UK Appeal Court dismiss £18,600 legal challenge

[durhamboy]

As I said above; in theory it was discretionary, in practice it wasn't.

What do you think about the actual figure?

Do you think having a minimum required income which is above the earned income of 40% of the working population of the UK is a plus?

Do you think that taking no account of regional variations in income and living costs is a plus?

Do you think using gross rather than net income (see above for examples of how daft this is) is a plus?

So what is the likely amendment (if any) - just to add a "disposable income" minimum alongside the gross minimum. I can understand the gross minimum, simply to protect against recourse to public funds (and it is pretty low really for an employed person to bring in a spouse - average wage being 26,500 - i.e. 70% of average). The argument against outgoings on this is more likely IMO to just add a clause to stop hardship coursing recourse also (tax credits etc) - by by of introducing such a "disposable Income" limit IN ADDITION.

I do think that full families returning, after 3+ years of marriage, should be given special circumstances.

Any amendment is unlikely, unless the government is forced to do so by the courts.

As I have already outlined, I believe, as do many others including the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration, that the minimum required income should be the same as the amount the government expects a British family to live on; the income support rate, for a couple, £5852.26 p.a., plus housing costs, plus the extra for any children.

This required minimum income should, of course, be net of tax, debt repayments and other commitments.

The government expect a British family to live on this; where is the justification for demanding that a couple where one is an immigrant need more?

The current minimum, £18,600 p.a., is indeed below the average UK income. But approx. 40% of the UK working population earn less than this.

The APPGM report linked to earlier includes a case of a nurse whose income is below the limit and so cannot obtain a settlement visa for her husband.

If she was doing the same job on the same pay grade in London then her London allowance would put her income above the minimum and she would meet the requirement. Even though the cost of housing in London would use up more than her London allowance and effectively she would be earning less!

How can anyone claim that makes sense?

In theory i agree but i have to show nearly 15,000gbp/ 800,000 baht to live here, is that fair too?????

I think you guys are mixing up income and savings - 7by7 is talking about income requirement for the UK whereas I think Bernard Flint is talking about savings requirements for Thailand.

With regard to Thailand - I am told that you can put the savings in a bank a/c for 1 day and withdraw it the next. So you could just borrow the money for 1 day.

As covered in other topics - I think it is a hell of a lot easier for a couple to live in Thailand than they can live in the UK.

[MaprangHolmes]

I think you guys are mixing up income and savings - 7by7 is talking about income requirement for the UK whereas I think Bernard Flint is talking about savings requirements for Thailand.

With regard to Thailand - I am told that you can put the savings in a bank a/c for 1 day and withdraw it the next. So you could just borrow the money for 1 day.

As covered in other topics - I think it is a hell of a lot easier for a couple to live in Thailand than they can live in the UK.

The 800,000 would need to be in your bank for 60 days before you apply. You can use monthly income of 65,000 baht if you go to the embassy and get an affidavit stating that is your income. I believe you can also have the money left in your UK bank account and get an affidavit stating that you have the required amount if converted in to baht.

[7by7]

Whereas for the UK, if using savings the money, £62,500, must have been in in the account(s) (any combination of sponsor's, applicant's or both jointly) for at least 6 months prior to the application.

It should be added that savings above £16,000 can be combined with income from some sources, but not all (see 7.1.3 of the appendix) to reduce the income requirement, until savings of £62,500 or above reduce the required income to zero.

The above amounts are for a partner application only, if children are applying as well then both the income and savings requirements increase.

[billd766]

Whereas for the UK, if using savings the money, £62,500, must have been in in the account(s) (any combination of sponsor's, applicant's or both jointly) for at least 6 months prior to the application.

It should be added that savings above £16,000 can be combined with income from some sources, but not all (see 7.1.3 of the appendix) to reduce the income requirement, until savings of £62,500 or above reduce the required income to zero.

The above amounts are for a partner application only, if children are applying as well then both the income and savings requirements increase.

You mention children applying but would that apply to a dual nationality child as well?

