A decision has been made

Mr Micawber made it quite plain (in another world) that the income requirement is subject to a minimum of £1550 a month every month, despite the gross figure being well over the £18600 mark per annum. I had no idea you (Kuya) had applied on the basis that you earned less than the minimum £1550 on some months, otherwise I would have said.

Interestingly I used to work offshore on the oil rigs where it was quite common for some people to earn less than £1550 in some months of the year and still gross £20k, £30k and even £40k per annum, owing to the bonus system in place where you get paid a large junk of your salary when you are actually on the rig.

I do wonder how, under the new rules, the UKBA might deal with someone who earned £40,000 per annum yet had only earned, say £1500 in one single month.

I might add, for the uninitiated, such a scenario is quite common in the oil industry and was a position I was in myself some 7 years ago and back the way.

So sorry to hear of this bad news, Sean

Sad for you Mate!
Sad also that these Homo Office "barriers" seem to be leapt over by some undesirable "Aliens"?

Tom

This would be an eminently sensible course of action SO I doubt it.!



Tom

I see you are referring to the statement of changes which will come into effect on 13 December 2012. These changes are a direct result of the excellent campaigning this immigration organisation has been lobbying. I do agree with you that you have fallen victim to shoddy immigration drafting. From reading the statement of changes it does seem to match your circumstances, problem you may have is whether they will apply a new law retrospectively? Very unlikely that they will imo. Most likely the ECM will reject the request to overturn the decision and your best bet is to hope that the judge infers some discretion,

other option is to re-apply for a spouse visa i'm afraid

I heard of someone applying recently who's hubby was first refused, not because his monthly income was below £1550 at any time as it wasn't, but because to get above £1550 p.m. he had to earn an increment of bonuses and overtime.

They appealed ( actually it wasnt an appeal but what is known as reconsideration) and the refusal was overturned.

The gross income without bonuses was £18000 ! With bonuses it was significantly more. And the initial result was refusal based on his £18000 not meeting the £18600 requirement.

Quite clearly, in this case, the ECO was not following the new UKBA regulations.

It took them a week from the initial refusal to overturning the decision by applying for reconsideration.

This was back in September.

My comiserations to mate its just the bloody political game but im sure nothing will stop you from sorting it after a good and well desrved vent

It says in section 5.4.1 that overtime,commission-based pay and bonuses will be counted as earnings from salaried employment.

You may be able to apply for "reconsideration" which is basically an email to the ECM to revue the decision in the light of an eroneous decision. It is obvious from decisions that I have seen that the ECO's dont always get it right.

Reconsideration was free. Not sure if that has changed.

However, as I understand it, your gross income including bonuses and overtime, must be greater than £1550 each and every month.

You more than likely wont need to wait 6 months if you go for reconsideration.....or pay another £826. But I believe you have to act quickly.

I see. Does it say that you cant apply for reconsideration? As far as I know, reconsideration isn't normally offered as a formal option anyway.

The good thing about reconsideration is that it costs nothing.

Try this woman too....MP for Stretford and Urmston.

My ex wife's MP LOL

http://www.kategreen.org/

She is campaigning on these very matters. And not just for her own constituents.

"Parliamentary inquiry into new family migration rules
This parliamentary inquiry, launched on 20 November 2012, will explore the impacts of new rules on family migration. It will specifically focus on changes which make it more difficult to sponsor spouses and partners, or elderly dependents, to come to the UK from outside the European Economic Area (EEA).

The inquiry is led by a cross-party Committee of MPs and peers, coordinated by the APPG on Migration, and chaired by shadow Equalities Minister Kate Green MP."

http://www.appgmigration.org.uk/family-enquiry.

Lets try and dissect what happened, the rules state as follows:

Appendix FM SE:

2. In respect of salaried employment in the UK, all of the following evidence must be provided:
(b) The P60 for the relevant period or periods of employment relied upon (if issued).
(c) Wage slips covering:

(i) a period of 6 months prior to the date of application if the applicant has been employed by their current employer for at least 6 months; or
(ii) any period of salaried employment in the period of 12 months prior to the date of application if the applicant has been employed by their current employer for less than 6 months.

(d) A letter from the employer(s) who issued the wage slips at paragraph 2(c) confirming:

(i) the person's employment and gross annual salary;
(ii) the length of their employment;
(iii) the period over which they have been or were paid the level of salary relied upon in the application; and
(iv) the type of employment (permanent, fixed-term contract or agency).


(e) A signed contract of employment for employment currently held.
(f) Monthly personal bank statements corresponding to the same period(s) as the wage slips at paragraph 2(c), showing that the salary has been paid into an account in the name of the person or in the name of the person and their partner jointly.

