UK Spouse Visa - Does the financial requirement still apply if our children have British Passports ?

[cupcake1]

Sorry for all the questions here. I have been trying to get the answers online and within this website but I am struggling.

This is regarding the requirements for obtaining a spouse visa for the UK for my Thai wife. The question is do I have to comply with the 18600 GBP financial requirements as our children hold British passports ?

We have been married for 7 years and are living in Thailand during that time.

We have 2 biological children together. They both have British passports.

I have a British passport. My wife has a Thai passport.

We own a house in England UK where we will be living when we make the move. The house is owned in both our names (my wife's name is also on the deeds). Thankfully there is no mortgage.

My wife has a 10 year multiple entry visitors visa for the UK. She has visited the UK 3 times now.

I am moving my entire family to the UK this September permanently. I will be going to the UK this month (July) to look for work, start earning and get the house set up for their arrival. My wife will leave the UK after 6 months to apply for the spouse visa from within Thailand. I have struggled to find work recently in South East Asia and I am trying to keep all the family together in an environment where I can work and the kids can get some good schooling. I have their places at school assured for the September UK start. I am guessing I need to earn 11 pounds an hour for a 40 hour week to comply with the 18600 ? How do I prove that when we apply ?

Do I still have to comply with the 18600 GBP financial requirements in order for my wife to get the spouse visa ? We have 2 children together with British passports ? We have little savings.

Are the British Government still reviewing the amount 18600 ?

Is the Spouse visa the only way I can keep my wife with the family in the UK.

This is a really insane law. If a single romanian man can come into the UK and start working immediately and live there ..... and I am struggling to keep the mother of our 2 British kids with the family in the UK .....

Thank you for any help you can supply.

[theoldgit]

You still have to meet the financial requirement in respect of your wife, but not your children.

The crazy thing is that as it currently stands if you have an income of £18,600 but a large mortgage you qualify, if you have an income of £18,000 and own a home, mortgage free, you don't, I agree it makes no sense whatsoever.

I have no idea if the Government are considering an increase in the required figure, I suspect they might at some stage but probably not whilst there are outstanding court cases regarding the issue.

There is a possibility that you could seek an exception to the requirement citing family life, you are British as are your children so have a right of abode in the UK and the children's mother should be with them, but I really have no idea if this would work, the response might well be that you can still live together here in Thailand, that's not my view by the way.

[7by7]

Are the British Government still reviewing the amount 18600 ?

The figure is the amount of income above which a British couple would no longer be eligible for any income related benefits. So if/when that figure is increased I expect this figure will be also.

Ditto the extra for any children also applying.

Is the Spouse visa the only way I can keep my wife with the family in the UK.

Essentially; yes.

As theoldgit says, you may be able to obtain residence for her based upon your right to family life under Article 8 of the ECHR. But the British government argue that as it is a qualified right, this financial requirement does not breach it.

The relevant part being

There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of.......the economic wellbeing of the country....

There are already various appeals working their way through the courts on this point. So far the courts have agreed with the government.

This is a really insane law. If a single romanian man can come into the UK and start working immediately and live there ..... and I am struggling to keep the mother of our 2 British kids with the family in the UK .....

I agree that the actual amount is too high; it should be, in my opinion, the same as the income support level for a British family of the same size, currently £114.85 per week for a couple both over 18 plus extra for any children plus their rent or mortgage. Which is basically what it was prior to July 2012.

Your single Romanian man can only come to the UK if he is exercising a treaty right and can show he can support himself without becoming a burden upon the state; as can all other EEA nationals. British citizens have the same right in all other EEA states.

Of course, whether this will continue after Brexit remains to be seen, but if it changes it will effect not just other EEA nationals wishing to exercise a treaty right in the UK but British citizens wishing to exercise a treaty right in the remaining EEA states as well.

[Richard W]

Your single Romanian man can only come to the UK if he is exercising a treaty right and can show he can support himself without becoming a burden upon the state; as can all other EEA nationals. British citizens have the same right in all other EEA states.

Where are those restrictions laid down? I can find them in neither the directive (2004/38/EC) nor the Immigration (EEA) Regulations. He does not have to demonstrate and capability to support himself to enter the UK, and he can stay if exercises a treaty right, even if he claims housing benefit.

More to the point, a Frenchman in the OP's position could bring his family to the UK with no problem. Now, has the UK voted to remain, the Frenchman would have been in the same position as the OP. As it is, that anomaly remains until the UK leaves the EEA.

By excluding the OP's wife, the government hopes to exclude the OP's children and therefore save on the cost of educating them, as well as other costs relating to them. This is quite a considerable saving.

[Hedghog]

Considering the average UK salary is £27,500.per annum.

A paltry £18,600. Shouldn't be that hard to come by.

[theoldgit]

By excluding the OP's wife, the government hopes to exclude the OP's children and therefore save on the cost of educating them, as well as other costs relating to them. This is quite a considerable saving.

