listen!

[Kevin1908]

The key common sense comments seem to be:

"There are a variety of less intrusive responses available. They include:

i. reducing the minimum income required of the sponsor alone to £13,500; or thereabouts;

ii. permitting any savings over the £1,000 that may be spent on processing the application itself to be used to supplement the income figure;

iii. permitting account to be taken of the earning capacity of the spouse after entry or the satisfactorily supported maintenance undertakings of third parties;

iv. reducing to twelve months the period for which the pre estimate of financial viability is assessed."

Not too many of us would have an argument with these ideas!

Quite heavy reading but perhaps the Secretary of State should do some thinking before taking the appeal further IMO. No doubt she will not listen!

Is there any estimate of how many people are actually unable to to get a visa who would like to get one but can't as a result of the earnings requirement. Seems to me we are not talking about a huge number of people and given that there was still a requirement to demonstrate an ability to support the spouse before the new rules were brought in then is there actually any impact on the numbers after the new rules came in.

To my mind the only impacts now will mean that many pensioners who don't have high expenditure can't get visas for spouses and low earners with high expenditure can.

I would prefer that the Home Office concentrated on the half a million plus immigrants to the UK or to the estimated 900,000 illegal immigrants rather than make British husbands/wives the scape goats for the immigration problem.

[bobrussell]

"The setting of the minimum income level to be provided by the sponsor at above the £13,400 level identified by the Migration Advisory Committee as the lowest maintenance threshold under the benefits and net fiscal approach (Conclusion 5.3). Such a level would be close to the adult minimum wage for a 40 hour week. Further the claimants have shown through by their experts that of the 422 occupations listed in the 2011 UK Earnings Index, only 301 were above the £18,600 threshold"

The statement above is in the judgement. It suggests significant groups in the UK are unable to meet these requirements.

"ii. The Migration Advisory Committee calculated that the minimum income figure of £18,600 would mean that 45% of the sponsors who had applied in 2009 and whose data they analysed would not be able to meet this requirement (Conclusions paragraph 5.18 at C 543)."

also:

"v. The income figure is set at a level higher than the average salaries for a great many trades and occupations in the United Kingdom (see [124 (i)] below). It is also introduced at a time of high unemployment, wage restraint, and real economic difficulty. It is further to be noted that a person working 40 hours per week for 52 weeks a year at the national minimum wage for adults over 21 of £6.31 per hour would earn £13,124 per annum and people under 21 somewhat less."

So 45% of sponsors would not be able to meet the requirement nor anyone on the minimum wage. A big chunk of the British people therefore cannot bring their partners to the UK whether they can support and accommodate them or not.

Not fair or just IMO. I am keen that the burden of proving the ability to afford to sponsor a partner should be fair and squarely with the sponsor. A high spender with a good salary is more of a problem than a careful spender on a lower salary. The benefits system is not there to subsidise these families but nor should the system create arbitrary targets for them to reach.

Sadly illegal and legal EU immigration gets mixed up with genuine family migration in the mind of the general public who tend to see 'foreigners' everywhere!

[metisdead]

An off topic rant post has been removed.

[abrahamzvi]

I am not affected by any of the above limits (i would meet much stiffer requirements), nor would my wife and I wish to go (for me back) to the UK. However, I have to ask a very simple question: as far as I know it has always been upheld by courts of law that the family is the basis of any functioning society. If this is so, what right does any government (the British one is not the only one in the EU adopting this inhuman attitude) have to disallow a poor man, or woman, to establish a family in his/her own homeland?

[Kevin1908]

I am not affected by any of the above limits (i would meet much stiffer requirements), nor would my wife and I wish to go (for me back) to the UK. However, I have to ask a very simple question: as far as I know it has always been upheld by courts of law that the family is the basis of any functioning society. If this is so, what right does any government (the British one is not the only one in the EU adopting this inhuman attitude) have to disallow a poor man, or woman, to establish a family in his/her own homeland?

Very good quesion. I posed more or less the same question to my Conservative MP and got no response. I can't wait for the EU elections next year and the general election in 2 years time.

I think the short answer is that the coalition doesn't give a damn about the human rights of British men or women.

[asdecas]

I am not affected by any of the above limits (i would meet much stiffer requirements), nor would my wife and I wish to go (for me back) to the UK. However, I have to ask a very simple question: as far as I know it has always been upheld by courts of law that the family is the basis of any functioning society. If this is so, what right does any government (the British one is not the only one in the EU adopting this inhuman attitude) have to disallow a poor man, or woman, to establish a family in his/her own homeland?

If you are writing of moral right then that is an emotive and debatable issue. If you are writing of legal right then I'm afraid the answer is "every right", as the legally constituted government of the day.

