H.Court Find Min income Rules Disproportionate & Unjusti

Family member & Ancestry immigration; don't post other immigration categories, please!
Marriage | Unmarried Partners | Fiancé/e | Ancestry

Moderators: Casa, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, geriatrix, John, ChetanOjha, archigabe, push, Administrator, sbrennan

H.Court Find Min income Rules Disproportionate & Unjusti

Postby Babz » Fri Jul 05, 2013 6:02 pm

Almost exactly a year after they were first introduced, Mr Justice Blake sitting in the High Court has in a lengthy, complex and very carefully considered judgment found that the controversial immigration rules requiring a minimum income of at least £18,600 for spouse visa applications are ‘unjustified and disproportionate’ where the sponsor is a refugee or a British citizen.

The case is MM & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 1900 (Admin). At paragraph 126 Blake J holds as follows:


“…to set the figure significantly higher than even the £13,400 gross annual wage effectively denies young people and many thousands of low-wage earners in full time employment the ability to be joined by their non-EEA spouses from abroad unless they happen to have wealthy relatives or to have won the lottery. This frustrates the right of refugees and British citizens to live with their chosen partner and found a family unless such modest earnings could be supplemented by any reasonably substantial savings, third party support or the future earnings or the spouse seeking admission. The executive can hardly be heard to say that the minimum adult wage is a manifestly inadequate sum to provide a basic standard of living over the subsistence threshold for a household without dependent children.”
Blake J observes that British citizens have ‘a fundamental right of constitutional significance recognised by the common law’ to live in their home country but that for many applicants (estimated at around half the British population, in fact) if they wish to marry and live with a foreigner the rules require them to leave their own country. The consequences of this are considered by the Court to be so excessive in impact as to be beyond a reasonable means of giving effect to the legitimate aim behind the new rules.

Similarly, recognised refugees have not ‘chosen’ to live in the UK and make it their country of residence. They have been forced to leave their own country. To force a refugee to make a choice between marrying their partner of choice or leaving their country of refuge is simply unreasonable.

The absence of any flexibility in the scheme and five aggravating features of the rules contributed heavily to the court’s conclusion:

i. The setting of the minimum income level to be provided by the sponsor at above the £13,400 level identified by the Migration Advisory Committee as the lowest maintenance threshold under the benefits and net fiscal approach (Conclusion 5.3). Such a level would be close to the adult minimum wage for a 40 hour week. Further the claimants have shown through by their experts that of the 422 occupations listed in the 2011 UK Earnings Index, only 301 were above the £18,600 threshold[16].
ii. The requirement of £16,000 before savings can be said to contribute to rectify an income shortfall.
iii. The use of a 30 month period for forward income projection, as opposed to a twelve month period that could be applied in a borderline case of ability to maintain.
iv. The disregard of even credible and reliable evidence of undertakings of third party support effected by deed and supported by evidence of ability to fund.
v. The disregard of the spouse’s own earning capacity during the thirty month period of initial entry.

At paragraph 128 Blake J deals rather neatly with the argument that the level of income specified in the rules was derived from advice from the Government’s Migration Advisory Committee:

The Migration Advisory Committee were clear in their advice that they were providing statistics about the level at which any family would have no recourse to means tested benefits of any kind. They were thus professionals in ‘the dismal science’ of economics and not making an assessment of when it would be justified to prevent a British citizen or refugee from being joined by a spouse on economic grounds alone. Their economic advice cannot provide a sufficient justification for the terms in which the policy is set.
The court rejected the argument that the new rules were discriminatory in nature, also rejected the argument that the rules were unlawful because they failed to allow for any assessment of the best interests of affected children and in effect upheld the income rules with respect to foreign national sponsors settled in the UK by choice. Blake J declined to strike down the rules as generally unlawful: the judgment is in theory only concerned with the direct impact on the particular claimants in this case. Further, the judgment does not quibble with the principle that a specific minimum income rule is potentially lawful, and the judgment certainly does not open the door to those without means to sponsor spouses and children to come to the UK and claim public funds.

However, the reality is that many, many other applicants are British citizens or refugees with enough money so to avoid resorting to public funds but not enough to meet the £18,600 rule for a sponsor’s earnings. This judgment offers hope that they will soon be able to live with their loved ones in the United Kingdom.

