UK Appeal Court dismiss £18,600 legal challenge

[Jay Sata]

This from the Guardian.

The Court of Appeal has dismissed a legal challenge to Home Office rules for UK citizens who want their overseas spouses to live with them in Britain, affecting more than 3,600 families.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jul/11/appeal-court-18600-foreign-spouse-uk

A Home Office spokesman said 4,000 people whose applications have been on hold would now receive a decision from 28 July.

He added: "These are cases which met all the requirements apart from the minimum income threshold and now stand to be refused."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28267305

Full ruling details here

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/985.html

Edited July 11, 2014 by Jay Sata

[PeeJay1959]

I think the courts we knobled by the government and current public opinion!!

[Bernard Flint]

Assuming the thai wife has no job for the foreseeable future,and will need private health care for a period of time, the sum seems about correct to me

[PeeJay1959]

She won't need private healthcare, she will be entitled to NHS the moment she lands on UK soil. Why do they think £18,600 is the minimum when Tax credits stop at £15,600, there's no way a couple above that can claim benefits

[Bernard Flint]

She won't need private healthcare, she will be entitled to NHS the moment she lands on UK soil. Why do they think £18,600 is the minimum when Tax credits stop at £15,600, there's no way a couple above that can claim benefits

EXACTLY

Entitled for emergency only, i though

Been living in Thailand for 11 years and even i cant get free NHS until i have lived back in uk for 6 months.

[iancnx]

First I heard of this. My eighteen month son has a British passport and Thai mother. We are happily married and live in Thailand. My British armed forces pension income is less than £18k. Does this ruling mean I could return to UK with my baby son, but his mother would be refused? Surely that cannot be the case?

I could easily get a job (53 yrs old) and earn more than enough but that's not the point!

[Bernard Flint]

First I heard of this. My eighteen month son has a British passport and Thai mother. We are happily married and live in Thailand. My British armed forces pension income is less than £18k. Does this ruling mean I could return to UK with my baby son, but his mother would be refused? Surely that cannot be the case?

I could easily get a job (53 yrs old) and earn more than enough but that's not the point!

Its more if the three of you go back, 18k is for wfey, there is more for the kid.

[theoldgit]

Its more if the three of you go back, 18k is for wfey, there is more for the kid.

That's not correct, the qualifying figure isn't increased in respect of a child holding a British Passport, only if the child hold a foreign passport.

[theoldgit]

First I heard of this. My eighteen month son has a British passport and Thai mother. We are happily married and live in Thailand. My British armed forces pension income is less than £18k. Does this ruling mean I could return to UK with my baby son, but his mother would be refused? Surely that cannot be the case?

I could easily get a job (53 yrs old) and earn more than enough but that's not the point!

That's exactly what it means, unless you can demonstrate you have savings to cover the shortfall, this is why, in my opinion, the whole thing is morally wrong.

If you got a job in the UK, then you could combine the two sources of income to qualify, but as you rightly say that's not the point.

[evadgib]

The Home Office welcomes a Court of Appeal judgment, upholding the lawfulness of the income threshold under the new family migration rules.

The minimum income threshold for British citizens to sponsor a non-EEA spouse or partner or child to come and live in the UK was introduced in July 2012. It aims to ensure that family migrants do not become reliant on the taxpayer for financial support and are able to integrate effectively.The minimum income threshold was set, following advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee, at £18,600 for sponsoring a spouse or partner, rising to £22,400 for also sponsoring a child and an additional £2,400 for each further child.

Home Office wins judgment on minimum income threshold

Edited July 12, 2014 by evadgib

[PeeJay1959]

Full cover as soon as she steps Off the plane

[Seekingasylum]

The Appeal judges were obviously unhappy at Blake J's approach and have ruled that, irrespective of the anomalies apparent in May's nasty piece of work, the minimum criteria were introduced rationally and with due consideration of their impact upon other rights. Not for judges to usurp the elected legislature and the executive's right to implement their laws according to government policy.

The anomalies of course remain. I found it quite amusing that the Appeal judges found the Home Secretary was right to strike the balance between rights of families and the need to protect the public interest vis a vis the stresses and strains imposed by these migrants. Apparently the recent report published in the press that migration has had no radical effect upon wages or provision of services within the Uk over the past 10 years was not available to them.

Of course the minimum requirements are too high, unfair, illogical and unnecessary but as a point of principle it seems their imposition is quite lawful.

The law is an ass, but then we all knew that. Although I could find no reference to it, I assume the respondents were refused certification to take the matter to the Supreme Court.