My son is born Thai and has UK nationality through me, his father. He has a birth certificate in both English and Thai and had a passport until it expired a couple of years ago.

[7by7]

As your son has dual British/Thai nationality he should renew his British passport and use that to enter the UK.

That way he wont need a visa and you wont need to meet the extra financial requirement for a child.

For some strange reason the government think British children cost less to raise than foreign ones!

[Jay Sata]

As your son has dual British/Thai nationality he should renew his British passport and use that to enter the UK.

That way he wont need a visa and you wont need to meet the extra financial requirement for a child.

For some strange reason the government think British children cost less to raise than foreign ones!

It is not the case they cost less but are entitled to all services as a British citizen. Their parents and grandparents have paid in to the system in most cases having never claimed a penny.

[loppylugs1]

As I said above; in theory it was discretionary, in practice it wasn't.

What do you think about the actual figure?

Do you think having a minimum required income which is above the earned income of 40% of the working population of the UK is a plus?

Do you think that taking no account of regional variations in income and living costs is a plus?

Do you think using gross rather than net income (see above for examples of how daft this is) is a plus?

So what is the likely amendment (if any) - just to add a "disposable income" minimum alongside the gross minimum. I can understand the gross minimum, simply to protect against recourse to public funds (and it is pretty low really for an employed person to bring in a spouse - average wage being 26,500 - i.e. 70% of average). The argument against outgoings on this is more likely IMO to just add a clause to stop hardship coursing recourse also (tax credits etc) - by by of introducing such a "disposable Income" limit IN ADDITION.

I do think that full families returning, after 3+ years of marriage, should be given special circumstances.

Any amendment is unlikely, unless the government is forced to do so by the courts.

As I have already outlined, I believe, as do many others including the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration, that the minimum required income should be the same as the amount the government expects a British family to live on; the income support rate, for a couple, £5852.26 p.a., plus housing costs, plus the extra for any children.

This required minimum income should, of course, be net of tax, debt repayments and other commitments.

The government expect a British family to live on this; where is the justification for demanding that a couple where one is an immigrant need more?

The current minimum, £18,600 p.a., is indeed below the average UK income. But approx. 40% of the UK working population earn less than this.

The APPGM report linked to earlier includes a case of a nurse whose income is below the limit and so cannot obtain a settlement visa for her husband.

If she was doing the same job on the same pay grade in London then her London allowance would put her income above the minimum and she would meet the requirement. Even though the cost of housing in London would use up more than her London allowance and effectively she would be earning less!

How can anyone claim that makes sense?

Reading your comments as to the facilitation into the UK by even more refugees or whatever you refer to as returning families, and your comment in second paragraph "as many do" I have to conclude that the sympathy vote alongside your comments is somehow lacking.

Taking a snapshot viewing of the UK.GOV e petitions site on the very subject you keep harping on about and the need to obtain (is it 100.000 votes to force a debate in parliament)? it had precisely one vote,may have gone up to three,unless this was a similar poll still banging on about the unfairness of it all. The All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration are all full of past immigrants anyway,so not hard to see the way forward there.

Yes I think there is a justification to demand more hoops that a immigrant has to jump through and for that end I did contact James Brokensure,the minister for immigration on this very subject. Surprise surprise ,no I did not receive an automated response but a personnel reply.

The tightening up of rulings concerning returning so-called families is being looked at,I did point out the ludicrously low amount the £62000 needed and how it could be "managed" also

Anyway ,if anybody else thinks there is a unfairness to it all,contact the minister for immigration

Edited July 20, 2014 by loppylugs1

[7by7]

The All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration are all full of past immigrants anyway

You should check your facts before making ridiculous statements like this; you'll look les stupid that way.

APPG on Migration Members

As for e petitions, there have been many, they have received the required number of signatures, Parliament has debated, the government has ignored it all.

[7by7]

As your son has dual British/Thai nationality he should renew his British passport and use that to enter the UK.

That way he wont need a visa and you wont need to meet the extra financial requirement for a child.

For some strange reason the government think British children cost less to raise than foreign ones!

