Government launches consultation on family route

jager · Post by **jager** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:19 am

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/1 ... m-benefits

Family members from outside Europe who come to join close relatives settled in Britain are expected to be denied access to welfare benefits for up to five years under further plans to cut annual net migration to be detailed on Wednesday.

The immigration minister, Damian Green, is to announce new measures the government hopes will ensure that those who come to the UK through the family migration route integrate more fully into British society. They are expected to include a tougher English language test for those applying to come to Britain on a family visa.

Ministers also want to reform article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to family life and currently prevents deportation in some cases of close family members who have been living illegally in Britain.

jager · Post by **jager** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:42 am

ILR for family route will take 5 years, just like PBS

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ement.html

Post by **vinny** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:48 am

Government launches consultation on family migration

Family migration

maxiy · Post by **maxiy** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 2:28 pm

Any Ideas when the new Rules will applied,

Do you think it will affect current applications or just the new applications after the new rules applied.

krs133 · Post by **krs133** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:04 pm

maxiy wrote:Any Ideas when the new Rules will applied,

Do you think it will affect current applications or just the new applications after the new rules applied.

I think based on precedents from worker visas, it will only apply to those who apply for visas after the changes have come into effect. However, the detail is not there yet to confirm this.

So e.g. if you have come in on a marriage visa in June 2011 I would expect that you could still apply for ILR in June 2013, based on reasonable expectations etc. But we would need to wait until after the consultation, when the government makes concrete proposals, to see how this will work.

Having read the paper, it looks as if there will be (even more) mountains of bureaucracy involved in applying for a family visa after the changes have gone through. In particular it is not yet very clear how they will establish criteria for determining a 'true' marriage over a sham one, and it looks as if there will be a certain amount of subjectivity involved.

maxiy · Post by **maxiy** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:58 pm

They mention the below at the end of the Official Paper :

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitec ... onsult.pdf

The consultation will run for 12 weeks, until 6 October 2011, and we will announce
our firm plans in due course, with a view to implementing changes during 2012.

They also mention that they will remove the ILE after 4 years of marriage outside the UK.

mulderpf · Post by **mulderpf** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:40 pm

I have read through this and I think in theory, this is a good move by the government to achieve less abuse of the immigration system, however, while I was reading it, I could not help to wonder how on earth they would manage it. Whilst I agree that more should be done to ensure that abuses do not take place, who is going to do that verification, because ultimately it just means submitting more paperwork.

Whilst I like the idea, I think it is simply not feasible and it will simply either create backlog in the system as ECO's have to work harder to check more stuff, or more people will slip in due to mistakes made having to keep up processing. Something's gotta give!!!

Aryan2013 · Post by **Aryan2013** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:06 pm

I think these white hall mandarines live in a world of their own.

I agree with the view that the proposals are good, at least in theory, but how on earth, they will implement these changes, only god knows!!

Proposed changes on "sham", "forced" marriages and on Article 8 will be difficult to implement.

I also think that 14 years rule will be chopped, for sure. The document does not mention's 10 years rule so it may or may not survive.
"We suggest too that those who wish to settle in the UK on the grounds of private or family life should be up-front about their intentions and make an appropriate application to the UK Border Agency. Settlement in the UK is a privilege. It should not be achieved simply by evading our detection for a number of years. We will therefore consider the impact of our Article 8 proposals on the need to retain the 14-year long residence rule."

archipelago · Post by **archipelago** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:38 pm

Their proposals for Maintenance are much stricter :

Will only allow 3rd party support in compelling and compassionate circumstances.
Will not take into account the applicants potential earnings due to the current economic climate - I didn't think they used much discretion on this anyway unless they had a job offer!
Will only take into account the sponsors income and savings, including joint bank accounts. What if the applicant is wealthy? Would they expect the sponsor's name to be added to the applicants foreign bank account? (might be difficult if the sponsor has no residency rights/spousal visa in the applicants country). Or the applicant would need to transfer all the money to the sponsors UK account before the application? Seems odd as long as the applicant can access their account in the UK.

midget · Post by **midget** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:57 pm

archipelago wrote:Their proposals for Maintenance are much stricter :

Will only allow 3rd party support in compelling and compassionate circumstances.
Will not take into account the applicants potential earnings due to the current economic climate - I didn't think they used much discretion on this anyway unless they had a job offer!
Will only take into account the sponsors income and savings, including joint bank accounts..

I think this is unfair. What about female British citizens who are mothers looking after their children, and the spouse (i.e applicant) would provide the family income ?