Not wishing to be pernickety, but the OP's wife isn't excluded it's just that she has to meet different requirements from those wishing to enter from the EU.

[7by7]

Where are those restrictions laid down? I can find them in neither the directive (2004/38/EC) nor the Immigration (EEA) Regulations. He does not have to demonstrate and capability to support himself to enter the UK, and he can stay if exercises a treaty right, even if he claims housing benefit.

You could not have looked very hard!

Para 10 of the directive

Persons exercising their right of residence should not, however, become an unreasonable

burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during an initial period of

residence. Therefore, the right of residence for Union citizens and their family members for

periods in excess of three months should be subject to conditions.

Maybe my wording was not to your liking, but I'm not going to indulge in another of your petty arguments over semantics.

More to the point, a Frenchman in the OP's position could bring his family to the UK with no problem. Now, has the UK voted to remain, the Frenchman would have been in the same position as the OP. As it is, that anomaly remains until the UK leaves the EEA.

I assume by 'has' you mean 'had.'

But then, had the UK voted to remain the Frenchman, like all other EEA nationals, would not have been in the same position as the OP! He would still have been able to use the EEA regulations.

What will happen when the UK does finally leave the EU remains to be seen.

The freedom of movement rights are not an anomaly; they are rights granted under international treaty. Rights currently enjoyed by approximately 1.5 million British citizens living in other EEA member states; many with their non EEA national partners.

By excluding the OP's wife, the government hopes to exclude the OP's children and therefore save on the cost of educating them, as well as other costs relating to them. This is quite a considerable saving.

Whilst the motives behind the changes introduced in July 2012 are somewhat suspect; your statement above is nonsense.

As theoldgit says, if the OP's wife meets the criteria she will be able to live in the UK with her husband and children.

Even if she doesn't, for example because the OP does not meet the financial requirement, there is nothing to stop the OP moving to the UK with his children, placing them into a state school and also claiming any and all benefits to which he and they may be entitled.

Not an ideal situation; but doable; at least until he can meet the financial requirement and his wife can join them.

After all, it's not unheard of for a Thai mother to be separated from her children. I know, both through forums such as this and personally, many Thai/British couples where the Thai mother moves to the UK leaving her children behind in Thailand. Sometimes the children apply at a later date to join their mother, sometimes they don't and only see their mother when she visits them in Thailand.

I make no judgement; each case is different and I'm am sure that those couples who do this have valid reasons for their choice; as my wife and I did when she and her daughter came to the UK but her son, who was in his last year of high school with a university place already secured, remained in Thailand.

[7by7]

Considering the average UK salary is £27,500.per annum.

A paltry £18,600. Shouldn't be that hard to come by.

What you forget is that average earnings figure includes everybody.

From a part time supermarket shelf filler on minimum wage to a Premiership footballer on £100K+ a week and beyond!

From The Migration Observatory

Close to 40% of British citizens working as employees in 2015 earned less than the income threshold. People are less likely meet the threshold if they are young or female. A higher share of people living in London meet the threshold compared to the UK average

Which is the main reason why I, and many others including the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration, firmly believe that the pre July 20012 financial requirement, as I outlined above, is far more equitable.

[cupcake1]

Thank you everyone for your points and opinions. They are all much appreciated.

I will graft away for the next 6 months to ensure that I meet the financial requirements. Even if I have to do 2 jobs. 18600 pounds salary may sound paltry to some people but not to a lot of working families that I know. It depends on your qualifications and age and region of UK that you live in.

My 2 boys have their British school education secured for September. Thats a real bonus. Having lived in South East Asia for the last 11 years I will never take that for granted.

I see there is a condition where if you have something like 64,000 GBP in your bank account for 6 months then that is enough to ensure the visa application (regarding financial requirements). What is to stop me borrowing the money for 6 months and then paying it back to the loaner after 6 months ?

Am I correct in my understanding that the 18600 GBP is a projected sum that must be proven only after 6 months of earnings ? Or can we apply for the visa if I get offered a job with a contract statiing my salary is 25,000 GBP (for example) ?

[7by7]

I see there is a condition where if you have something like 64,000 GBP in your bank account for 6 months then that is enough to ensure the visa application (regarding financial requirements). What is to stop me borrowing the money for 6 months and then paying it back to the loaner after 6 months ?

The actual minimum amount required if meeting the requirement via cash savings alone is £62,500.

The savings can be in your name, your wife's, you both jointly or any combination of these. They must have been in the possession of the account holder and under their complete control for at least 6 months prior to the application.

They can come from any legal source; except a loan.

Savings above £16,000 can be combined with most sources of income to reduce the amount of each required.

Am I correct in my understanding that the 18600 GBP is a projected sum that must be proven only after 6 months of earnings ? Or can we apply for the visa if I get offered a job with a contract statiing my salary is 25,000 GBP (for example) ?

