Do I meet the Maintenance Requirement?

[newlight1]

Does anyone know if I meet the maintenance requirement? This is a copy of what my Lawyer wrote but wanted to get a second opinion. This is under the old rules by the way, the application has already been submitted.

Paragraph (iv) Adequate Accommodation and maintenance until the date of the marriage

Our client will live with her partner at his parents home until the marriage in September. The house is a four bedroomed property and there is at least one bedroom which our client and her partner will be able to occupy exclusively. A letter is provided from the parents of xxxxxxxxxx (see page 74) and the evidence of their ownership of the property (page 75-80). Our client also relies on a property inspection report from xxxxxxxxxx Council who inspected the property and confirmed that based on the number of occupants intending to live there the property will not be overcrowded (pages 75-80). This is confirmed by the Entry Clearance Guidance at MMA14 of the Entry Clearance Guidance.

Adequate maintenance until the date of the marriage is available from both the applicant and her partner. Our client’s current bank statement account number xxxxxxxx indicates funds of £1,257.

In addition our client relies on the funds available to her sponsor who is able to support her before their marriage. Our clients sponsors bank statement shows a balance of £3914.56 as of 14 May 2012. At the present rate of income support which is £111.45 per week for a couple our client and her partner have sufficient means to be supported without recourse to public funds for 46 weeks. In addition to this he has a balance of £3915.61 in his Cash ISA which indicates that our client can be supported for a total period of 81 weeks without recourse to other means of income (pages 50-63).

Our clients partner is currently in receipt of contributions based Employment Support Allowance as he is presently unfit for work. He has provided evidence of his benefit and evidence of his medical conditions which evidence the reason for receipt of this benefit. The benefit is not a public fund for the purposes of the Immigration Rules under S 6 and therefore reliance on this benefit is permissible and can not lead to a refusal of leave to enter. The current rate of benefit payable to xxxxxxxxxxx is £105 per week which taken together which his current savings indicates clearly indicates that he is able to support our client without additional recourse to public funds both before and after the marriage (pages 45-49).

Our clients partner also holds shares to the value of £1432.34 which would provide an additional source of income should it be required (pages 66-68)

[Lucapooka]

Does anyone know if I meet the maintenance requirement?

Maybe your lawyer does?

[newlight1]

Yes but wanted to get a second opinion on if I do?

[Lucapooka]

You've had professional help and the application is already made, so indulging your curiosity is something of a waste of time, isn't it?

[newlight1]

You've had professional help and the application is already made, so indulging your curiosity is something of a waste of time, isn't it?

Yes there is nothing I can do about it now...BUT would still be nice to know if I did or I didn't meet the maintenance requirement.

[Lucapooka]

You lawyer has all of the information you require.

[newlight1]

Yes, I have asked my Lawyer if I met the maintenance requirement or not but haven't been able to get in touch with them So thats why I was asking someone here.

[Lucapooka]

So we are supposed to guess something about you that your lawyer actually knows for certain (because he knows everything about your circumstances)? I think your question is ridiculous on so many levels. He should not have submitted an application if he did not think it was credible.

You are, in fact, pestering several forums with this matter so I'm sure you'll get someone to answer you eventually.

[newlight1]

Well I cant get to speak with my lawyer.

All of the details of my Finances are in my first post. I just wondered if you were able to tell me from that.

We will be staying with my parents rent free.

[Casa]

Without seeing the documents submitted (which your lawyer has had sight of) it would be impossible and irresponsible for anyone, legally qualified or not, to advise on whether your application is credible and will succeed.
You've submitted the application, so all you can do now is wait for the decision. The only comment I will make is that applications submitted in Albania, along with a few other countries, come under a great deal of scrutiny regarding the validity of the relationship. You appear to have focused your concern on whether your financial evidence will be accepted. Hopefully, you've been as focused on proving the relationship will subsist, when most of this has been over the internet where you first made contact, followed by one brief visit.

[newlight1]

Casa, can I ask you. How does the financial side of things look from your point of view as that is ALL of the details the lawyer had, other than of course the original bank statements etc? Is there a maintenance threshold? like you either do or dont meet? Or is there not really one and its based on the merit of the application?

[Casa]

I'm not qualified to answer this and as I've already said, even a legal professional won't give an opinion without physically seeing all the paperwork in the application.

[newlight1]

OK, Is there a maintenance threshold?

[vinny]

Yes.

[newlight1]

Thanks Vinny, do I meet the maintenance threshold?

£3914.56 in a Current account
£3915.61 in Cash ISA
£1,257 Fiance has her in current account
I receive 105 per week Contribution based ESA
We will live with my parents, no rent to pay.

[newlight1]

On July 9th 2012 there was a new interpretation of ECHR, making it a qualified right.

So in this scenario, what would happen?