Calculating Gross Annual Income under Appendix FM

13. Based on evidence that meets the requirements of this Appendix, and can be taken into account with reference to the applicable provisions of Appendix FM, gross annual income under paragraphs E-ECP.3.1., E-LTRP.3.1., E-ECC.2.1. and E-LTRC.2.1. will be calculated in the following ways:
(a) Where the person is in salaried employment in the UK at the date of application and has been employed by their current employer for at least 6 months, their gross annual income will be the total of:

(i) The gross annual salary from their employment as it was at its lowest level in the 6 months prior to the date of application;
(ii) The gross amount of any specified non-employment income (other than pension income) received by them or their partner in the 12 months prior to the date of application; and
(iii) The gross annual income from a UK or foreign State pension or a private pension received by them or their partner.

(b) Where the person is in salaried employment in the UK at the date of application and has been employed by their current employer for less than 6 months, their gross annual income will be the total of:

(i) The gross annual salary from employment as it was at the date of application;
(ii) The gross amount of any specified non-employment income (other than pension income) received by them or their partner in the 12 months prior to the date of application; and
(iii) The gross annual income from a UK or foreign State pension or a private pension received by them or their partner.

The issue here is that they used your lowest Gross level of pay in the 6 months prior to the date of application and deemed this as insufficient, despite the fact that you quite clearly earn in excess of £18,600. MP is a good shout to get some backing. The statement of changes I was referring to is a change in law, sadly the guidance has no legal basis and therefore should not be treated as law. Reading the guidance though there is only a mention that you can utilise 12 months' income where you have been employed less than 6 months.

Hi, hope that you can get this descision overturned!

This was a similar reason why I was so angered by the descision, I know ive repeated it so many times now, and maybe people dont agree and im just being a cynic as nobody has directly replied.

But I find it absolutely wrong how their sole purpose for these high income requirements is "they dont want recourse to public funds"

Yet, like you, you work hard you earn every penny you can.. you have a stable job... but thats not good enough for them, just as it was not good enough for them I had more than sufficient 3rd party support.

YET, I have personally seen, and know of somebody who is living 100% off public funds, they live in a council house, they claim benefits, they dont work at all... yet his public funds income was sufficient to show for meeting the financial requirement purely on public funds.

Is this ok? that you can get a partner here when already claiming public funds, but if you dont and work hard like you for your income.. then they refuse it because they fear you will start claiming public funds... I dont understand the logic of that.

Whats worse is this person, his wife is now working but she deliberately limits her hours so her husbands benefits are not effected.

in my case, she now has her VISA, she is coming here soon, and we will get married... but im still in fear about the further leave to remain.. im scared they will refuse it and she will be sent home.

Then I have to start again under the new rules.

That is right, a disabled person only has to satisfy the 'old' (pre-July 2012) rules on income. Those rules allow for public funds to be included in the income calculation. As long as you meet the 'Income Support' level of income as a disabled person your partner's visa application could succeed. I am disabled so I am in that lucky position.

But a non-disabled person cannot include many state benefits in the income calculation. So this is positive discrimination in favour of disabled people. I can include my Working Tax Credit and Disability Living allowance in my income calculation. A non-disabled cannot.

Come April 2013, the disabled may well have to satisfy the same income rules as non-disabled; that would mean I have no chance of bringing my Mahal to the UK until 6 months after my 65th birthday in 2016. I would then have a state pension, a personal pension, a lump sum from an endowment policy but I would still probably have to carry on working or release some equity from my house as well to meet the income requirements

I would hope that this new income rule, which was pushed through on a 'negative resolution' in Parliament, will fail when challenged in Court. The rule has been 'added to' with guidance notes issued to ECOs and those guidance notes probably don't reflect accurately what the new rules say. This appears to be what has happened in Kuya's case.and the reason why his wife was refused entry.

This is indeed sad news, Sean and it really seems that you've fallen victim to poorly worded guidelines and the fact that those guidelines are being modified should, in my view, be reason enough for an appeal (or "reconsideration") to be granted.

As I understand it, the new rules were rushed through without any debate in Parliament following a pronouncement by the Home Secretary. But according to the Government's own figures, immigration is growing at an estimated rate of 250,000 per annum of which applications for spouses and fiancées account for less than 10% of the total. But that 10% represents the most divisive since it affects UK nationals most directly. Those hardest hit are retirees and those who've chosen to spend the first few years of their married life with their (non-EU) spouses abroad: we stand almost no chance of being able to bring our wives back to the UK.

And what will happen in a year's time when the Home Office reviews the results of this divisive policy and discovers that more visas were granted than refused? Since this policy was introduced to appease the public clamour to "do something about immigration" and will have demonstrably failed, will the bar be raised to, for example, a minimum of £30,000 pre-tax salary and mandatory home ownership? Since it is prevented from tackling immigration effectively by dint of EU law, I fear it will be British citizens who will continue to be increasingly discriminated against.

For a Government that professes to be "pro-family", its policies in this regard are somewhat contradictory. Shame on you, Teresa May.