I should add a rider to the last sentence: ", subject of course to the whims of our unelected masters in Brussels".

Edited October 29, 2013 by asdecas

[Kevin1908]

I am not affected by any of the above limits (i would meet much stiffer requirements), nor would my wife and I wish to go (for me back) to the UK. However, I have to ask a very simple question: as far as I know it has always been upheld by courts of law that the family is the basis of any functioning society. If this is so, what right does any government (the British one is not the only one in the EU adopting this inhuman attitude) have to disallow a poor man, or woman, to establish a family in his/her own homeland?

If you are writing of moral right then that is an emotive and debatable issue. If you are writing of legal right then I'm afraid the answer is "every right", as the legally constituted government of the day.

I should add a rider to the last sentence: ", subject of course to the whims of our unelected masters in Brussels".

A legally constituted Government that hasn't revoked the European human rights convention. Now by all means if the Government seeks to deny British citizens their rights then let's have the debate about that and nor sweep it under the carpet.

This is the same right that murderers have used to stay in the country it should be remembered.

[hellodolly]

The key common sense comments seem to be:

"There are a variety of less intrusive responses available. They include:

i. reducing the minimum income required of the sponsor alone to £13,500; or thereabouts;

ii. permitting any savings over the £1,000 that may be spent on processing the application itself to be used to supplement the income figure;

iii. permitting account to be taken of the earning capacity of the spouse after entry or the satisfactorily supported maintenance undertakings of third parties;

iv. reducing to twelve months the period for which the pre estimate of financial viability is assessed."

Not too many of us would have an argument with these ideas!

Quite heavy reading but perhaps the Secretary of State should do some thinking before taking the appeal further IMO. No doubt she will not listen!

Thank you for your post. prior to it I had no clue as to what the OP was talking about. He should be glad it is the UK not the US or Canada.

[7by7]

I am not affected by any of the above limits (i would meet much stiffer requirements), nor would my wife and I wish to go (for me back) to the UK. However, I have to ask a very simple question: as far as I know it has always been upheld by courts of law that the family is the basis of any functioning society. If this is so, what right does any government (the British one is not the only one in the EU adopting this inhuman attitude) have to disallow a poor man, or woman, to establish a family in his/her own homeland?

In an ideal world there would be no need for visas and every one would have the right to live where they wish and with whom they wish; regardless of nationality.

Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to family life, is and always has been a qualified right.

It has never meant that anyone can bring a foreign spouse or other family member into the UK, or any other European country, without any restriction or requirements.

I believe that those requirements should be fair and equitable. In my opinion this financial requirement is neither; and the High Court seems to agree.

[Rob180]

I feel very sorry for anyone who is stuck waiting on a decision regarding the Home Office appeal, not least because March is 5 months away and even then that might not be the end of the matter.

An article in the Daily Mail recently stated there are now 620,000 immigrants in the UK from EEC countries unemployed, claiming benefits for themselves and families, even though the families may not even be in the UK. Many of them speak zero English and none of them need a VISA.

The British Government challenging the Court ruling regarding sponsor's income level is disgraceful. Setting a figure which prevents many people being together who may even already be married is an infringement of a right to family life. It's discrimination pure and simple.

[7by7]

Not that it's relevant to this topic, but

An article in the Daily Mail recently stated there are now 620,000 immigrants in the UK from EEC countries unemployed, claiming benefits for themselves and families,

The article you refer to was about the publication of this report.

The article was yet more misleading reporting from the Daily Mail. The Sunday Telegraph left out some important facts when it wrote about this report as well.

EU study shreds the myth of "benefit tourism"

The report also contradicts the claim, published in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph (and based on the study's findings) that "600,000 unemployed migrants are living in Britain...at a cost of £1.5 billion to the NHS alone". The 600,000 figure turns out not to refer to those who are unemployed but to those who are economically inactive, including pensioners, students and the disabled. Of this total, those out of work represent just 28%. In addition, the figures published in the study show that EU migrants are less likely than their UK counterparts to be economically inactive or unemployed. Thirty per cent of migrants are "non-active" compared to 43% of British citizens, while 7.5% are out of work, compared to 7.9% of UK nationals (the unemployment rate at the time the study was conducted).

Benefit tourism claims: European Commission urges UK to provide evidence

Some newspapers have noted that the report shows that there are more than 600,000 "non-active" EU migrants in the UK - describing them as "unemployed".

But the Commission said this figure included older schoolchildren, students, the spouses of migrant workers, and retired people..........Fewer than 38,000 were claiming Jobseeker's Allowance, it added.

