05 July 2013 Today, 5 July 2013, the High Court handed down its judgment in a Judicial Review of the minimum income threshold for spouses/partners and children applying in the family route. The Home Office has paused decision-making on some spouse/partner and child settlement visa and leave to remain applications to enable us to consider the implications of the judgment. A Home Office spokesperson said: 'Our family changes were brought in to make sure that spouses coming to live in the UK would not become reliant on the taxpayer for financial support and would be able to integrate effectively. We're pleased that this judgment supports the basis of our approach. 'We are looking closely at the judgment and its likely impact on the minimum income threshold before we decide how to respond. In the meantime, where an applicant does not meet the minimum income threshold and there is no other reason to refuse it, the application will be put on hold.' Further information please see the partners and families page. Source:- http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/newsarticles/2013/july/16-judgement
The court concluded that the rules were not unlawful on the basis of discrimination, or due to a conflict with the statutory duty to regard the best interests of children while making visa decisions. However, it did find that the earnings threshold could be disproportionate if combined with one of the four other requirements in the rules - for example, an inability to supplement a shortfall in income with savings, unless the savings were over £16,000. It is now for Home Secretary Theresa May to decide whether any amendments should be made to the rules to satisfy the requirements of proportionality.
High Court judgment on minimum income threshold for family migrants 05 July 2013 On 5 July 2013 the High Court delivered its judgment on a legal challenge to the minimum income threshold for spouses/partners and children applying in the family route. The Home Office has paused decision-making on some spouse/partner and child settlement visa and leave to remain applications to enable us to consider the implications of the judgment. The pause applies to applications made under Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules where the application would be refused solely because the rules relating to the minimum income threshold are not met, including where relevant the evidence requirements in Appendix FM-SE. The same approach is being applied to a small number of adoption cases which would be refused on this ground alone. Applications which meet the Rules or which fall to be refused on other grounds, such as requirements for English language or a genuine and subsisting relationship, will continue to be processed and decided as normal. A further announcement will be made in due course. Can I still submit a spouse/partner or child application under Appendix FM? Yes. You can continue to apply, but you should take into account the fact that if the income threshold is the only requirement you do not meet, the Home Office will pause consideration of your application pending further consideration of the High Court judgment. Can I still submit my application in person at a public enquiry office in the UK? Yes, but you should take into account the fact that if the income threshold is the only requirement you do not meet, the Home Office will pause consideration of your application pending further consideration of the High Court judgment. What happens if my case is on hold and I want to withdraw my application or get my passport returned because I need to travel? If you have already applied and now wish to withdraw your application, you may do so. The Home Office will not refund your application fee. If you are seeking the return of your passport to travel, you may do so but the Home Office will treat your application as withdrawn. The Home Office will not refund your application fee. How long will cases be paused? We will provide further information in due course. What happens if I meet the income threshold requirement? If we assess that you meet all the rules which apply to your case, including the income threshold requirement where this applies, your application will be granted. Am I still required to meet the income threshold requirement or can I apply knowing that I do not meet it? You can apply, but if the income threshold is the only requirement you do not meet, the Home Office will pause consideration of your application pending further consideration of the High Court judgment. Does this pause affect all adoption cases? No. This only applies to applications required to meet the minimum income threshold under paragraph 314(i)(a), 314(i)(d), 316A(i)(d) or 316A(i)(e) of Part 8 of the Immigration Rules made on or after 9 July 2012. Adoption applications which do not have to meet the minimum income threshold are unaffected. Does this pause on decisions affect other categories like adult dependent relatives or spouses on the two-year probationary period? No. This pause has no effect on applications which do not need to meet the income threshold requirement. Those cases will continue to be assessed against the rules which apply to them. Source:- http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/newsfragments/87-min-income-threshold