No 5 Chambers have already posted up a piece on the judgment and outline its practical effect:

Although the court did not strike down the rules as such, its declaratory judgment is a green light to foreign spouses who previously thought they had no prospect of being allowed to live together with their spouses in the UK to apply for permission to enter. After this judgment, many are likely to succeed in being allowed to enter under Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights even though they cannot satisfy the harsh requirements of the rules especially if, for example, the UK sponsoring spouse earns above the national minimum wage, there is reliable ‘third party support’, there is reliable evidence that the foreign spouse or partner will be working in the UK, or where children are likely to be affected so that is not in their best interests for the foreign spouse to be refused entry.
The list of potential ways of showing sufficient funds is derived from paragraph 147 of the judgment. Anyone previously refused and considering a fresh application or with an upcoming appeal who does not meet the terms of the current rules should aim to demonstrate as clearly as possible that their family income will satisfy these suggestions.

The judgment will come as a huge relief to the thousands of British and refugee families separated by these severe rules. It may even come as a relief to the Government, given the growing chorus of criticism in local and national media: what a result, to be able to look tough on immigration, blame the judges, escape the consequences of the policy and avoid the embarrassment of a climbdown.

Interestingly, there has been no knee-jerk condemnation of the judgment and the Home Office state they are pausing consideration of affected cases. This holds out at least a little hope that the Home Office will not actually appeal this one.

Culled from:

http://www.freemovement.org.uk/2013/07/ ... justified/
SET(LR)Application sent: 11-11-2014
Acknow received: 14-11-2014 (Dated 13/11/14)
Biometric received: 24-12-2014
Biometric recorded: 01-12-2014
Approval date: 13-07-2015
Docs Returned: 14-07-2015
Biometric received: 15-07-2015
Babz
Member of Standing
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:22 pm
Location: UK

Postby Ayyubi72 » Fri Jul 05, 2013 6:15 pm

Very interesting.
Ayyubi72
- thin ice -
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 2:47 pm

Postby Ayyubi72 » Fri Jul 05, 2013 6:25 pm

Can mods/admin please combine various threads about this judgement or start a new "master thread".
Ayyubi72
- thin ice -
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 2:47 pm

Postby Obie » Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:21 pm

I will make this a sticky topic. But please refrain from opening multiple post.

I will simply lock them if you persist.

We have to err on the side of caution.

Firstly, the immigration rules relating to financial requirement has not been squashed.

Mr Blake has not suggested any proposed change to apply to people with settlement status, save for refugees.

Thirdly, i happened to be around during the passing of his judgement, and it appears to me that he granted permission to the Secretary of State to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Therefore the effect of this judgement on British Citizen and Refugee will not be apparent, in the short time.
You haven't lived today successfully, unless you've done something for someone who can never repay you.'
Obie
Moderator
 
Posts: 11366
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:06 am
Location: UK/Ireland

Postby bobbylad » Sat Jul 06, 2013 3:19 am

The Home Office might let this narrow judgement stand for fear ultimately the Supreme Court or Strasbourg (in many years) may make a much wider ruling.

It does seem clear though from this judgement the court has agreed with the definition of public interest but does not agree with the governments method for achieving it. The earnings potential for spouses for instance is very relevant in my own case, as me and my wife live abroad in a country neither of us are citizens or permanent residents of. If we move to the UK in the future she would most likely be able to secure employment before we even arrive there however it would be me who would take some time to find employment. There is absolutely no chance of us relying on public funds but we are deemed to require them by the current rules as only I am assessed.

It seems the debate in the media focuses on spouses "joining them" in the UK, however I would think that most people with a non EEA spouse are expats who want to relocate home. If I ever lost my job in China (unlikely I admit) my work permit would be cancelled, my wife and daughters dependent visas would be too. I do not have a right of residency in her home country, our daughter is only a UK citizen so in effect a family would be split up.
bobbylad
Newly Registered
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:01 am

Postby vinny » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:49 am

Please click on any given links for further information.

*****
We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
vinny
Moderator
 
Posts: 22784
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:58 pm

Postby k77 » Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:09 pm

Can someone explain the main changing points in the Minimum wage for spouse visa after this high court judgement.In other words what has changed after this decision in £18,ooo threshold for spouse visa.
k77
Newbie
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:06 pm

Postby suli » Sat Jul 20, 2013 2:49 pm

k77 wrote:Can someone explain the main changing points in the Minimum wage for spouse visa after this high court judgement.In other words what has changed after this decision in £18,ooo threshold for spouse visa.

at the moment nothing has changed
suli
Newbie
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 3:52 am

Postby Obie » Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:13 pm

MR Justice Blake granted permission to the Secretary of State to appeal against his decision. Whether the UKBA will proceed, is another matter.