I have answered the consultation, but they provided very little scope for responses other than yes / no / no opinion. It certainly smacks of the decisions already having been made and this consultation is a rubber stamp. All I can hope is that they provide some fairness around the retrospective application of these rules

Post by **John** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:45 pm

I have answered the consultation

I have not, yet, because it will take me a few days to think it all through.

One thing that give occur to me is this. They are thinking of changing the 2-year visa for spouses etc into 5-year visas. But it is not unknown for a particular issue to come up on this board, and similar boards, that is, someone might have a choice between the UK-immigration route, currently 2-year visa, and the EEA-route, 5-years. But if both are set at 5 years, the issue instantly becomes clear, and a no-brainer, that is, do you want to make an expensive application under the UK-immigration route, or a free application under the EEA route?

maxiy · Post by **maxiy** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:21 am

From my point of View.

- They will cancel the ILE/ILR for marriage outside the UK for 4+ years.

- They will limit the number of low income or even not stable income for getting the Visa.

- Really It's unfair as the Marriage Related Visa all over the world are the most easiest route to get PR and Citizenship

- I think that should look fake marriages but don't limit people from marrying people overseas.

My Advice that for anyone on the Family route to apply before changing this rules in 2012.

aosun007 · Post by **aosun007** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:03 am

Two things came to my mind after finished reading the consulation.
Is it the legitimate expectation of those already granted spousal/partner leave to remain to be considered for Indefinite leave to remain after 2 years?.

If it is legitimate expectation,the rules can not be applied to those who are already in the route
but if it is not legitimate expectation to be granted ILR after 2 years,its going to affect everyone.

Speaking from common sense of view and from what one of the members has mentioned above,the new law will only be applicable to those who are planning to enter the family route when they make the law.

Let us wait,Our powerful moderators will soon comment on this consulation from legal point of view.

GrahamD85 · Post by **GrahamD85** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:36 am

My partner has lived here for over 3 and a half years now and in September last year we got further leave to remain as unmarried partners on the FLR(M) visa. We've lived together the whole time as she came as a student and we had known each other 2 years before that.

The only thing I'm worried about, and want clarification on, is the minimum income threshold for partners. I make 19k a year but she makes almost 30k. If it's purely based on mine, as if she isn't being paid, they might consider that our mortgage of Â£675 a month is too much and refuse the application.

It seems ludicrous to me that my girlfriend has been here years and is working in a good job with a permanent contract but won't have her wage taken into account.

Post by **John** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:52 am

It seems ludicrous to me that my girlfriend has been here years and is working in a good job with a permanent contract but won't have her wage taken into account.

Indeed! And no doubt you will make that comment in reply to the consultation document.

GrahamD85 · Post by **GrahamD85** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:22 am

Does anyone have any idea what the minimum threshold might be placed at? I presume they'll have to make it relate to the amount you pay in rent/mortgage each month too? There'd be no point having a minimum income threshold if the sponsors monthly payments took up 95% of that amount.

There seems a lot of confusion in the press. Where has the Guardian got the figure of a minimum income of Â£5k from? http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/1 ... -migration

I'll send my thoughts back on the proposals but I can't see it making much difference - this looks like it will go ahead the way it's being talked about.

After being in a relationship with my foreign girlfriend for over 6 years, 4 of which have been living together in the same apartment, I'm now worried she'll be sent back because of my wage.

I'm praying 19k will be seen as enough for the two of us with our mortgage payment being Â£675.

EDIT I'm still trying to get a grasp of these proposals. Are UKBA proposing that they will outright BAN someone from applying for ILR if their partner can't meet the minimum income requirements, which would be set at a low amount to weed people out (such as the Â£5,000 the Guardian mention) before their application was then further judged on both of their incomes? It seems reading different sources gives different opinions. I'm still not sure where the Guardian and a couple of other sites are getting this Â£5,000 a year figure from.

EDIT #2 (apologies) Sorry to make this post longer, but I've been reading the consultation document again. The figure of Â£5,000 the Guardian is quoted is mentioned in the document as "the current level of basic income support for a couple".

punk_beatz · Post by **punk_beatz** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:36 pm

Can anyone confirm if I'm right in thinking that the current system for maintenance for FLR(M) is based on income benefits? So if my partner had been unemployed when we went for our FLR(M) appointment last September, our maintenance would have been determined by adding together our mortgage payment and council tax to see if we had Â£105 a week remaining after?

If that was the case and they'd judged it on only my wage I don't think we'd have made it. I get paid a little more now and I worked out that after my mortgage payment and council tax at the moment I have Â£129.50 a week, which currently passes but is hardly stellar.

If they do bring in a minimum income rule for the sponsor (regardless of what the applicant earns) it'll be interesting (and terrifying for most of us) to see if they enforce the current amount as a rule or increase it.