Still, one can vote and together with the legion of public servants we can all register our disapproval by voting the Tories out next year. Probably won't affect the law but at least May can be consigned to the trash heap of political oblivion.

Edited July 12, 2014 by Seekingasylum

[Seekingasylum]

First I heard of this. My eighteen month son has a British passport and Thai mother. We are happily married and live in Thailand. My British armed forces pension income is less than £18k. Does this ruling mean I could return to UK with my baby son, but his mother would be refused? Surely that cannot be the case?

I could easily get a job (53 yrs old) and earn more than enough but that's not the point!

That's exactly what it means, unless you can demonstrate you have savings to cover the shortfall, this is why, in my opinion, the whole thing is morally wrong.

If you got a job in the UK, then you could combine the two sources of income to qualify, but as you rightly say that's not the point.

Indeed, but you would have to have been in employment for at least six months before submitting your wife's application. In your circumstances that would mean an enforced absence from your family while you set about qualifying. Of course, you could bring the child but mum would have to languish here in Thailand. Apparently, this disgraceful state of affairs is protecting the UK somehow.

The more folk complain to their MP the more chance they will listen.

[Jay Sata]

In the case of one of the applicants I doubt any reasonable person would support her request to bring her husband to the UK.

Despite having no job she managed to marry someone in Pakistan.

"Shabana Javed. Ms Javed is a British citizen of Pakistani origins. She has been resident in the United Kingdom for the past 30 years. She lives in the Handsworth area of Birmingham which she describes as economically and socially deprived. She has no qualifications and her employment history is intermittent.

She is presently unemployed and states that she is unaware that any of her female peers when in employment have been able to earn more than £18,000. She further contends that her local job centre only offers employment vacancies at salaries that are below this rate of pay.

On 4 May 2012 she married a Pakistan national who lives and works in Pakistan as a civil servant. She is unable to sponsor him to come to the United Kingdom because of her lack of employment or employment prospects at the requisite salary level. She states that she cannot leave Handsworth to find better paid employment because she would lose her free accommodation with her extended family. She does not consider that she has the financial resources or personal background to improve her qualifications so as to enhance her ability to find better paid employment."

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/985.html

Edited July 12, 2014 by Jay Sata

[7by7]

In the case of one of the applicants I doubt any reasonable person would support her request to bring her husband to the UK.

Despite having no job she managed to marry someone in Pakistan.

I like to consider myself a reasonable person, and I do support her request.

Let me ask you four questions.

1) It seems that in your view being employed a prerequisite of getting married; why is that?

2) In this particular case the situation was not that she could not find employment, but that she could not find employment paying above £18,600p.a. Very few unskilled workers, particularly women, can; even in the South East. However, as long as the couple can support themselves, with or without help from family, why should they be denied a life together in the UK?

3) In this particular case, the husband is a civil servant in Pakistan. Therefore he must have a reasonable education, be able to communicate effectively in English and so have excellent prospects of finding work once in the UK. Why should the immigrant spouse's employment prospects, and even a firm job offer, be ignored?

4) If any couple where one is a British citizen are in a genuine relationship and can support and accommodate themselves without the aid of public funds, with the help of family if necessary, then why should they not be able to live in the UK if they wish?

Edited July 12, 2014 by 7by7

[Thai at Heart]

First I heard of this. My eighteen month son has a British passport and Thai mother. We are happily married and live in Thailand. My British armed forces pension income is less than £18k. Does this ruling mean I could return to UK with my baby son, but his mother would be refused? Surely that cannot be the case?

I could easily get a job (53 yrs old) and earn more than enough but that's not the point!

Uh, basically yes.

[Thai at Heart]

In the case of one of the applicants I doubt any reasonable person would support her request to bring her husband to the UK.

Despite having no job she managed to marry someone in Pakistan.

"Shabana Javed. Ms Javed is a British citizen of Pakistani origins. She has been resident in the United Kingdom for the past 30 years. She lives in the Handsworth area of Birmingham which she describes as economically and socially deprived. She has no qualifications and her employment history is intermittent.

She is presently unemployed and states that she is unaware that any of her female peers when in employment have been able to earn more than £18,000. She further contends that her local job centre only offers employment vacancies at salaries that are below this rate of pay.

On 4 May 2012 she married a Pakistan national who lives and works in Pakistan as a civil servant. She is unable to sponsor him to come to the United Kingdom because of her lack of employment or employment prospects at the requisite salary level. She states that she cannot leave Handsworth to find better paid employment because she would lose her free accommodation with her extended family. She does not consider that she has the financial resources or personal background to improve her qualifications so as to enhance her ability to find better paid employment."