It is not the case they cost less but are entitled to all services as a British citizen. Their parents and grandparents have paid in to the system in most cases having never claimed a penny.

So their parents and grand parents never went to a state school, have never used the NHS, never had their bins emptied, never travelled on a public road, etc., etc.?

I had been paying tax for many years before my wife and step daughter came to live with me in the UK. My wife, even though it took a few months for her to find work, and my step daughter, even though she was at school, started paying tax immediately they arrived; have you not heard of VAT?

All of which is irrelevant, the point being that the government require families where one, or more, member is an immigrant to have a higher income than that the government believe a British family of the same size needs to live on.

Which, logically, means that either this income requirement is too high, or the income support level is too low.

Which do you believe it is?

[Jay Sata]

The government decided to set the income level at £18,600 and the Supreme Court has endorsed that decision.

That is the end of the story.

The majority of public opinion is behind reducing immigration that in the last 30 years has seen some UK cities come to resemble parts of India and Pakistan.

Of course there will be personal hardship stories but lets not forget the UK citizen who marries a foreigner always has the option of living in their country.

Holland demands twice the minimum wage for a spouse visa.

[durhamboy]

Quote from loppylugs1 "Yes I think there is a justification to demand more hoops that a immigrant has to jump through..."

So that would include additional hoops for your Thai GF would it?

Btw, does anyone know if leave to appeal this decision to a higher court has been granted?

[Tony M]

The government decided to set the income level at £18,600 and the Supreme Court has endorsed that decision.

That is the end of the story.

The majority of public opinion is behind reducing immigration that in the last 30 years has seen some UK cities come to resemble parts of India and Pakistan.

Of course there will be personal hardship stories but lets not forget the UK citizen who marries a foreigner always has the option of living in their country.

Holland demands twice the minimum wage for a spouse visa.

Wrong again, as usual.

It is not the end of the story. It was not the Supreme Court that upheld the decison. It was the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal's decision will now likely be taken to the Supreme Court.

[Jay Sata]

My mistake. I seem to recall leave for appeal was denied.

If you look at the applicants in the case I think the decision was correct.

One was a long term benefits claimant so how could they support a partner?

Last time I checked it was the elected government not the unelected judiciary

who ran this country.

[Tony M]

My mistake. I seem to recall leave for appeal was denied.

If you look at the applicants in the case I think the decision was correct.

One was a long term benefits claimant so how could they support a partner?

Last time I checked it was the elected government not the unelected judiciary

who ran this country.

As usual, you show a total lack of understanding of anything that is apparently outside of your own world. Again, you make condescending and inappropriate statements - "One was a long term benefits claimant so how could they support a partner?". Are you actually saying that anyone on benefits cannot support a partner ?

Ared you also seriously suggesting that any legislation put in place by the government cannot, and should not, be challenged in the courts ? That is not democracy, that is dictatorship.

As I have said to you on previous occasions, I do not think that your opinions have any place in this forum, and I will not get into extended discussions with you. That is all I have to say on this subject.

[samran]

My mistake. I seem to recall leave for appeal was denied.

If you look at the applicants in the case I think the decision was correct.

One was a long term benefits claimant so how could they support a partner?

Last time I checked it was the elected government not the unelected judiciary

who ran this country.

Damn those pesky checks and balances.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Jay Sata]

My mistake. I seem to recall leave for appeal was denied.

If you look at the applicants in the case I think the decision was correct.

One was a long term benefits claimant so how could they support a partner?

Last time I checked it was the elected government not the unelected judiciary

who ran this country.

As usual, you show a total lack of understanding of anything that is apparently outside of your own world. Again, you make condescending and inappropriate statements - "One was a long term benefits claimant so how could they support a partner?". Are you actually saying that anyone on benefits cannot support a partner ?

In fact two of the three applicants in the case are long term benefits claimants. If they could support themselves they would not be claiming from the state.

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

Mr Majid has been out of work since 2006 and now receives £17,361 per annum in benefits.

1. 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.

[loppylugs1]

Quote from loppylugs1 "Yes I think there is a justification to demand more hoops that a immigrant has to jump through..."