The UKBA announcement has, of course, ignored what the judge condemned... http://www.asianimage.co.uk/news/10530572.Spouse_immigrant_rule__unjustified_/?ref=nt Spouse immigrant rule 'unjustified' 4:46pm Friday 5th July 2013 in News New immigration measures affecting British citizens who want their spouses to join them in this country from abroad were described as "onerous" and "unjustified" by a High Court judge today. Although Mr Justice Blake ruled that it would not be appropriate to "strike down" the financial requirements set out in rules laid before Parliament in June last year, he concluded that they amounted to a "disproportionate interference with a genuine spousal relationship". The judge, who identified what he said "might be a proportionate financial requirement" in such cases, announced in a lengthy written ruling: "It will be for the Secretary of State if she sees fit to make such adjustments to the rules as will meet the observations in this judgment." Mr Justice Blake made his comments in three judicial review applications brought by two British citizens who are resident in the Birmingham area, and a "recognised refugee", relating to amendments made to the Immigration Rules, which include a mandatory requirement that a sponsor has a minimum gross income of £18,600. The judge, sitting in London, said the central question in the challenge was whether the "minimum income provisions of the maintenance rules when applied to sponsors who are British citizens or refugees whose incomes and savings combined do not meet them are a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for family life". Although there may be sound reasons in favour of some of the individual requirements "taken in isolation", he had concluded that - when applied to either "recognised refugees" or British citizens - the combination of more than one of five requirements of the rules was "so onerous in effect as to be an unjustified and disproportionate interference with a genuine spousal relationship". He said the Home Secretary's justification for the new rule was "transparency and improvement of ease of assessment". The judge ruled: "In my judgment, the aim of transparency cannot justify an agglomeration of measures that cumulatively very severely restrict the ability of many law abiding and decent citizens of this nation who happen not to earn substantial incomes in their employment from living with their spouses in the land of their nationality." He said that he had found it a "challenging case", adding: "It represents in an acute form the tensions between the competing calls for judicial respect for sensitive issues of policy making by the democratically accountable executive and judicial scrutiny with an appropriate degree of intensity of rules that affect the enjoyment of a fundamental human right." Mr Justice Blake said that in reaching his conclusions he had understood and given weight "to the wide discretionary area of judgment open to the Secretary of State in making economic and social judgments in the context of immigration". He also recognised that the £18,600 figure was the lower of two options identified by the Migration Advisory Committee and further accepted that the policy aim was to identify a figure "above mere subsistence and from which future recourse to any form of benefit would be made impossible for all practical purposes". The judge said: "I further recognise that Parliament must have been aware of the minimum income figure when expressing its satisfaction with the Secretary of State's policies." But the sum "effectively denies" young people and many thousands of low wage earners in full-time employment the ability to be joined by their spouses "unless they happen to have wealthy relatives or to have won the lottery". Mr Justice Blake said he considered the "most striking feature of the scheme" to be the "disregard of the spouse's own earning capacity during the 30-month period of initial entry". He said: "To prevent a couple from having any regard to the future earning capacity of the spouse to be admitted for the first 30 months of the residence strikes me as both irrational and manifestly disproportionate in its impact on the ability for the spouses to live together." There was a variety of "less intrusive" means of safeguarding the economic welfare of the UK, including reducing the minimum income required of the sponsor to around £13,000 and permitting account to be taken of the earning capacity of the spouse after entry "on the satisfactorily supported maintenance undertakings of third parties". The Home Secretary was given permission to appeal against the ruling. A Home Office spokeswoman said: "Our family changes were brought in to make sure that spouses coming to live in the UK would not become reliant on the taxpayer for financial support and would be able to integrate effectively. "We're pleased that this judgment supports the basis of our approach. "We are looking closely at the judgment and its likely impact on the minimum income threshold before we decide how to respond. "In the meantime, where an applicant does not meet the minimum income threshold and there is no other reason to refuse it, the application will be put on hold."
So basically the idea of a threshold is fine, but too many people get mistreated due to the ammount set too high or not including the spouses potential earnings...
£13,000/year roughly equates to someone working a 40 hour week on minimum wage. Let's hope the disabled keep their concession and maybe pensioners should be treated in the same way? British Citizens will still not be on a par with other EEA citizens though.
Yes, it has been a much debated topic in the past on another channel - where the cut off line should be. I always said £18600 was too high but where indeed it ought to lay and be fair all round, is a difficult question to answer. And of course a fixed figure threshold takes no account of regional variations in wages and rents and house prices and goods too.
But surely you can't include POTENTIAL earning can you? It all has to be on proven income I'd have thought
I always thought that Oz and I think Canada have the right idea and do immigration on a points system depending on occupation, qualification and earnings. I believe it can be done on the basis of one person or a couple etc. so as long as you reach the required score you're in. I think Ricky is in the process of this.