At present applicant who meet other provision of the rule other than the financial requirement, will have their application stayed, until things are clarified.

This judgement does not seem to affect people with ILR a great deal.
You haven't lived today successfully, unless you've done something for someone who can never repay you.'
Obie
Moderator
 
Posts: 11366
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:06 am
Location: UK/Ireland

Postby suli » Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:41 pm

Obie wrote:MR Justice Blake granted permission to the Secretary of State to appeal against his decision. Whether the UKBA will proceed, is another matter.

At present applicant who meet other provision of the rule other than the financial requirement, will have their application stayed, until things are clarified.

This judgement does not seem to affect people with ILR a great deal.

any predictions when a decision will be made by the goverment?
suli
Newbie
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 3:52 am

Postby vinny » Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:05 pm

Please click on any given links for further information.

*****
We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
vinny
Moderator
 
Posts: 22784
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:58 pm

Postby Obie » Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:14 pm

The difficulty is, this is an individual decision, made by an individual judge. It has no binding effect on other, and it might proceed to the Upper Tribunal.

A decision by the Upper Tribunal on this, will be most helpful.
You haven't lived today successfully, unless you've done something for someone who can never repay you.'
Obie
Moderator
 
Posts: 11366
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:06 am
Location: UK/Ireland

Postby Amber » Fri Jul 26, 2013 7:36 pm

The Home Office has appealed (click) to the Court of Appeal.
**this forum is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice**
Click here to send me a PM regarding an offensive post. Do NOT PM me for immigration advice.
Amber
Moderator
 
Posts: 16693
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:20 am
Location: England, UK

Postby Obie » Fri Jul 26, 2013 8:23 pm

This does not seem much of a news, as they sough permission to Appeal, and MR Justice Blake granted it 3-4 weeks ago, when he passed his judgement.

Don't think people are concerned about the Secretary of States, filing its appellant's notice, or explaining to us the division of power between the executive and judicary. Mr Blake was aware of this. He only made a suggestion, which he was perfectly entitled to do.
You haven't lived today successfully, unless you've done something for someone who can never repay you.'
Obie
Moderator
 
Posts: 11366
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:06 am
Location: UK/Ireland

Postby vinny » Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:10 pm

Please click on any given links for further information.

*****
We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
vinny
Moderator
 
Posts: 22784
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:58 pm

Re: H.Court Find Min income Rules Disproportionate & Unjusti

Postby symo2004 » Wed Mar 05, 2014 6:42 pm

Court hearing hold 3 - 5 March 2014 on HO appeal. Any update of Judgement ? Thanks.
symo2004
Newly Registered
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: H.Court Find Min income Rules Disproportionate & Unjusti

Postby Mpatel » Fri Mar 07, 2014 2:11 pm

Does anyone know if the hearing has actually been heard or still being heard ?
When can we expect a decision ??
Mpatel
Newly Registered
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 2:44 pm

Re: H.Court Find Min income Rules Disproportionate & Unjusti

Postby vinny » Tue Mar 11, 2014 9:52 am

Please click on any given links for further information.

*****
We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
vinny
Moderator
 
Posts: 22784
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:58 pm

Re: H.Court Find Min income Rules Disproportionate & Unjusti

Postby nyr11 » Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:39 pm

Mpatel wrote:Does anyone know if the hearing has actually been heard or still being heard ?
When can we expect a decision ??


HI
i was waiting for same. i did nt heard from any other news

Last updated: 20 Mar 2014 by Aljazeera news
search this for news UK war on immigration tears families apart
nyr11
Newly Registered
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:53 pm

Re: any change to £18,600 income condition

Postby Choc-Ice » Wed Apr 02, 2014 10:52 pm

djchoclate wrote:hi everyone..
I need help on behalf of my friend who is british national and soon to marry non- eu national but his salary is less than 18,600... i have heard from some friends that ukba has lowered down the income condition... so i need your confirmation.. plz help...

thanks.


No changes yet! Everyone's waiting for the outcome of the last hearing..I suspect it will a while for this to get sorted!!! :cry:
IMpossible is 2 letters to long!
Choc-Ice
Member
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:58 pm

Next

Return to Immigration for family members

 


  • Related topics
    Views
    Replies
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 59 guests