American mother refused UK visa over income rules

[7by7]

There have been some interesting posts, some more ignorant ones since my last visit here.

Rather than answer each question and comment individually, I'll try and address them all.

Asylum seekers

Asylum has nothing to do with this topic. The rules governing asylum seekers are different to those covering family migration. Though the comments made by some here are typical of those made by people with little or no knowledge of either.

For a detailed explanation, see Claim asylum in the UK.

The UK is a civilised country, so is not going to let asylum seekers starve. But what they do get is very small: see Aslyum support

People from certain countries bring their entire extended family into the UK and they all claim benefits.

Wrong, for two reasons.

Firstly, spouses, civil partners, unmarried partners, fiancés of a British citizen or permanent resident and children of same under 18, are, for all but a very few, the only ones who stand a hope of qualifying.

Adult dependent relative visas are very difficult to obtain, and very expensive. For a start the relative must be totally dependent upon their sponsor for their day to day physical care and that care must not be available in their own country. See “Coming to be cared for - you’re an adult dependent relative” on this page

Secondly, until the immigrant family member has ILR, which usually takes at least 5 years to obtain, they cannot claim any state benefits. Neither can their British family member claim any extra benefits due to their immigrant family member living with them.

The ‘jobsworth’ bureaucrats should use some discretion.

Agreed; but, unfortunately, they can’t; their employer, the government, wont let them.

There is some small evidential flexibility allowed, but the rules effective from July 2012, set by the government, are very clear: either sponsor and/or applicant meet the financial requirement, or they don’t.

What is the financial requirement anyway?

See here for full details of the requirement and how it can be met.

The basic requirement is that for an adult applicant their sponsor, or for leave to remain applications they and/or their sponsor, must earn at least £18,600 p.a. or must have at least £62,500 in cash savings. Savings above £16,000 can be combined with income to reduce the amount of each required.

If a child or children are applying as well, then these amounts increase. Although in this case as the child is a British citizen they are not included in the requirement.

One of the absurdities of this requirement is that it is based upon pre tax income and takes absolutely no account of outgoings.

Mr A earns £18600 p.a. before tax, has a mortgage of £3,600p.a. and has credit card and other debt repayments of £2000p.a. leaving him with a pre tax income of £13,000p.a. He meets the requirement.

Mr. B has a pre tax income of £18,599 p.a., his mortgage is paid off and he has no other debts. He doesn’t meet the requirement!

Pre July 2012 the, unofficial but based upon case law, minimum income was a net figure, after deducting tax and all regular outgoings such as rent or mortgage and debt repayments.

After these deductions the sponsor needed a post tax income equivalent to the amount of Income Support a British family of the same size would receive; currently £114.85 p.w (£5972.20 p.a.).

Now, the government expect a British couple to live on only £5972.20 pa. after housing costs, but demand a couple where one is an immigrant have a much higher income.

In my honest opinion, and that of many others including the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration, the pre July 2012 system was not only fairer, it made far more sense to base the requirement on a couples net income rather than their gross income.

Finally, I recommend reading this commentary on the requirement and its effects.

[bitcoinforever]

wrong time for U.K. immigration to play this game. the story is getting a lot of play in U.S, press. American public does not care where you come from they will load you on a boat send you back home U.K. citizens included not just mexicans. BEWARE

[johnatong]

There have been some interesting posts, some more ignorant ones since my last visit here.

Rather than answer each question and comment individually, I'll try and address them all.

Asylum seekers

Asylum has nothing to do with this topic. The rules governing asylum seekers are different to those covering family migration. Though the comments made by some here are typical of those made by people with little or no knowledge of either.

For a detailed explanation, see Claim asylum in the UK.

The UK is a civilised country, so is not going to let asylum seekers starve. But what they do get is very small: see Aslyum support

People from certain countries bring their entire extended family into the UK and they all claim benefits.

Wrong, for two reasons.

Firstly, spouses, civil partners, unmarried partners, fiancés of a British citizen or permanent resident and children of same under 18, are, for all but a very few, the only ones who stand a hope of qualifying.

Adult dependent relative visas are very difficult to obtain, and very expensive. For a start the relative must be totally dependent upon their sponsor for their day to day physical care and that care must not be available in their own country. See “Coming to be cared for - you’re an adult dependent relative” on this page

Secondly, until the immigrant family member has ILR, which usually takes at least 5 years to obtain, they cannot claim any state benefits. Neither can their British family member claim any extra benefits due to their immigrant family member living with them.

The ‘jobsworth’ bureaucrats should use some discretion.

Agreed; but, unfortunately, they can’t; their employer, the government, wont let them.