Am I being too concerned that my wage of Â£20,196 per year / Â£129.50 a week after mortgage and council tax will not be good enough in their eyes to support me and my partner, or am I just being daft? I know people are paid more, but we're living in tough times and the average national wage seems to hover around that mark...

greatxander · Post by **greatxander** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:38 pm

Just received my flrm yrsterday, does this new comsultation once approved means I have to apply for flrm again after 2 years and complete further 3 years before i will be qualified for ILR? Sad

shadhk · Post by **shadhk** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:20 pm

I want to bring and settle my family in the UK from Hong Kong. It is in the planning and document preparing stage, which take almost nine month and still counting. It is very hard time for me.

Last night got this news of UKBA plan on this forum. Its scared me first, I was panicked. But then in a way its help me and nudge me to act quickly.

Also I got clear idea on how the ECO asses income of a sponsor. then I asses my own income and find out it is clearly short of required income.

Thanks you UKBA for awakening.

Post by **vinny** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:26 am

Consultation on family migration: Tories to reintroduce â€˜primary purposeâ€™Â rule.

JCWI.

GrahamD85 · Post by **GrahamD85** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:49 am

Cheers for those links vinny. I've just read up on the primary purpose rule and I'm confused. It says that immigrants had to prove they didn't want residency when applying to stay with their British partner. Of course they want residency, that's how they'll be able to stay with that person. Can anyone explain this rule and mention where it was in the consultation document? I didn't spot it.

I'm wondering how UKBA will apply these rules to those who already have FLR visas. By the time these rules come in in April 2012 we'll only be 5 months away from applying for ILR. Can the new rules apply to those already en route or is that unlawful? If there's a chance they will I need to start looking for a better paid job so I'm prepared.

MWill · Post by **MWill** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:16 pm

punk_beatz wrote:Can anyone confirm if I'm right in thinking that the current system for maintenance for FLR(M) is based on income benefits? So if my partner had been unemployed when we went for our FLR(M) appointment last September, our maintenance would have been determined by adding together our mortgage payment and council tax to see if we had Â£105 a week remaining after?

If that was the case and they'd judged it on only my wage I don't think we'd have made it. I get paid a little more now and I worked out that after my mortgage payment and council tax at the moment I have Â£129.50 a week, which currently passes but is hardly stellar.

If they do bring in a minimum income rule for the sponsor (regardless of what the applicant earns) it'll be interesting (and terrifying for most of us) to see if they enforce the current amount as a rule or increase it.

Am I being too concerned that my wage of Â£20,196 per year / Â£129.50 a week after mortgage and council tax will not be good enough in their eyes to support me and my partner, or am I just being daft? I know people are paid more, but we're living in tough times and the average national wage seems to hover around that mark...

Similar situation - will soon be earning about Â£17,500 a year, about Â£112 a week after rent/ctax, though we don't own a car so other expenditure is low. My wife has plenty of savings in her US account, but it looks like they wouldn't look at that, which is ridiculous ...

archipelago · Post by **archipelago** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:23 pm

Surely in the consultation paper they must mean sponsor/applicant combined income and combined savings.

An applicant with access to a substantial level of savings to spend in the UK (contributing to the economy), or a decent salary (paying taxes) is the perfect situation for the UKBA surely?!

MWill · Post by **MWill** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:13 am

archipelago wrote:Surely in the consultation paper they must mean sponsor/applicant combined income and combined savings.

An applicant with access to a substantial level of savings to spend in the UK (contributing to the economy), or a decent salary (paying taxes) is the perfect situation for the UKBA surely?!

It specifically says "only the sponsor", but thay may just be for visa applications - only taking the sponsor's money into account is nonsensical for in-country applications (which don't technically have "sponsors", anyway!). Should be something they iron out in the consultation, surely?

Post by **Greenie** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:20 am

MWill wrote:
archipelago wrote:Surely in the consultation paper they must mean sponsor/applicant combined income and combined savings.

An applicant with access to a substantial level of savings to spend in the UK (contributing to the economy), or a decent salary (paying taxes) is the perfect situation for the UKBA surely?!
It specifically says "only the sponsor", but thay may just be for visa applications - only taking the sponsor's money into account is nonsensical for in-country applications (which don't technically have "sponsors", anyway!). Should be something they iron out in the consultation, surely?

its ludicrous to suggest that an applicant who is living in the UK and working could not rely on his or her income as well as the sponsors. I think they are really aiming at visa applications where the applicant has obtained a job offer or is relying on qualifications or experience to show that he or she will bable to earn once he or she arrives in the UK. Somehow i think they will not implement this at least for in country applications and will claim it is because they have 'listened'

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

Government launches consultation on family route

Government launches consultation on family route