When applying you need to provide the specified evidence to show that the financial requirement is met at the time of the application.

If you have been working in Thailand for at least the last 6 months with an income of at least £18,600 p.a. and have a confirmed job offer in the UK paying at least £18,600 p.a. starting within three months of your arrival then this is one way of meeting the requirement.

If you cannot do this, do not have sufficient savings or cannot meet the requirement in any other way then you will have to come to the UK and find a job paying at least £18,600 p.a. and be in that job for at least 6 months before your wife can apply for settlement.

She can, however, apply for a visit visa to be in the UK with her family for that 6 months; but will have to return to Thailand to make her settlement application.

Many couples have done this; but remember you/she will have to satisfy the ECO that she will leave the UK at the end of her visit visa, come what may.

For more details of the financial requirement, the various ways of meeting it and the evidence required, see the financial requirement appendix.

Remember you will have to meet it again after your wife has lived in the UK for 2.5 years and applies for Further Leave to Remain, and again 2.5 years after that when she applies for Indefinite Leave to Remain. Though in both those applications her income, if any, can be used as well as or instead of yours.

If you haven't already done so, you should read Apply to join family living permanently in the UK.

[cupcake1]

Thank you 7by7

Found this. May be useful to others in same situation:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/525708/Appendix_FM_1_7_Financial_Requirement.pdf

[7by7]

Not useful; essential IMHO!

Which is why I posted a link to it in my previous post!

Edited July 14, 2016 by 7by7

[Richard W]

Where are those restrictions laid down? I can find them in neither the directive (2004/38/EC) nor the Immigration (EEA) Regulations. He does not have to demonstrate and capability to support himself to enter the UK, and he can stay if exercises a treaty right, even if he claims housing benefit.

You could not have looked very hard!

Para 10 of the directive

Persons exercising their right of residence should not, however, become an unreasonable

burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during an initial period of

residence. Therefore, the right of residence for Union citizens and their family members for

periods in excess of three months should be subject to conditions.

Maybe my wording was not to your liking, but I'm not going to indulge in another of your petty arguments over semantics.

Note that these 'conditions' boil down to being a qualified person. In principle, part-time work suffices, though the UK imposes a minimum earnings level for it to be counted as effective work. There was a very real prospect that the UK's income-based definition of effective work would be challenged by the Commission.

In this directive, there seems to be quite a gap between the recital and the actual articles.

[Richard W]

More to the point, a Frenchman in the OP's position could bring his family to the UK with no problem. Now, has the UK voted to remain, the Frenchman would have been in the same position as the OP. As it is, that anomaly remains until the UK leaves the EEA.

I assume by 'has' you mean 'had.'

But then, had the UK voted to remain the Frenchman, like all other EEA nationals, would not have been in the same position as the OP! He would still have been able to use the EEA regulations.

What will happen when the UK does finally leave the EU remains to be seen.

The freedom of movement rights are not an anomaly; they are rights granted under international treaty. Rights currently enjoyed by approximately 1.5 million British citizens living in other EEA member states; many with their non EEA national partners.

But part of the agreement was that the Commission would propose a modification to the directive whereby spouses could not use these rights to enter the EU - the change had been described as reversing the Metock judgement, and there was a lot of uncertainty as to what the changes would have been in detail. Once the directive had been modified, the Regulations would have been modified to reflect what the Home Office expected out of the agreement.

The anomaly is that non-citizens have greater rights than citizens. It used not to be such a great difference, and at one time citizens' wives could be established securely much more readily than non-citizens'. What has happened is that EEA nationals' rights have been improved, while UK citizens' rights have been diminished. Italy resolved the anomaly by giving its citizens the same rights with regard to Italy as other EEA nationals.

[Richard W]

By excluding the OP's wife, the government hopes to exclude the OP's children and therefore save on the cost of educating them, as well as other costs relating to them. This is quite a considerable saving.

Not wishing to be pernickety, but the OP's wife isn't excluded it's just that she has to meet different requirements from those wishing to enter from the EU.

I didn't mean that the government has succeeded in excluding the OP's wife permanently; I am merely referring to what is 'achieved' if the financial requirement does keep her out. The OP will be coming to the UK without her, a situation he hopes to rectify. The cost-benefit analysis of the 2012 change included the savings made by children not enjoying UK services and benefits.

I recall the assessment that delaying children arriving in the big wave of black immigration had dire social and educational effects. I don't think that splitting the OP's family is actually in the UK's long-term interest. Perhaps the government had no way of putting a price on the effects, but I can't help thinking they have forgotten them.

There was also the potential political benefit in the 2012 changes. If the family stays together, they can make the difference in net migration between 4 incomers and none.

[7by7]

Richard, as I said

I'm not going to indulge in another of your petty arguments over semantics.

I will simply express a wish that one day, instead of your usual naysaying of what others have posted and lengthy justification of same, you may actually offer some actual advice which may be of use to those who come here seeking help.