There is some small evidential flexibility allowed, but the rules effective from July 2012, set by the government, are very clear: either sponsor and/or applicant meet the financial requirement, or they don’t.

What is the financial requirement anyway?

See here for full details of the requirement and how it can be met.

The basic requirement is that for an adult applicant their sponsor, or for leave to remain applications they and/or their sponsor, must earn at least £18,600 p.a. or must have at least £62,500 in cash savings. Savings above £16,000 can be combined with income to reduce the amount of each required.

If a child or children are applying as well, then these amounts increase. Although in this case as the child is a British citizen they are not included in the requirement.

One of the absurdities of this requirement is that it is based upon pre tax income and takes absolutely no account of outgoings.

Mr A earns £18600 p.a. before tax, has a mortgage of £3,600p.a. and has credit card and other debt repayments of £2000p.a. leaving him with a pre tax income of £13,000p.a. He meets the requirement.

Mr. B has a pre tax income of £18,599 p.a., his mortgage is paid off and he has no other debts. He doesn’t meet the requirement!

Pre July 2012 the, unofficial but based upon case law, minimum income was a net figure, after deducting tax and all regular outgoings such as rent or mortgage and debt repayments.

After these deductions the sponsor needed a post tax income equivalent to the amount of Income Support a British family of the same size would receive; currently £114.85 p.w (£5972.20 p.a.).

Now, the government expect a British couple to live on only £5972.20 pa. after housing costs, but demand a couple where one is an immigrant have a much higher income.

In my honest opinion, and that of many others including the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration, the pre July 2012 system was not only fairer, it made far more sense to base the requirement on a couples net income rather than their gross income.

Finally, I recommend reading this commentary on the requirement and its effects.

Thank you for setting out fact.

The ignorant will, of course, ignore fact and continue making their bizarre (unfounded) comments.

[welsh wizard]

If she has the money to appeal surely she has the money for the tickets, sorry but go now,go now . Or will benefits be paying as I would like to live in Eastbourne without benefits

[gandalf12]

There have been some interesting posts, some more ignorant ones since my last visit here.

Rather than answer each question and comment individually, I'll try and address them all.

Asylum seekers

Asylum has nothing to do with this topic. The rules governing asylum seekers are different to those covering family migration. Though the comments made by some here are typical of those made by people with little or no knowledge of either.

For a detailed explanation, see Claim asylum in the UK.

The UK is a civilised country, so is not going to let asylum seekers starve. But what they do get is very small: see Aslyum support

People from certain countries bring their entire extended family into the UK and they all claim benefits.

Wrong, for two reasons.

Firstly, spouses, civil partners, unmarried partners, fiancés of a British citizen or permanent resident and children of same under 18, are, for all but a very few, the only ones who stand a hope of qualifying.

Adult dependent relative visas are very difficult to obtain, and very expensive. For a start the relative must be totally dependent upon their sponsor for their day to day physical care and that care must not be available in their own country. See “Coming to be cared for - you’re an adult dependent relative” on this page

Secondly, until the immigrant family member has ILR, which usually takes at least 5 years to obtain, they cannot claim any state benefits. Neither can their British family member claim any extra benefits due to their immigrant family member living with them.

The ‘jobsworth’ bureaucrats should use some discretion.

Agreed; but, unfortunately, they can’t; their employer, the government, wont let them.

There is some small evidential flexibility allowed, but the rules effective from July 2012, set by the government, are very clear: either sponsor and/or applicant meet the financial requirement, or they don’t.

What is the financial requirement anyway?

See here for full details of the requirement and how it can be met.

The basic requirement is that for an adult applicant their sponsor, or for leave to remain applications they and/or their sponsor, must earn at least £18,600 p.a. or must have at least £62,500 in cash savings. Savings above £16,000 can be combined with income to reduce the amount of each required.

If a child or children are applying as well, then these amounts increase. Although in this case as the child is a British citizen they are not included in the requirement.

One of the absurdities of this requirement is that it is based upon pre tax income and takes absolutely no account of outgoings.

Mr A earns £18600 p.a. before tax, has a mortgage of £3,600p.a. and has credit card and other debt repayments of £2000p.a. leaving him with a pre tax income of £13,000p.a. He meets the requirement.

Mr. B has a pre tax income of £18,599 p.a., his mortgage is paid off and he has no other debts. He doesn’t meet the requirement!

Pre July 2012 the, unofficial but based upon case law, minimum income was a net figure, after deducting tax and all regular outgoings such as rent or mortgage and debt repayments.

After these deductions the sponsor needed a post tax income equivalent to the amount of Income Support a British family of the same size would receive; currently £114.85 p.w (£5972.20 p.a.).