[landslide]

Instances of spousal visa denial are not limited to Britain. I have not been employed for 2 years, and my wife's visa petition was denied, despite over $500k in savings, and income from investments of $58k reportable this year. The law states that savings equal to or exceeding 3 times 125% of the poverty income level, or $57K this year, may be substituted for income. I was well over the required amount of savings, and while I have not received a W-2, I have filed quarterly tax payments every year of unemployment on income earned on investments. I contacted my congressman's office, and spoke with an aide, who then contacted the embassy in Bangkok. 10 days later, the denial was reversed, and my wife received her visa. It still amazes me that a functionary in the embassy unilaterally ignored the law in denying the visa. My wife is a university graduate, speaks excellent english, and we had known each other for over 4 years before getting married, and have been married for 2 years.

[theoldgit]

Please don't let this thread degenerate further, can I remind you that is specifically about the minimum income levels imposed by HMG, and the subsequent legal challenges, so let's keep to that topic, off topic posts will be removed.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Kevin1908]

Third go at trying to post this. The London living wage has been set at £8.80 per hour and nationaly at £7.65. Neither would give you a salary of £18600 based on 40 hours per week.

Of course a pensioner has to make do with even less. Yet the earnings limit that is set for a settlement visa is £8.94 per hour. So for a settlement visa the Government says the minimum is £8.94 per hour then calculates a living wage at £8.80 for London and £7.65 nationally.

A flaw in the argument I think but I am sure a cse will be made in a few minutes to say that the minimum earings and living wage are totally unrelated.

[theoldgit]

The living wage is based on the amount an individual needs to earn to cover the basic costs of living for one person, and has nothing at all to do with what HMG believes is the figure required for a settlement visa, IE two people.

Of course most people earn more than the minimum wage and the living wage, I think the average earnings in the UK are in the region £26K, so well over the minimum wage, living wage and the figure required for a settlement visa.

I suspect even pensioners have an income over the living wage, except those who have made no provision and live entirely on their State pension.

I do agree that the figure of £18,600 to qualify for a Settlement Visa is totally wrong as it takes no account of affordability, but bringing up the issue of the living wage is, in my opinion, a bit of a red herring.

[Seekingasylum]

I rather think you are somewhat out of touch, if not a tad deluded.

The average wage may well be £26k but a considerable number of the occupational workforce, approximating to 10 million or so, are in receipt of much less and consider £16 - 18k to be the norm and that is assuming they are permitted to work as much as they would wish. Presumably, you are unaware of zero hour contracts?

By the Home Office's own admission over 40% are unable to qualify for sponsorship under the new settlement regime. The figure those idiots came up with has bugger all to do with an assessment of what two people need to live and simply represents a figure they felt they could get away with to reduce the number of migrants sponsored by the lower classes, thus pandering to the anti-migration lobby in the hope it will garner votes.

Two can live as cheaply as one in Britain with the only addition being food and the odd frippery.

Modern day politics is all about pretence, illusion and deceit. The number of non - eea migrants over the past 10 years pales into utter insignificance when compared to 4 million Europeans who now live, work and claim benefits in the UK.

May is just another ghastly Tory bitch queen and the Home Office is her cauldron.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Seekingasylum

[Rob180]

I rather think you are somewhat out of touch, if not a tad deluded.

The average wage may well be £26k but a considerable number of the occupational workforce, approximating to 10 million or so, are in receipt of much less and consider £16 - 18k to be the norm and that is assuming they are permitted to work as much as they would wish. Presumably, you are unaware of zero hour contracts?

By the Home Office's own admission over 40% are unable to qualify for sponsorship under the new settlement regime. The figure those idiots came up with has bugger all to do with an assessment of what two people need to live and simply represents a figure they felt they could get away with to reduce the number of migrants sponsored by the lower classes, thus pandering to the anti-migration lobby in the hope it will garner votes.

Two can live as cheaply as one in Britain with the only addition being food and the odd frippery.

Modern day politics is all about pretence, illusion and deceit. The number of non - eea migrants over the past 10 years pales into utter insignificance when compared to 4 million Europeans who now live, work and claim benefits in the UK.

May is just another ghastly Tory bitch queen and the Home Office is her cauldron.

[Rob180]

Whilst I accept the Press have created an impression that huge numbers of EEC immigrants are only here to claim benefits and have 'massaged' the figures somewhat, near where I live there has been a huge influx of Albanians and Romanians, none of whom work or seek work. How do I know that? The answer is because I see them hanging around the streets day and night in large numbers. They particularly like to pile money into the roulette machines all day in 3 bookmakers shops I occasionally visit. By all day, I mean they are on them for several hours a day and early evenings too.. As these machines suck money from players quicker than Ussain Bolt can run 100 metres, it is evident these people have money to burn. None of them work because they are on these machines most of the day and evening, 7 days a week. If anyone can tell me why British taxpayers should fund this, please go ahead.

