Appeal court upholds earnings threshold

Jane BM

Well-Known Member
#1
Changes to immigration laws which require British citizens to have a minimum income before they can sponsor a spouse's visa have been upheld by the Court of Appeal.

The measures, introduced in 2012, were described as "unjustified" by the High Court last year - but three judges on Friday upheld the government's appeal.

They said the rules were "lawful".

The government said it was "delighted", while campaigners said the impact of the decision would be "devastating".

Under the new family migration policy only British citizens, or those with refugee status, who earn at least £18,600 a year can sponsor their non-European spouse's visa.

This rises to £22,400 for families with a child, and a further £2,400 for each extra child.

The Minimum Income Requirement (MIR) policy had been challenged on the basis that the rules were discriminatory and interfered with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, the right to a private and family life.

'Not correct'
In Friday's ruling, Lord Justice Aitkens said the 2013 judgement "was not correct".

He said relevant analysis had been carried out by the government before the measures were introduced and the judgement of the Home Secretary "cannot be impugned" in the case.

He added: "In my judgment it is not the court's job to impose its own view unless, objectively judged, the levels chosen are to be characterised as irrational, or inherently unjust or inherently unfair. In my view they cannot be."

Lawyers representing families affected by the MIR have sought leave to appeal.

Immigration and Security Minister James Brokenshire said he was "delighted" at Friday's ruling.

He added: "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."

A Home Office spokesman said 4,000 people whose applications have been on hold would now receive a decision from 28 July.

He added: "These are cases which met all the requirements apart from the minimum income threshold and now stand to be refused."

'Protect rights'
Campaigners said the changes were a "shocking infringement of the right to family life".

Ruth Grove-White, policy director at the Migrants Rights Network, said: "Many UK residents and British citizens have had their lives put on hold for over a year, often with no chance of seeing their loved husbands, wives or children during that time.

"These rules are a shocking infringement of the right to family life, as almost half of the UK working population earns below the required amount."

She added: "Today's judgment is not the end of the story. We will keep campaigning for rules that respect the right of UK residents to live with their family, and hope that government will see sense and make the changes that are needed to protect these rights."

Paul Blomfield MP, chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Migration, said: "Today's Court of Appeal judgment will come as a disappointment for the thousands of families across the UK who remain apart as a result of these rules."
 

DARK ANGEL

Well-Known Member
#2
Sad news for many people , British citizen and their partners, i think a lots of them will leave the UK to defend their rights to make a happy families not family through skype ! What about people who has the right to remain in the uk , means someone settled in the uk , they need to show them that he earn 18.6£?
 

DARK ANGEL

Well-Known Member
#3
The Home Office welcomes a Court of Appeal judgment, upholding the lawfulness of the income threshold under the new family migration rules.

s300_adult_holding_child_s_hand_960_x_640.jpg

Family migration rules
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.

Published:
11 July 2014
From:
Home Office
James Brokenshire MP
Part of:
Securing borders and reducing immigration
 

Scottochott

Well-Known Member
#4
Good decision, tax payers should not be liable for foreign spouses. I'm sure some will disagree, I think it's fair. For those who don't qualify, the option is always open to go to their spouse's country to live, so no human rights are affected.
 

DARK ANGEL

Well-Known Member
#5
Good decision, tax payers should not be liable for foreign spouses. I'm sure some will disagree, I think it's fair. For those who don't qualify, the option is always open to go to their spouse's country to live, so no human rights are affected.
I respect ur view Scottochott , you said that because you are out the fire , if you was in the same case with many thousands of families i pretty sure you will change ur mind !
 

Jane BM

Well-Known Member
#6
I agree that foreign spouses shouldn't be dependent on taxpayers, however I don't necessarily think this was the right way to do it.

Someone living in London and earning £18,600 is on the breadline....someone living up north can live much better on the same amount. So already doesn't seem fair to me.....the rules that applied when we applied were based on disposable income....so it doesn't matter who you are, where you live, what you do...it's all about how much you spend!! How much you have after your bills are paid.

All this is going to do is encourage people to come here via other routes....temporarily stay in another EU country and then come back to the UK..also bearing in mind THEIR spouses WILL have much more rights as they're here under a different set of rules.
 

Scottochott

Well-Known Member
#7
I respect ur view Scottochott , you said that because you are out the fire , if you was in the same case with many thousands of families i pretty sure you will change ur mind !

No, I would respect the law. I know several people stuck in the situation, I'm afraid my sympathies lie only with those who can financially support their spouse, those who can't need to find another solution, and not not rely on my taxes! It may sound harsh, but I see it as fair.
 

DARK ANGEL

Well-Known Member
#8
I agree that foreign spouses shouldn't be dependent on taxpayers, however I don't necessarily think this was the right way to do it.

Someone living in London and earning £18,600 is on the breadline....someone living up north can live much better on the same amount. So already doesn't seem fair to me.....the rules that applied when we applied were based on disposable income....so it doesn't matter who you are, where you live, what you do...it's all about how much you spend!! How much you have after your bills are paid.

All this is going to do is encourage people to come here via other routes....temporarily stay in another EU country and then come back to the UK..also bearing in mind THEIR spouses WILL have much more rights as they're here under a different set of rules.
I agree Jane , i noticed that many couples go to Ireland and then want to back to the uk , they work so hard to be with each other , but this is a big adventure !
 