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/985.html

Undoubtedly a case of the baby going out with the bathwater.

[7by7]

For the benefit of members who have not taken part in discussions on this before, let me explain something.

Prior to 9/7/12 the ECO would look at the applicant and sponsor's income and savings and all of their regular outgoings, rent/mortgage, debt repayments etc., before deciding if they had enough left to support themselves with.

Now, if the sponsor earns £18,600 p.a. (plus any extra for children also applying) or has the necessary amount of cash savings or combination of income and savings; they meet the requirement.

Regardless of their regular outgoings!

This means that a sponsor with an income of £18,600 p.a. and with regular outgoings of £10,000 p.a., leaving £8,600 p.a. for the couple to live on, qualifies.

But a sponsor with an income of £18,500 p.a. and regular outgoings of £5,000 p.a. leaving £13,500 p.a. for the couple to live on doesn't qualify!

How is that fair, reasonable and logical?

In addition, prior to 9/7/12 the applicant's employment prospects once in the UK would be considered; especially if they had a firm job offer.

Now, even if the applicant has a firm job offer paying above the minimum income required, this is ignored.

How is that fair, reasonable and logical?

[theoldgit]

So in a nutshell, I could have a pension of £19,000 before tax, nowhere to live in the UK so I would need to rent somewhere at maybe £9,000 per year, leaving me with about £690 a month, after paying tax and rent, to live on, and my wife would get a settlement visa.

Mr Bloggs has a pension of £18,000 before tax, but has a mortgage free home in the UK, so he has about £1,375 a month after tax to live on, roughly double mine, and his wife wouldn't get a settlement visa.

Yep, seems very sensible to me

[Jay Sata]

The sensible route would be to allow some discretion in the rules. Those with Thai partners are a very small proportion of a much bigger picture.

However looking at another one of the applicants in the case no reasonable person could justify someone in the situation below being allowed to bring his spouse here to be just another burden on the taxpayer.

"Abdul Majid. Mr Majid is aged 55 years and is a British citizen of Pakistani origins. He has been resident in the United Kingdom since 1972. In 1991 he married a Pakistani woman who lives in Kashmir, although the marriage was not formally registered until 2006. The couple have five children, four of whom have been resident in the United Kingdom since 2001 and the youngest of whom lives with his mother.

Mr Majid's wife has had problems in obtaining an entry clearance to join him in the United Kingdom. She was refused entry clearance as a spouse in 2002, 2006 and 2010 and refused admission as a visitor in 2012. These dates indicate that none of those refusals had anything to do with the new IR in force from 9 July 2012. There have been problems about recognition of the marriage and satisfying the previous IR maintenance and accommodation requirements.

Mr Majid has been out of work since 2006 and now receives £17,361 per annum in benefits. He believes that his prospects of employment would be improved if his wife were to be admitted and she could look after the children. He also contends that he has relatives who are willing to provide him and his wife with financial support until they are self-sufficient."

Despite his recourse to public funds he has managed to visit Kashmir enough times to father five children!

[theoldgit]

The sensible route would be to allow some discretion in the rules. Those with Thai partners are a very small proportion of a much bigger picture

Which, as you know, is exactly what used to happen. ECO's are very well trained and, by and large, highly intelligent people, but they are not allowed to use any discretion, or even apply any common sense when deciding on an application.

[Basil B]

So in a nutshell, I could have a pension of £19,000 before tax, nowhere to live in the UK so I would need to rent somewhere at maybe £9,000 per year, leaving me with about £690 a month, after paying tax and rent, to live on, and my wife would get a settlement visa.

Mr Bloggs has a pension of £18,000 before tax, but has a mortgage free home in the UK, so he has about £1,375 a month after tax to live on, roughly double mine, and his wife wouldn't get a settlement visa.

Yep, seems very sensible to me

Sorry I just do not understand the above as it just proves some of the flawed logic of Ms May's lets lock the doors policy, was the last line sarcasm?

In all fairness the current policy takes no account of the applicants or their returning spouses employment prospects and probable earnings.

[bobrussell]

The legislation was specifically worded so discretion was removed from the decision making process. It gets the numbers of immigrants down (a little bit!) without doing anything constructive.

I have little enthusiasm for my hard earned tax money being used to support families returning to the UK and do not consider the old rules adequate. My wife has a Thai friend and their household has been held up with tax payers money for years. My wife is just as irritated by this as I am (perhaps more!).