[Jay Sata]

They are self employed no doubt. It opens up all the bag of goodies the UK taxpayer has to fork out.

Here is another anomaly.

It appears while UK husbands cannot bring their wives here the tax payer is forced by the courts to pay £10,000 for an asylum seekers flying lessons.

http://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/story/2013-11-05/council-pays-for-flying-lessons/#theres-no-common-sense-in-this-decision_283034

[7by7]

The figure those idiots came up with has bugger all to do with an assessment of what two people need to live and simply represents a figure they felt they could get away with to reduce the number of migrants sponsored by the lower classes

To be fair, the figure was not pulled out of thin air; it is actually the income above which a British family of the same size would no longer be entitled to any income related benefits.

I agree, though, that it is too high and should be the figure a British family of the same size would actually receive if living entirely on income support. Currently £112.55 per week (£5852.60 p.a.) plus housing allowance, e.g. rent, for a couple both over 18.

It is also ludicrous that no account is taken of outgoings, so, for example, a man earning £20,000 p.a. but with a mortgage and other debt repayments of £6000 p.a. meets the requirement, but a man earning £18,599 p.a. whose mortgage is paid off and has no other debts doesn't!

Rob180, Albania is not in the EEA.

Romania is, but like all EEA nationals in the UK they are only entitled to claim minimal benefits. Also, if unemployed they have to find work within a limited time (usually three months) or leave.

What evidence do you have that, no matter their nationality, these people's gambling habits are funded by the British taxpayer?

[Rob180]

The figure those idiots came up with has bugger all to do with an assessment of what two people need to live and simply represents a figure they felt they could get away with to reduce the number of migrants sponsored by the lower classes

To be fair, the figure was not pulled out of thin air; it is actually the income above which a British family of the same size would no longer be entitled to any income related benefits.

I agree, though, that it is too high and should be the figure a British family of the same size would actually receive if living entirely on income support. Currently £112.55 per week (£5852.60 p.a.) plus housing allowance, e.g. rent, for a couple both over 18.

It is also ludicrous that no account is taken of outgoings, so, for example, a man earning £20,000 p.a. but with a mortgage and other debt repayments of £6000 p.a. meets the requirement, but a man earning £18,599 p.a. whose mortgage is paid off and has no other debts doesn't!

Rob180, Albania is not in the EEA.

Romania is, but like all EEA nationals in the UK they are only entitled to claim minimal benefits. Also, if unemployed they have to find work within a limited time (usually three months) or leave.

What evidence do you have that, no matter their nationality, these people's gambling habits are funded by the British taxpayer?

[Rob180]

Apologies, I shouldn't have referred to these people as Albanians or Romanians because I don't know this for a fact, no offence intended to anyone from these countries.. It's true I don't know for sure they're claiming benefits, but they seem to have more money than anyone else and don't work because I see the same people at different times on different days shovelling money into those roulette machines as though there was no tomorrow.

[7by7]

What evidence do you have that, no matter their nationality, these people's gambling habits are funded by the British taxpayer?

That'll be none, then.

Seeing them playing the machines in the bookies at various times shows nothing; ever heard of split shifts?

Last week you could have seen me wandering around town at various times on various days; because of the pattern of my work. Sometimes nights, some times early starts and finishes, sometimes late starts and finishes

Had you seen me in town when I wasn't working then you would have assumed that I was unemployed; you'd have been wrong.

[Rob180]

I actually have some friends who live in that area, and trust me..................the people I'm referring to DON'T WORK. There are 10-12 of them living in a 3 bedroom flat in the same building. They spend days from 10am-10pm in the bookmakers gambling on roulette machines then through the night playing music and drinking, it keeps other residents awake some nights as there's often about 20 people in the house. They also loiter outside the building at all hours, conversing very loudly, in between visiting the bookmakers.

As this thread is now going off topic, and I have already apologised for assuming they were from Albania or Romania, I won't make any further comments regarding this.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Rob180

[Kevin1908]

I actually have some friends who live in that area, and trust me..................the people I'm referring to DON'T WORK. There are 10-12 of them living in a 3 bedroom flat in the same building. They spend days from 10am-10pm in the bookmakers gambling on roulette machines then through the night playing music and drinking, it keeps other residents awake some nights as there's often about 20 people in the house. They also loiter outside the building at all hours, conversing very loudly, in between visiting the bookmakers.

As this thread is now going off topic, and I have already apologised for assuming they were from Albania or Romania, I won't make any further comments regarding this.

Whoever they are have you reported them to the council? They sound completely anti social and dare I say, if they are sleeping 3 or 4 to the room then there must be some regulation somewhere being breached.