So that would include additional hoops for your Thai GF would it?

Btw, does anyone know if leave to appeal this decision to a higher court has been granted?

The Thai girl friend? No hoops for her to jump through,she has the necessary skills....but I may take her to Spain though I do get quite horny at times(which is all day actually)

[7by7]

Quote from loppylugs1 "Yes I think there is a justification to demand more hoops that a immigrant has to jump through..."

So that would include additional hoops for your Thai GF would it?

Btw, does anyone know if leave to appeal this decision to a higher court has been granted?

The Thai girl friend? No hoops for her to jump through,she has the necessary skills....but I may take her to Spain though I do get quite horny at times(which is all day actually)

Just make sure you pack the puncture repair kit.

[7by7]

The majority of public opinion is behind reducing immigration that in the last 30 years has seen some UK cities come to resemble parts of India and Pakistan.

You really hate those damn South Asians; you bring them up every time.

Parts of many UK cities have for many years resembled Dublin; yet you never complain about that. Could this be because of your Irish nationality?

Why is it OK for you and your Thai wife to immigrate to the UK, but not anyone else?

Of course there will be personal hardship stories but lets not forget the UK citizen who marries a foreigner always has the option of living in their country.

Indeed, but why should they not be able to live in the country of their choice?

Holland demands twice the minimum wage for a spouse visa.

As said to you before, that another country's requirements are even more unfair (if true, I haven't checked and as your regularly show ignorance in most areas of the UK's immigration rules I'm not taking your word on those of another country's) does not make the UK's fair!

[7by7]

It must be a relevant fact the farang being in Thailand a fair few years will not exactly be in the highly skilled work bracket commanding decent wages ('cepting oil guys I guess) and even then the permanence of that is questionable. It will be more like Mr.Potential Supermarket night shift worker, on basic struggling along on charity, his Thai wife bedazzled at just how cold and miserable life in the UK can actually get

Describing yourself?

Just because you may be in this group, don't assume that the rest of us are!

[Jay Sata]

You really hate those damn South Asians; you bring them up every time.

Parts of many UK cities have for many years resembled Dublin; yet you never complain about that. Could this be because of your Irish nationality?

Why is it OK for you and your Thai wife to immigrate to the UK, but not anyone else?

I have nothing against any nationality but Bradford,Leicester and Luton have become ghettoised to the point where some schools have virtually no children of British descent. Boston and Spalding have similar issues with former east European migrants.

I believe in integration not the setting up of Sharia courts or women being subservient and forced to wear burkas.

Back to the case we are discussing.

Two of the three plaintiffs are long time benefit claimants so why should the taxpayer fund them bringing spouses to the UK? In the case of one he has four children he managed to father in Kashmir while living off the state in the UK to the tune of over £17,000 a year.

How do you defend that?

The third applicant has a marriage by proxy. That means the two parties were not even together when they married!

Edited July 20, 2014 by Jay Sata

[7by7]

1) The taxpayer would not be funding them bringing their spouses to the UK (sic)!

As has been said many, many times, in cases where the sponsor is in receipt of state benefits, they cannot claim any extra due to their immigrant family member joining them in the UK.

Even under this current requirement, if the sponsor is in receipt of certain state benefits, DLA for example, they do not have to meet the minimum income requirement, instead have to meet the adequate maintenance one. Which, again, means they cannot claim any extra benefits due to their immigrant family member joining them.

So the taxpayer would not be funding them.

What is it you find so hard to understand about that?

2) As long as the couple have met, the marriage is legal and the relationship is genuine then the relevant requirements of the rules are met.

But we are discussing the financial requirement, not the relationship ones!

3) I see you have dodged the 'anti immigrant immigrant' issue yet again!

[theoldgit]

Numerous off topic posts removed.

[Jay Sata]

Lord Justice Kay sums it up well in his closing statement.