DARK ANGEL

Well-Known Member
#9
No, I would respect the law. I know several people stuck in the situation, I'm afraid my sympathies lie only with those who can financially support their spouse, those who can't need to find another solution, and not not rely on my taxes! It may sound harsh, but I see it as fair.
Everyone defend his rights Scott !
 

Scottochott

Well-Known Member
#10
I agree that foreign spouses shouldn't be dependent on taxpayers, however I don't necessarily think this was the right way to do it.

Someone living in London and earning £18,600 is on the breadline....someone living up north can live much better on the same amount. So already doesn't seem fair to me.....the rules that applied when we applied were based on disposable income....so it doesn't matter who you are, where you live, what you do...it's all about how much you spend!! How much you have after your bills are paid.

All this is going to do is encourage people to come here via other routes....temporarily stay in another EU country and then come back to the UK..also bearing in mind THEIR spouses WILL have much more rights as they're here under a different set of rules.

Yes to a certain extent, but realistically this would introduce more grey areas, I think it's right to introduce a level which implies no input from the state, but yes I recognise that disposable income is relevant, but how would you realistically implement this across the board? Interesting argument but the BBQ needs attention, back later ;)
 

Jane BM

Well-Known Member
#11
I agree Jane , i noticed that many couples go to Ireland and then want to back to the uk , they work so hard to be with each other , but this is a big adventure !
People will do what they need to do.....I couldn't leave here for 3/4 months to do that and then return....who'd pay my mortgage? My job? Our alternative would have been either relocating permanently to another EU country or me go to Tunisia.

The danger (as a taxpayer) of things like the SS route is that there will be many non EU spouses here in the UK, who've come here using this route and there will be no stamp on their passport saying 'no recourse to public funds'!!!
 

Jane BM

Well-Known Member
#12
Yes to a certain extent, but realistically this would introduce more grey areas, I think it's right to introduce a level which implies no input from the state, but yes I recognise that disposable income is relevant, but how would you realistically implement this across the board? Interesting argument but the BBQ needs attention, back later ;)
They did put a figure on it, so it shouldn't be a grey area? I can't remember the exact amount, but they'd worked out it was something like surplus £110 per week.
 

DARK ANGEL

Well-Known Member
#13
People will do what they need to do.....I couldn't leave here for 3/4 months to do that and then return....who'd pay my mortgage? My job? Our alternative would have been either relocating permanently to another EU country or me go to Tunisia.

The danger (as a taxpayer) of things like the SS route is that there will be many non EU spouses here in the UK, who've come here using this route and there will be no stamp on their passport saying 'no recourse to public funds'!!!
Sure Jane , this is why i said it's a big adventure ! Another gate will open soon
 

missmetal

Well-Known Member
#14
I agree that foreign spouses shouldn't be dependent on taxpayers, however I don't necessarily think this was the right way to do it.

Someone living in London and earning £18,600 is on the breadline....someone living up north can live much better on the same amount.
But maybe that is also to stimulate growth in other areas as london is so overcrowded, hopefully they will have the common sense to live further out of expensive areas to be able to live on that salary

As a previously sponsored spouse in the UK, i knew very well that i had no rights to public funds...made me more determined to work...and in fact ended up supporting the my **** ex husband most of the time. :)
 

Jane BM

Well-Known Member
#15
But maybe that is also to stimulate growth in other areas as london is so overcrowded, hopefully they will have the common sense to live further out of expensive areas to be able to live on that salary

As a previously sponsored spouse in the UK, i knew very well that i had no rights to public funds...made me more determined to work...and in fact ended up supporting the my **** ex husband most of the time. :)
Maybe....lol...although that in itself is discriminatory....

I really don't get why they changed their system. I'm sure they could have tweaked it if necessary. My theory on this threshold is benefits...generally above that figure and you wouldn't receive much if anything.

However the system in place before didn't give an unfair advantage to anyone no matter where they lived or in fact what they earned. It was more about affordability. Someone could have massive debts, huge rent/mortgage, yet because they earn over £18,600 they're eligible. Yet someone could earn £13,000 have minimal bills and no debt and they're not!! Doesn't make any sense to me.
 

ronaldinho

Active Member
#16
hi does any one know how long does it take appealing against refusal for financial requirment reasons ?
 

Jane BM

Well-Known Member
#17
hi does any one know how long does it take appealing against refusal for financial requirment reasons ?
It varies to be honest...it doesn't really matter what the grounds for refusal were....
 

ronaldinho

Active Member
#18
ok thank you , but i dont think we gona appeal coz is only one reason and we can provid it soon , so applying again is much better , but im just asking for informations , coz sum people said it take 9 months sum othere said few weeks or depends the refusal reason , thank you :pompus::)
 

Aslemma

Well-Known Member
#19
I agree that foreign spouses shouldn't be the responsibility of the British taxpayer, however, a 'one size fits all' solution, based solely on the earnings of the British spouse, is in my opinion both unfair and unrealistic. As Jane has said, the amount of money left over after essential expenditure is a far better way of evaluating whether a person is able to support his/her spouse. The only advantage of the earnings threshhold may be that it stops ladies over retirement age from bringing over their young husbands, as though the woman may have her own home and little debt it is doubtful that many of them would have an income in excess of £18,000.
 

lynn

Well-Known Member
#20
well in a way it's right I look at both ends of the stick, because if it was me I would be in dire straits if I was back in that situation but on the other hand we are not an huge country and we need to close the door at some point, although I will say not so much about being kept by the tax payer because most of these foreign people will work want to work and do a lot of jobs that British people wont do because we have a lot here than will not work and stay at home smoking and drinking.
 
Top