Home Office wins judgment on minimum income threshold

Its in the detail and there is lots of it....not looking great for those below the £18600 threshold.

"4. The new rules stipulate that a UK partner who wishes to sponsor the entry into the
UK of a partner who does not have a “right of abode” in the UK under the 1971 Act
or any other independent right to enter and remain in the UK must have a “Minimum
Income Requirement” of at least £18,600 per annum gross and an additional income
of £3,800 for the first child and a further supplementary £2,400 income for each
additional child who wishes to enter or remain in the UK. If the UK partner does
not have the requisite minimum gross income, then to obtain entry of the non-EEA
partner the UK partner must demonstrate having a minimum of £16,000 savings plus
additional savings of 2.5 times the amount that is the difference between the UK
partner’s actual gross annual income and the total amount of income required. Of
significance is the fact that neither the income of the non-EEA partner nor any
promised third party support can be taken into account to calculate the UK partner’s
income or savings, save in limited circumstances. I will refer to this income and/or
savings requirement compendiously as the “new MIR”. "

Looks like the appeal based on "Article 8" has been knocked back. And the government have got their way.

http://www.freemovement.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/MM-etc-v-SSHD-APPROVED.pdf

Home Office wins judgment on minimum income threshold

"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.

Family life must not be established in the UK at the taxpayer’s expense
Immigration and Security Minister James Brokenshire said:

I am delighted that the Court of Appeal has comprehensively upheld the lawfulness of this important policy.

We welcome those who wish to make a life in the UK with their family, work hard and make a contribution, but family life must not be established in the UK at the taxpayer’s expense and family migrants must be able to integrate.

The minimum income threshold to sponsor family migrants is delivering these objectives and this judgment recognises the important public interest it serves.

Today’s judgment overturns an earlier High Court judgment from July 2013, which was supportive of the approach but found that the impact of the minimum income threshold on family life could be disproportionate.

Applications on hold will now receive a decision
The judgment will mean that, from the 28 July, the 4,000 individuals whose applications are currently on hold, pending this judgment, will now receive a decision. These are cases which met all the requirements apart from the minimum income threshold and now stand to be refused. "

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-office-wins-judgment-on-minimum-income-threshold

Thank you for the report.

I do feel for those 4000 people who have had their visa applications on hold and have now received the ultimate kick in the teeth.

I'll be perfectly honest though, it does make a lot of financial sense from the governments prospective to have a income cap. If there was people coming to this country then having to claim benefits then Joe public would cry out forcing the government to put in place even tighter immigration controls.

I think its a hard decision but fair, after all it is ultimately our decision to enter into a relationship with a foreign National.

A little difficult for me to comment on really as I have a foot in both camps so to speak

Thanks for the update anyway John, I know one or two chaps here were asking if a decision had yet been reached on the appeal recently.

Disgusting, but not unexpected, verdict. How would they be here at the taxpayers expense when they have no recourse the public funds?

If they really want an income threshold it should be the point where people start paying tax, which I believe is around 10,000.

How would they be here at the taxpayers expense when they have no recourse the public funds?

exactly what ive thought all along.

this whole earnings figure is a nonsense. how can any couple manage on an income of £18600-----if they pay rent or a mortgage. ? but i suppose some level has to be set--thankfully its not a lot higher.

One piece of good news is that they have never yet increased it. Yet.

another aspect about the new rules--july 2012---is the 5 year " probationary " period.

how many--under the old rules---stayed together for the 2 years-----only for the immigrant to bugger off as soon as-----

at least this way we sponsors get 5 years out of the deal.

The five years is a long time, but it's fine. It doesn't actually force families apart. The income threshold does.

i wonder--how many--under the old 2 year rule---are now living on state benefits.........

At least that is a positive . If they do push it up a bit more it will exclude more and more ordinary folk, I think the average salary in the UK is 25k.

One thing for sure, you can guarantee that the process will get more difficult and more expensive as time moves on.

I've already began to look at the FLR (M) form and the loved one isn't even here yet , she goes for CFO certificate Tuesday and the sticker will be on the 28th after the visa is valid. Still, at least I get a bit of respite and I'm really looking forward to taking her around the UK for a couple of weeks.

I would have thought that the vast majority of Filipinas that come here do not end up on benefits as they want their own money to send home to their family.

Yeah, I suspect most are either working or pushing a pram

Initially they were looking at £23600 then settled on £18600

it was a political hot potato. what "they" are saying is--a man needs £18600 to be able to support a wife--without state benefits. so--just what is the income support amount for a couple--without kids ?

I think £23600 is pushing it a bit, but having said that you would be in a better position to look after the loved one if you were earning that much. I would like to think that the Filipinas that settle here in the UK have a good standard of living and are well looked after.

Yes you're right and the £16000 of savings that is talked about is the cut off point for not being able to claim benefits.

Without doubt the financial requirement will increase just as frequently as the visa fees do.

I would like to see the breakdown of costs relating to a visa application, £1000 buys a lot of a case workers time, especially in the Philippines.

you would probably find the whole UKVI operates at a healthy profit