1. I am very conscious of the evidence submitted by the claimants to demonstrate how the new MIR will have an impact on particular groups and, in particular, the evidence that only 301 occupations out of 422 listed in the 2011 UK Earnings data had average annual earnings over £18,600. But, given the work that was done on behalf of the Secretary of State to analyse the effect of the immigration of non-EEA partners and dependent children on the benefits system, the level of income needed to minimise dependence on the state for families where non-EEA partners enter the UK and what I regard as a rational conclusion on the link between better income and greater chances of integration, my conclusion is that the Secretary of State's judgment cannot be impugned. She has discharged the burden of demonstrating that the interference was both the minimum necessary and strikes a fair balance between the interests of the groups concerned and the community in general. Individuals will have different views on what constitutes the minimum income requirements needed to accomplish the stated policy aims. In my judgment it is not the court's job to impose its own view unless, objectively judged, the levels chosen are to be characterised as irrational, or inherently unjust or inherently unfair. In my view they cannot be.

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

[7by7]

He's certainly sticking to the party line!

Even he admits that only 301 occupations out of 422 listed in the 2011 UK Earnings data had average annual earnings over £18,600.

The judgement acknowledges that the immigrant spouses income once in the UK can be enough to meet the requirement.

12.MM is a post-graduate student of the University of Wolverhampton presently working towards a PhD. He has been unable to find employment commensurate with his qualifications and at present works 37 hours per week with different employment agencies as a quality inspector on varying shift rates. He states that he earns on average approximately £15,600 per annum gross. His wife is also well qualified. She has a BSc in nutrition, has computing skills and is employed in Lebanon as a pharmacist. She speaks fluent English. Initial enquiries with employers in the UK indicate that she would be likely to find skilled employment if she were lawfully resident here.

So what is the logic in denying her entry on financial grounds? They will be no burden upon the state whatsoever.

Even if they upheld the level of the minimum income requirement, upholding the absurd rule that the applicant's earnings once in the UK cannot be counted makes no sense whatsoever.

A poor judgement, and I hope it will be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Edited July 20, 2014 by 7by7

[Jay Sata]

Lord Justice Kay was sitting with Lord Justice Aikens and Lord Justice Treacy and the joint conclusion was the government position was lawful.

The case could only be referred to the Supreme Court on a point of law so that move is highly unlikely.

Therefore the rules are unlikely to change for some time.

[7by7]

Like Tony M, I fully expect this decision to be taken to the Supreme court.

That all three judges concurred on this judgement does not preclude that.

Whatever the outcome, I then expect the case to then be taken to the ECJ or ECtHR; as I have said all along.

[Seekingasylum]

I'm not sure what the form is now for appealing to the Supreme Court. In the old days a decision by the Court of Appeal could only be challenged at the House of Lords if in arriving at their determination the Appeal judges agreed to certify that a point of law was a core issue upon which the appellants could seek relief.

The Appeal Court have found unanimously that Blake J was in error on the facts. I haven't read the judgement but that is the crux and no issue of law requires resolution so I doubt any certificate was issued.

However, the respondents could now take the matter to Europe but a ruling might be expected to be delivered in 3 years plus.

[Tony M]

I'm not sure what the form is now for appealing to the Supreme Court. In the old days a decision by the Court of Appeal could only be challenged at the House of Lords if in arriving at their determination the Appeal judges agreed to certify that a point of law was a core issue upon which the appellants could seek relief.

The Appeal Court have found unanimously that Blake J was in error on the facts. I haven't read the judgement but that is the crux and no issue of law requires resolution so I doubt any certificate was issued.

However, the respondents could now take the matter to Europe but a ruling might be expected to be delivered in 3 years plus.

I think the Home Office recognises that any further appeal(s), from whomever, will take a long time, and that is why they are now going ahead with refusing the 4,000 applications they have on hold. Of course, all of those refusals will have a right of appeal, and I wonder how many will go ahead with an appeal, and how many will just re-apply ( if they now qualify, of course). Perhaps some enterprising solicitor, or qualified advisor, could make a "class action" against the government for all those who wish to appeal.

[Jay Sata]

The wheels of justice at higher level turn very slowly and it unlikely anything could happen to reverse this for many years.