ESC

Click the "allow" button if you want to receive important news and updates from immigrationboards.com


Immigrationboards.com: Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board

Welcome to immigrationboards.com!

Login Register Do not show

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, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, meself2, geriatrix, John, ChetanOjha, archigabe, Administrator

Babz
Member of Standing
Posts: 308
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:22 pm
Location: UK

H.Court Find Min income Rules Disproportionate & Unjusti

Post by 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/

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

Post by Ayyubi72 » Fri Jul 05, 2013 6:15 pm

Very interesting.

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

Post by Ayyubi72 » Fri Jul 05, 2013 6:25 pm

Can mods/admin please combine various threads about this judgement or start a new "master thread".

Obie
Moderator
Posts: 15156
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:06 am
Location: UK/Ireland
Ireland

Post by 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.
Smooth seas do not make skilful sailors

bobbylad
Newly Registered
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:01 am

Post by 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.

vinny
Moderator
Posts: 32757
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:58 pm

Post by vinny » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:49 am

This is not intended to be legal or professional advice in any jurisdiction. Please click on any given links for further information. Refer to the source of any quotes.
We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.

k77
Newbie
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:06 pm

Post by 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.

suli
Newbie
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 3:52 am

Post by 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

Obie
Moderator
Posts: 15156
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:06 am
Location: UK/Ireland
Ireland

Post by 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.
Smooth seas do not make skilful sailors

suli
Newbie
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 3:52 am

Post by 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?

vinny
Moderator
Posts: 32757
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:58 pm

Post by vinny » Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:05 pm

This is not intended to be legal or professional advice in any jurisdiction. Please click on any given links for further information. Refer to the source of any quotes.
We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.

Obie
Moderator
Posts: 15156
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:06 am
Location: UK/Ireland
Ireland

Post by 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.
Smooth seas do not make skilful sailors

Amber
Moderator
Posts: 17445
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:20 am
Location: England, UK
Mood:

Post by 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.

Obie
Moderator
Posts: 15156
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:06 am
Location: UK/Ireland
Ireland

Post by 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.
Smooth seas do not make skilful sailors

vinny
Moderator
Posts: 32757
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:58 pm

Post by vinny » Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:10 pm

This is not intended to be legal or professional advice in any jurisdiction. Please click on any given links for further information. Refer to the source of any quotes.
We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.

symo2004
Newly Registered
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 6:37 pm

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

Post by symo2004 » Wed Mar 05, 2014 6:42 pm

Court hearing hold 3 - 5 March 2014 on HO appeal. Any update of Judgement ? Thanks.

Mpatel
Newly Registered
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 2:44 pm

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

Post by 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 ??

vinny
Moderator
Posts: 32757
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:58 pm

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

Post by vinny » Tue Mar 11, 2014 9:52 am

This is not intended to be legal or professional advice in any jurisdiction. Please click on any given links for further information. Refer to the source of any quotes.
We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.

nyr11
Newly Registered
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:53 pm

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

Post by 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

User avatar
Choc-Ice
Member
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:58 pm
Nigeria

Re: any change to £18,600 income condition

Post by 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!

User avatar
Casa
Moderator
Posts: 25651
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:32 pm

Re: any change to £18,600 income condition

Post by Casa » Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:21 am

Even if the Home Office lose following the recent High Court hearing they are likely to appeal again, taking it to the Supreme Court.
(Casa, not CR001)
Please don't send me PMs asking for immigration advice on posts that are on the open forum. If I haven't responded there, it's because I don't have the answer. I'm a moderator, not a legal professional.

Tier 4
- thin ice -
Posts: 946
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 1:22 pm
Location: N/A
Contact:

Re: any change to £18,600 income condition

Post by Tier 4 » Thu Apr 03, 2014 12:52 pm

Regard this £ 18,600 income threshold; what if someone earns £ 11,000 / £ 12,000 per annum, how much saving he / she has to show to meet the threshold of £ 18,600?
And this saving lets say for instance £ 25,000 can be:
1. On spouse name (meaning the person applying on FLR (M))?
2. Into an out of UK / foreign account?
3. It’s ok if this saving is on spouse name and her brother name in joint account?
N/A

MPH80
Respected Guru
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 10:56 pm
Location: UK

Re: any change to £18,600 income condition

Post by MPH80 » Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:21 pm

If the person is only earning £12000, then the individual would need to show £32,500 (shortfall * 2.5 + 16000) in savings held over the last 6 months in an account in their name.

To answer your questions:
1) it can be in either the spouse or the sponsor's name
2) It can be in any location - providing it's in an approved financial institution abroad
3) AIUI - no - it must be in the spouse or the sponsor's name either joint between them or individual.

Amber
Moderator
Posts: 17445
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:20 am
Location: England, UK
Mood:

Re: any change to £18,600 income condition

Post by Amber » Thu Apr 03, 2014 7:46 pm

To a technicality here, the appeal has been at the Court of Appeal rather than the High Court, and yes, may indeed be appealed again to the Supreme Court.
**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.

Tier 4
- thin ice -
Posts: 946
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 1:22 pm
Location: N/A
Contact:

Re: any change to £18,600 income condition

Post by Tier 4 » Fri Apr 04, 2014 11:15 pm

Amber_ wrote:To a technicality here, the appeal has been at the Court of Appeal rather than the High Court, and yes, may indeed be appealed again to the Supreme Court.
I don’t understand how UKBA realistically justify changes in rules of financial requirements at 13 March 2014 (applicable 6 April 2014) for pre 9 July 2012 PBS dependents; to produce 6 months financial evidence if they are applying in next 3 / 4 months.
N/A

Locked
cron