H.Court Find Min income Rules Disproportionate & Unjusti

[askmeplz82]

http://www.immigrationboards.com/immigr ... 68244.html

[Tier 4]

Judgement is due on Friday 11th July at 10AM.

Today

[Tier 4]

Ruling has been made today 11th July 2014 at 10:30am

: MM & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Home Office has won in Appeal Court on legality of £18,600 minimum income limit for Brits sponsoring a foreign spouse

appeal allowed in all 3 cases MMcase Rules in force 9 July 2012 still in force. lawyers trying to appeal to Supreme Court. Will take a few weeks to know more

Sad news

[Tier 4]

http://www.immigrationboards.com/immigr ... 68244.html

Sad news

[muskaan1987]

Bad news.SSHD's appeal allowed in all 3 cases #MMcase Rules in force 9 July 2012 still in force.MM applying for legal aid extension for SC.......

Does this mean home office lost the case and are allowed to appeal in s court?

[maniani]

No, the peoples have lost the appeal and the home office has win and the full judgement is here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/985.html

[maniani]

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/985.html......

[Casa]

This also gives the view of Free Movement on the judgement
http://www.freemovement.org.uk/

[Wanderer]

Am I the only one thinking this is good news?

[MPH80]

I strongly doubt you're the only one Wanderer. You might find a certain Ms May in London is also fairly chilled out right now.

I'm pretty neutral about this personally. The reading I've taken from this judgement is that judge applied a test that said in order for government policy to be proportional there had to be a rational belief that the outcome sought would be found using the policy. And the judge believed that there was a strong rational argument for a minimum income threshold protecting the UK.

If you accept the first part of that - then the second part is undeniable. It's very easy to craft a relatively solid rational argument that *in general* richer individuals will cost the state less. You will always be able to find exceptions to the rule of course.

The one thing that's been re-tweeted which the judge did say and I strongly believe is that all immigration policy is discriminatory. Whether it's the fact that some countries don't require a visa prior to arrival or minimum income - there's discrimination against someone somewhere. I have to agree with the judge that it's all about whether it's justified or not.

And therein lies our 50 shades of grey.

I don't envy the judiciary in having to make these distinctions.

One thing that was very interesting to me was the pre-work and analysis that went into setting this income threshold.

M.

[MPH80]

We now have a response from the Home Office too:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home ... -threshold

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

[UKBA HUNTER]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home ... -threshold

[W Ahmed6569]

Please Note: The Article & the Link provided below is Courtesy of GOV.UK website
http://www.gov.uk/government/news/home- ... -threshold

The Home Office welcomes a Court of Appeal judgment, upholding the lawfulness of the income threshold under the new 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 on, GOV.UK
11 July 2014
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home ... -threshold

[WR1]

Surprised at the judgement.

The worrying bit is for those people who had their applications put on hold having had hope now face refusals.

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.

[icehouse256]

REALLY !!!

[hussain.uk]

On 11 July Court gave decision in favour of Home Office. The link is below:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28267305

From 26th July onwards all applicants whose applications were on hold due to financial requirement of £18600 will be receiving the refusals.

[helpmepls]

Am I right in thinking that the people bringing the case against the Home Office will appeal?

The first just said unlawful, the second judge said lawful.

What will the third judge be likely to say?

[MPH80]

That answer will depend entirely on the arguments presented in front of him.

The Home Office will say 'the second judge is right and here's why', the appellants will say 'the second judge is wrong and here's why'. Both will sound like rational, logical, arguments.

That is what the supreme court is there to decide.

The argument advanced in the second court judgement is this:

It is legal to have a minimum income threshold. There was *always* a threshold - and indeed the original judgement stated that if it had been at the lower level it might not have been ruled against. And, in his opinion, it's not the court's place to set the threshold value. Providing the threshold was set with a logical and rational purpose where there was a reasonable belief the amount would achieve that purpose, then the threshold is probably legal.

I think it'll be pretty hard to attack that argument.

The bit I think is the weakest is the reasoning on whether the rules are compliant within article 8 or not. But the courts are already clear that the right to a family isn't 'the right to a family in the country of your choosing'.

Either way - we've got another year or so of waiting before we get an answer.

[Amber]

The Court of Appeal had 3 Judges usually and the Supreme Court will usually have 5 hearing the case. It's a test of proportionality and also the applicability of Article 8(1) of the Comvention.

[Obie]

The supreme court has granted permission inthe case of Bibi in regards to the English language requirement. I believe permission will be granted in this case also.

The court of appeal approach is that one should assume the Secretary Of State has a rational belief, without an examination of whether the belief is indeed rational, which was what Mr Justice Blake did.

[helpmepls]

Thank you for your kind replies.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

I hope they rule against HO. £18,600 is just too much money.

[andy quattro]

This ruling is totally unfair and unjust and only effects people married to British citizens. Anyone married to a non-British European is guaranteed to receive a visa within in three weeks regardless of income or English language ability. The visa is free last five years and includes recourse to public funds. Unlike the visa partners of British citizens receive which takes on average three months to receive, costs £1001 and only last 2.5 years and has no recourse to public funds. Why does the British government discriminate so cruelly against the loved ones of British citizens. Please watch the 3 minute video and sign the petition. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGXQofH1zU4