The rules needed to change but not at the cost of fairness and decency!

Heaven help us if Ms May becomes the next leader of the Conservative party but she ticks a lot of Daily Mail readers, choice boxes so could end up as Prime Minister one day! Not with my support though.

Many families would fail to convince an ECO that they could afford the move without meeting the £18 600 income but some people could. Applicants may well have limited incomes but very limited costs and I believe if they can provide a sound argument, discretion would be appropriate. Fine that the burden of proof should be with the applicant and most would still need to show at least £18 600 income.

A sad but not particularly unexpected decision and there are likely to be a lot of rejection letters being printed this very minute.

[7by7]

<snip>

Those with Thai partners are a very small proportion of a much bigger picture.

Indeed; but the same rules apply to all; as they should.

You seem to think that certain nationalities (or from your posts in every topic where this has been discussed, one particular nationality) should find it harder than others to obtain UK settlement visas.

Shame on you.

[theoldgit]

So in a nutshell, I could have a pension of £19,000 before tax, nowhere to live in the UK so I would need to rent somewhere at maybe £9,000 per year, leaving me with about £690 a month, after paying tax and rent, to live on, and my wife would get a settlement visa.

Mr Bloggs has a pension of £18,000 before tax, but has a mortgage free home in the UK, so he has about £1,375 a month after tax to live on, roughly double mine, and his wife wouldn't get a settlement visa.

Yep, seems very sensible to me

Sorry I just do not understand the above as it just proves some of the flawed logic of Ms May's lets lock the doors policy, was the last line sarcasm?

In all fairness the current policy takes no account of the applicants or their returning spouses employment prospects and probable earnings.

Sorry for the sarcasm in this serious topic Basil B, I was indeed attempting to point out the stupidity of the flawed logic of Ms May's thinking in my own clumsy way.

As for the apparent drive for her to be the next Tory leader, well no wonder they are trying to persuade Boris to throw his hat in the ring.

[theoldgit]

Of course this group could try and take this to the Supreme Court, that would delay things for another year.

Edit: I should clarify that when I meant this group, I wasn't referring to the worthy debaters on Thaivisa.com, but rather the group that initially instigated the litigation.

[Seekingasylum]

The sensible route would be to allow some discretion in the rules. Those with Thai partners are a very small proportion of a much bigger picture

Which, as you know, is exactly what used to happen. ECO's are very well trained and, by and large, highly intelligent people, but they are not allowed to use any discretion, or even apply any common sense when deciding on an application.

I rather think when they changed the rules the culture changed also and the calibre of person now required to administer the system is simply nowhere near to those who operated it, say, 10 years ago. Similarly, in -country staff at the various regional centres and Croydon are, frankly, mere clerks. Those who were a reservoir of expertise, judgement, discretion and intelligence have long gone. The Border Force are no different.

Years ago Bryson related in one of his books, I can't remember which, an anecdote about British immigration at Heathrow who made a pragmatic decision in favour of one of his family which he recounted simply would not have been made anywhere else, particularly the USA. If he tried his luck now I rather think he would get short shrift.

We are in the land of the shiny arsed clerk and pedantry is the name of the game.

[Jay Sata]

<snip>

Those with Thai partners are a very small proportion of a much bigger picture.

Indeed; but the same rules apply to all; as they should.

You seem to think that certain nationalities (or from your posts in every topic where this has been discussed, one particular nationality) should find it harder than others to obtain UK settlement visas.

Shame on you.

No I do not think that at all but we need a fair system.

Thai people adapt well and integrate in to wherever they settle. They also are happy to take a job and pay taxes. Other nationalities are not so inclined.

A lot of immigration law has been fine tuned to make sure that spouses are not prisoners in their home or community as has been the case in the past.

On this forum we are just concerned with our relationship with Thailand but the UK government has addressed feedback from the general population regarding who is admitted.

As I have said before it is nigh impossible for any of us to ever be settled with rights in Thailand and we are all at the mercy of the Thai visa system hence this website.

[MESmith]

"affecting more than 3,600 families."

And how many more thousand (myself included) haven't applied because of these crazy rules. Have a look at total worth (including investment funds) & take account of outgoing expenses (or lack of), not just gross income. Is that too difficult?

[7by7]

<snip>

Have a look at total worth (including investment funds) & take account of outgoing expenses (or lack of), not just gross income. Is that too difficult?

No, it's not too difficult. In fact it's exactly what they used to do prior to 9/7/12.