Now, the government expect a British couple to live on only £5972.20 pa. after housing costs, but demand a couple where one is an immigrant have a much higher income.

In my honest opinion, and that of many others including the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration, the pre July 2012 system was not only fairer, it made far more sense to base the requirement on a couples net income rather than their gross income.

Finally, I recommend reading this commentary on the requirement and its effects.

Interesting post of your I like it. However, what it is saying is that he, the British husband, either has to leave his wife and child so he can live in the UK or leave the country. When one refers to immigrants it is normally associated with neither husband or wife being a British citizen. This guy is British. The rules in the UK are stupid as are many within the EU but to consider the wife of a British subject as an immigrant is erring on the stupid also. The husband provides for his family so logically he is not fit to live in the UK either which goes beyond stupid.

[7by7]

Welsh wizard, you seem to have missed the point entirely.

It is not a question of what this, or any other family, can afford.

It is also not a question of benefits. As previously explained, Mrs James cannot claim any public funds, except any contribution based ones for which she has paid the required amount of NICs, until she has Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK; which will take her at least 5 years to obtain.

Although Mr James can claim any public funds to which he, as a British citizen, may be entitled, he cannot claim any which he may have been entitled to had he married a British citizen.

It is fair to assume, though, that Mr James is perfectly capable of supporting his family, as apparently he has been doing so since last year.

Their problem, as with many others including several members of Thai Visa, is that, like approximately 40% of the UK working population, they do not meet the arbitrary income figure set by the government which takes absolutely no account of what they actually can and cannot afford and the fact that people can support themselves without recourse to public funds even though they earn less than £18,600p.a.

They may not live well, no new car, 54" HD TV etc., but they live.

Would you be saying "go now, go now" if it were your wife threatened with removal because you had fallen foul of this absurd requirement, even though you were perfectly capable of supporting your family without recourse to public funds?

Somehow, I doubt it.

[johnatong]

There have been some interesting posts, some more ignorant ones since my last visit here.

Rather than answer each question and comment individually, I'll try and address them all.

Asylum seekers

Asylum has nothing to do with this topic. The rules governing asylum seekers are different to those covering family migration. Though the comments made by some here are typical of those made by people with little or no knowledge of either.

For a detailed explanation, see Claim asylum in the UK.

The UK is a civilised country, so is not going to let asylum seekers starve. But what they do get is very small: see Aslyum support

People from certain countries bring their entire extended family into the UK and they all claim benefits.

Wrong, for two reasons.

Firstly, spouses, civil partners, unmarried partners, fiancés of a British citizen or permanent resident and children of same under 18, are, for all but a very few, the only ones who stand a hope of qualifying.

Adult dependent relative visas are very difficult to obtain, and very expensive. For a start the relative must be totally dependent upon their sponsor for their day to day physical care and that care must not be available in their own country. See “Coming to be cared for - you’re an adult dependent relative” on this page

Secondly, until the immigrant family member has ILR, which usually takes at least 5 years to obtain, they cannot claim any state benefits. Neither can their British family member claim any extra benefits due to their immigrant family member living with them.

The ‘jobsworth’ bureaucrats should use some discretion.

Agreed; but, unfortunately, they can’t; their employer, the government, wont let them.

There is some small evidential flexibility allowed, but the rules effective from July 2012, set by the government, are very clear: either sponsor and/or applicant meet the financial requirement, or they don’t.

What is the financial requirement anyway?

See here for full details of the requirement and how it can be met.

The basic requirement is that for an adult applicant their sponsor, or for leave to remain applications they and/or their sponsor, must earn at least £18,600 p.a. or must have at least £62,500 in cash savings. Savings above £16,000 can be combined with income to reduce the amount of each required.

If a child or children are applying as well, then these amounts increase. Although in this case as the child is a British citizen they are not included in the requirement.

One of the absurdities of this requirement is that it is based upon pre tax income and takes absolutely no account of outgoings.

Mr A earns £18600 p.a. before tax, has a mortgage of £3,600p.a. and has credit card and other debt repayments of £2000p.a. leaving him with a pre tax income of £13,000p.a. He meets the requirement.

Mr. B has a pre tax income of £18,599 p.a., his mortgage is paid off and he has no other debts. He doesn’t meet the requirement!

Pre July 2012 the, unofficial but based upon case law, minimum income was a net figure, after deducting tax and all regular outgoings such as rent or mortgage and debt repayments.

After these deductions the sponsor needed a post tax income equivalent to the amount of Income Support a British family of the same size would receive; currently £114.85 p.w (£5972.20 p.a.).

