As mentioned in another thread, here is the complete document - a Standard Note- where the government gives some explanation for its current stance on family Migration, the level of the financial threshold, reasons why third party support is not accepted, etc, etc. Reading between the lines, I think there might be some changes, as the tenor of the Note seems to be rather "defensive. The government/Home Office don't usually open up like this, and I hope it means that they are seriously considering that they might lose their court case in March. Maybe there will be some changes before then ?

The document title is :

The financial (minimum income) requirement for partner visas. Standard Note: SN/HA/06724

Last updated: 9 December 2013

Author: Melanie Gower

Section Home Affairs Section

:

sn06724.pdf

Thanks for that, Tony.

Yes, thanks Tony, it's a useful link which I will pin for ease.

Will the document still be seen in main. Not everyone looks at pinned every day ( I know I don't ).

Having now thoroughly read and digested the document, it seems to me that the governments stance can be summed up in seven words:

"We are right; everyone else is wrong!"

Especially when it comes to the over high minimum income level, the inability of applicants and sponsors to use all their savings at the initial visa and FLR stages, the disregarding of the applicant's potential income once in the UK and the removal of third party support.

It's obvious that they have no intention of changing anything unless and until forced to do so by the courts.

Will the document still be seen in main. Not everyone looks at pinned every day ( I know I don't ).

It will be on the top of the first page, if it's left on main page it will gradually work it's down the list.

Having now thoroughly read and digested the document, it seems to me that the governments stance can be summed up in seven words:

"We are right; everyone else is wrong!"

Especially when it comes to the over high minimum income level, the inability of applicants and sponsors to use all their savings at the initial visa and FLR stages, the disregarding of the applicant's potential income once in the UK and the removal of third party support.

It's obvious that they have no intention of changing anything unless and until forced to do so by the courts.

You are probably right, 7x7. But, if they maintain this stance, then I think they may be in for a shock when the court case takes place. Their "reasons" don't really stand up to scrutiny, do they ?

Indeed, Tony.

Interestingly in that "note", the Home Office in yet another attempt at chipping away at the European Regulations are seeking to thwart future would be Surinder Singh cases by redrafting the transposition of the directive into legislation by introducing the curious notion free movement from one state to another now has to involve one altering the "centre" of their being. One can't be sure just how those shiney-arsed clerks in the Home Office might gauge such a metaphysical phenomenon but I suppose it will be as crude as most of their other little stratagems.

Will someone shipping themselves off to Holland for six months to acquire their EU rights now have to sport clogs, live on a canal boat subsisting on Edam cheese whilst blowing a lid of the best herbal too? Will they also have to take with them their parents, siblings and bestest friends? Will they be expected to sell their UK property and buy a windmill in the polders from which they might more readily finger a dyke?

Of course, we have all been here before. Just as Metock blew out the Home Office's attempt at blocking free movement of non-eea spouses from outside the EU into the EU under the regulations, we shall see another sane judgement torpedoing this latest nonsense.

In the meantime, one can only hope the judiciary don't fail us in March.

Thanks for posting this here.

If the Home Office / Govt. lose the court case in March, how long do you think it would take for the financial requirements to change?

One would imagine a lengthy appeal process to any case lost. Plus Cameron and the rest of the right are foaming at the mouth over European courts.

Expect a public backlash to be hyped up in the media and government to ignore any ruling - they have to as they tack toward fascism to appease UKIP and there backbenchers many of whom elite be a typical salary is £60k

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Thanks for this. Very useful as I have some big decisions to make soon. Bring wife and kids to UK where Iam working just now (self employed and have to jump through hoops) or take a risk and pack my job in and take them to live in Australia. I have dual UK/NZ citizenship and would get the family in with ease (visa cost about $500 for the whole family compared with 4 X £880 for UK)..

This report mentions a change in October now allowing sale of property to be included when calculating savings. Does the 6 month rule still apply or would the proceeds of a sale apply at once?