Now, the government expect a British couple to live on only £5972.20 pa. after housing costs, but demand a couple where one is an immigrant have a much higher income.

In my honest opinion, and that of many others including the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration, the pre July 2012 system was not only fairer, it made far more sense to base the requirement on a couples net income rather than their gross income.

Finally, I recommend reading this commentary on the requirement and its effects.

Interesting post of your I like it. However, what it is saying is that he, the British husband, either has to leave his wife and child so he can live in the UK or leave the country. When one refers to immigrants it is normally associated with neither husband or wife being a British citizen. This guy is British. The rules in the UK are stupid as are many within the EU but to consider the wife of a British subject as an immigrant is erring on the stupid also. The husband provides for his family so logically he is not fit to live in the UK either which goes beyond stupid.

It is a "difficult" subject.

Many do not possess the intellect that allows them to differentiate between migrants/immigrants/refugees !

Those who lack "intellect" rant about stupidity !

[gandalf12]

7by7 I wouldnt but I consider the 18k is a ridiculously small amount to live on in the UK. That isnt the point he is the provider and as long as they know the possibilities then they should be allowed

[7by7]

When one refers to immigrants it is normally associated with neither husband or wife being a British citizen.

Most immigrants to the UK are not family members of British citizens and so do not come under the family migration rules and this requirement which is an appendix to those rules.

Most non EEA immigrants enter as workers or students; who do have their own rules to meet.

But the majority of migrants come from other EEA states; I don't want to get into an off topic discussion about the rights and wrongs that, though.

This government pledged to reduce net migration.

They have made it more difficult and expensive for workers and students, who despite only coming to the UK temporarily are still classed as immigrants.

They cannot do anything about EEA migrants without major changes to the EEA freedom of movement treaty. Changes which would not only require the agreement of all other EEA states (EEA, not just EU) but would also have a detrimental effect on the approximately 1.5 million Brits currently exercising a treaty right in another EEA country and those who may wish to do so in the future and British citizens who marry an EEA national..

So they picked on an easy target; families, so they could loudly proclaim that they "are doing something."

Though as we all know, despite the devastating effect this financial requirement has had on British citizens and their families, the net migration figures, which include EEA nationals as well as non EEA nationals, are increasing.

Not just this government; the process of making migration into the UK for spouses and other family members of British citizens more difficult and much more expensive began under Blair.

[7by7]

7by7 I wouldnt but I consider the 18k is a ridiculously small amount to live on in the UK.

Maybe, but approximately 40% of the UK manage it.

As I said: they may not live well, no new car, 54" HD TV etc., but they live.

Of course, where you live plays a part; inside the M25, living costs, especially housing costs, are very high; elsewhere much lower.

Which is why I believe the pre July 2012 requirement, which looked at both income and living costs, was not only fairer, but far more logical.

That isnt the point he is the provider and as long as they know the possibilities then they should be allowed

My point exactly; glad we agree.

[7by7]

The financial requirement has, of course, been discussed in the Visas and migration to other countries many times; and opinions there differ widely.

The latest topic being 'Absurd' visa rules on income force UK citizens into exile, court told; which may be of interest.

[laislica]

So if this family were to live in another EU country for say six months and managed to obtain residency in that country

would she be allowed to enter the UK under the Surinder Singh rule?

Would she then avoid the English tests etc?

Also avoid the financial requirements?

[HerbalEd]

Really......

And you actually think those rules are being applied equally?

[johnatong]

Really......

And you actually think those rules are being applied equally?

And do you have evidence that the rules are not being applied equally ?

Make sure you understand what the "rules" are before responding.

[bangon04]

Sad, but rules is rules.

unless you are from muslim countries or China and you throw your passport away before you get in the back of a truck - then you can get free housing benefits and cannot be deported.

[johnatong]

Sad, but rules is rules.

unless you are from muslim countries or China and you throw your passport away before you get in the back of a truck - then you can get free housing benefits and cannot be deported.

Yep they will be wealthy !

Now read and learn about the reality !

https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get

[phantomfiddler]

18,600 Pounds a year ! How could anyone possibly spend that much ? I never made more than 1,100 quid a year, and salaries really should be capped at say 5,000 quid so that there would be more available cash for the illegal immigrants to want for nothing

[pacovl46]

Wow! Since when do Americans need a visa for the UK? That's unbelievable!

[GOLDBUGGY]

Sad, but rules is rules.

What is sad is that you open your arms to immigrants who may not even speak your language. You house them, clothe them and their many children and feed them for years, in hopes that one day they can earn a living. But then kick out the wife of a Long Time Citizens because he doesn't earn a big wage, or maybe recently lost his job. Yes! It is very sad indeed!

[Baerboxer]

Didn't take long for the ignorant comments from the ill informed to arrive!

This absurd financial requirement applies to everyone applying to enter or remain in the UK via the family settlement rules; regardless of their nationality, race, religion or fashion sense.

Absurd being the operative word!

[connda]

But the UK like the US opens their borders and welfare systems to those who entry the country illegally, but deny entry to the wife's of it's citizens if they don't meet income rules. How many of the illegals meet 'income rules'.

[how241]

AhFarangJa, on 09 Apr 2016 - 18:39, said:

Rules is rules....yes...except if she was an immigrant from one of several muslim countries, or Africa, she would not be treated like this.

+1...Sad but true.

[captspectre]

Didn't take long for the ignorant comments from the ill informed to arrive!

This absurd financial requirement applies to everyone applying to enter or remain in the UK via the family settlement rules; regardless of their nationality, race, religion or fashion sense.

what about all the muslims that entered the uk ?

[johnatong]

Didn't take long for the ignorant comments from the ill informed to arrive!

This absurd financial requirement applies to everyone applying to enter or remain in the UK via the family settlement rules; regardless of their nationality, race, religion or fashion sense.

what about all the muslims that entered the uk ?

What about them ?

[JetsetBkk]

I have to have about 16,000 quid in the bank to stay here on "retirement".

Perhaps the UK should raise the amount required as it's so much more expensive to live over there.

[7by7]

So if this family were to live in another EU country for say six months and managed to obtain residency in that country

would she be allowed to enter the UK under the Surinder Singh rule?

Would she then avoid the English tests etc?

Also avoid the financial requirements?

Yes, provided all the requirements were met; see Surinder Singh.

But, this may become much more difficult; Draft EU rules could tighten migration loophole for foreign-born spouses

However, the draft deal from the European commission, aimed at keeping Britain in the EU, includes a paragraph that seems intent on shutting down the loophole, agreeing “to exclude, from the scope of free movement rights, third-country nationals who had no prior lawful residence in a member state before marrying a union citizen or who marry a union citizen only after the union citizen has established residence in the host member state”.

BTW, as Mrs James is American then, like all nationals of English speaking countries, she is exempt from the English speaking and listening tests for her initial visa, FLR and ILR. She still needs to pass the LitUK test for ILR, though.

[7by7]

Wow! Since when do Americans need a visa for the UK? That's unbelievable!

Why unbelievable?

Like some other nationalities, known as "non visa nationals," Americans do not usually need to obtain a visa in advance to enter the UK as a visitor. Though they can still be refused entry if immigration at their port of entry have reason to believe they are not a genuine visitor but are attempting to enter the UK for some other purpose.

They do need the appropriate visa to enter the UK for any other purpose, e.g. work, study, settle, and the appropriate leave to remain in order to remain in the UK once that visa expires.

[7by7]

Sad, but rules is rules.

What is sad is that you open your arms to immigrants who may not even speak your language. You house them, clothe them and their many children and feed them for years, in hopes that one day they can earn a living. But then kick out the wife of a Long Time Citizens because he doesn't earn a big wage, or maybe recently lost his job. Yes! It is very sad indeed!

Before making comments like the above, I suggest that you actually acquaint yourself with the rules.

You wont look so ignorant that way.

My post No. 32 and the links contained therein is a good place to start.

[7by7]

I have to have about 16,000 quid in the bank to stay here on "retirement".

Perhaps the UK should raise the amount required as it's so much more expensive to live over there.

If meeting the income requirement for a spouse or partner through cash savings alone the amount required is £62,500.

It's not relevant to Mr and Mrs James, but the UK used to have an equivalent to a Thai retirement visa; Retired persons of independent means. But that category was closed to new entrants on 27th November 2008.

However, those in the UK in this category prior to that date can still apply to extend their stay for another 5 years or, if they qualify, for ILR.

The eligibility requirments for an extension are:

• Arrived with a valid entry clearance as a retired person of independent means.
• Has made the UK their main home.
• Has under their control, and disposable in the UK, an income of their own of not less than £25,000 a year (net of any overseas or UK tax).
• Can demonstrate a close connection with the UK (close relatives or previous long periods of stay in the UK). For more information see Requirement definitions.
• Has maintained and accommodated themselves and any dependants without working, either here or abroad, and without recourse to public funds..

There are other requirements for ILR in this category in addition to the above; see the relevant part of the document linked to above.

[nausea]

Oh come on, it's collateral damage. Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. If my not being able to take my Thai wife home means a few zillion economic migrants are kept at bay, fair enough. I still have enough relatives over there to make the sacrifice worthwhile.