Many thanks

Thanks for this. Very useful as I have some big decisions to make soon. Bring wife and kids to UK where Iam working just now (self employed and have to jump through hoops) or take a risk and pack my job in and take them to live in Australia. I have dual UK/NZ citizenship and would get the family in with ease (visa cost about $500 for the whole family compared with 4 X £880 for UK)..

This report mentions a change in October now allowing sale of property to be included when calculating savings. Does the 6 month rule still apply or would the proceeds of a sale apply at once?

Many thanks

If I was in your shoes I'd want my family to look up at the Southern Cross when the sun went down.

Most interesting Justice Blakes summing up...

Obviously given the inaction to remedy the unfair sections of the rules, it is obvious his report has been dully filed by the appropriate ministers... in the trash can.

The minimum income requirement can be avoided by emigrating to the EU (where it doesn't apply) and waiting a couple of years (in say Spain) - whereby your partner automatically qualifies for British residency despite failure to hit the income requirements. Otherwise; the recent ruling says you're out of luck if you don't have the cash.

The Surinder Singh route has been discussed many times on this forum; and it is not quite as simple as you make out.

But it is an option.

Mr Engel's case is the subject of a topic in news; Man faces deportation as UK wife's salary too low.

Probably best to confine comments on this individual case there and keep this one for general comments only?

Please do not try to hijack my thread for your own agenda. There is already a thread running, as 7x7 says. Or, start a new thread. I do not want this thread degenerating into one of your usual uninformed efforts. As an example, your post #18 has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

The guidance says that savings can be taken into account and refers to Chapter 07 of the Operational Guidance "Immigration Directorate Instructions" for further details. I have done a search on the web and the .gov.uk website and cannot find this Chapter 07. See this link that lists the Chapters available: https://www.gov.uk/immigration-operational-guidance/immigration-directorate-instructions.

Does anyone have a copy of this or know the contents?

@pj123, I think this might be what you're looking for?

Section 7 starts on page 43.

Financial_Requirement_Guidance_20140324 (1).pdf

Thank you. That is what I was looking for. This is the full guidance on this issue and should be pinned here as well. You can use savings of over 16,000 to supplement the income requirements.

That's helpful. .cheers

Thank you. That is what I was looking for. This is the full guidance on this issue and should be pinned here as well. You can use savings of over 16,000 to supplement the income requirements.

Annex FM Section FM 1.7: Financial Requirement

Immigration Rules Appendix FM-SE; Family members - specified evidence

Thanks for this. Very useful as I have some big decisions to make soon. Bring wife and kids to UK where Iam working just now (self employed and have to jump through hoops) or take a risk and pack my job in and take them to live in Australia. I have dual UK/NZ citizenship and would get the family in with ease (visa cost about $500 for the whole family compared with 4 X £880 for UK)..

This report mentions a change in October now allowing sale of property to be included when calculating savings. Does the 6 month rule still apply or would the proceeds of a sale apply at once?

Many thanks

Australia or the UK ?

No brainer really.

Been a while since I looked at this. So it's 18.6k gross is that right?

I'm making an assumption here because although I can't see gross mentioned alongside the 18.6k figure, it does say gross for the additional income required when there are children.

@billybatson, yes, it's the gross figure.

Thanks OG.

is it possible for me to work in Saudi and use that income?

I intend working in Saudi for a couple of years (build up my bank account), but want my wife and kids to move back to the UK. I will earn enough for the requirements, i just don't know if I can go through the application process while I am in Saudi and my family are still in Thailand.

My kids are UK citizens, and they would move back while I still work in Saudi.

I was wondering. If my child holds a British passport as she would be half British, would i need to show the extra income for my child?

I was wondering. If my child holds a British passport as she would be half British, would i need to show the extra income for my child?

Not if she's a British citizen, which is the usual form of British nationality held. Strictly she doesn't need a British passport, but that's usually the cheapest way for a British national to get into the UK.