My Fiancée has applied for a Fiancée Visa June 2012 -
She is denied Fiancée Visa on Maintenance Grounds September 2012 -
We appeal -
The appeal is made using ECHR -

Would the new interpretation of ECHR be used in our appeal EVEN though we applied before the new interpretation of ECHR?
Would we be less likely to win our appeal on ECHR now if we were refused on Maintenance grounds as opposed to if the appeal was heard before July 9th 2012?

[transpondia-2011]

Confused.

Did you not ask fundamentally the same question on our Facebook page?

You will never be able to reconcile all the various opinions across multiple forums into a single unanimous view; especially over something as speculative and conjectural as the issues you are raising.

[newlight1]

Surley there must be a definiate awsner to what the rules are and mean though? how can I find the answers to my questions do you know? One thing that I love about the forum is in that people who are experienced in this area can help us gain understanding in these. Whenever I see people who want to know the answers to questions that I know the answers too I love to tell them as I know you and the other good people on most forums do too. For me, these are my questions. For me, if anyone knows the ansers to them I would be very grateful to anyone who answers them for me


On July 9th the government qualified ECHR.

So in scenario A, what would happen?

My Fiancée has applied for a Fiancée Visa June 2012
She is denied Fiancée Visa on Maintenance Grounds September 2012
We appeal
The appeal is made using ECHR


Would the new interpretation of ECHR be used in our appeal EVEN though we applied before the new interpretation of ECHR?
Would we be less likely to win our appeal on ECHR now if we were refused on Maintenance grounds as opposed to if the appeal was heard before July 9th 2012?

Have Judges and the Home office been using the new interpretation of ECHR since July 9th and have cases which would have probably been won pre-July 9th been lost due to the new interpretation of ECHR?

Scenario B - WHat would happen?

My Fiancée has applied for a Fiancée Visa June 2012 -
She is granted Fiancée Visa
She is then refused FLR
Would she be subject to the 10 year family route even though she applied before the 10 year family route was in place and DLR was in place?
If she is not would she have to leave the country?

I also wanted to ask as this is massive and I am amazed there is no clear understanding of this as there will be without doubt cases where a couple might lose their job, health reasons....all the kind of things life gives us and there will be couples who met the Financial Requirements in their first application, but don’t on FLR.

The question no one seems to know is if that happened would the couple be put on the 10 year path OR is this only in exceptional circumstances in which the couple face insurmountable obstacles to moving abroad in which case that will leave most couple having to split up or leave the country.

No one seems to know, as Will says

The applicant has a genuine and subsisting relationship with a partner who is in the UK and is a British Citizen, settled in the UK or in the UK with refugee leave or humanitarian protection, and there are insurmountable obstacles to family life with that partner continuing outside the UK.

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/polic ... exception/


People keep mentioning the 10 year path, but if the above is true. there is no point in really mentioning the 10 year path as the vast majority of people will not be judged to have insurmountable obstacles to family life with that partner continuing outside the UK.

Have there been any cases of people not meeting the FLR requirements as of yet under the new rules?

[carlyann]

Hi

No-one knows the answers to these questions as it is not even clear whether the courts will take the immigration rules into account when making a decision. The guidance given in the rules in many cases is at complete odds to previous court rulings. Some people speculate that if the judges don't then the tories will take steps to try and remove the uk from the bill of human rights - but again this is all speculation

I am no expert/advisor but I can't imagine there have been any cases as can take up to a year for the ECO to deal with an appeal before the applicant would be in a position to take court action. I can't imagine that anyone who has the funds to take this route would be rejected on the maintenance requirement in any event

You may find the following article of interest (if you haven't already seen it). http://www.ilpa.org.uk/data/resources/1 ... -No.-2.pdf

However even if the judges don't take it into account the threshold for suceeding on article 8 seems to be reasonably high - see http://www.ilpa.org.uk/data/resources/4 ... 8.1080.pdf
My understanding is that you have only met your fiance once in person? Has you lawyer advised you that article 8 would be a good course of action for you?

The best advice anyone can give you at the moment is to wait for the outcome of your application and not to stress anymore until then. I beleive you used a lawyer so you have done all you can and I assume you were advised that it was a sound application. STAY POSITIVE

[newlight1]

Thanks, so you are saying that the Judges do not have to go along with what Teresa May has said about how she has given guidance on how article 8 is to be used? and Judges could use Article 8 in the same way as before July 9th 2012?

Has you lawyer advised you that article 8 would be a good course of action for you?

Yes my lawyer wrote

Article 8 ECHR

Our client seeks to enter the UK to marry her partner and will apply for settlement as a spouse after the marriage. Our client and her partner are a genuine couple and refusal of entry clearance would lead to a breach of their rights under Article 8 of the ECHR. Our client and her partners rights are relevant in relation to the decision as per the decision in Beoku-Betts [2008] UKHL 39. The ECO is required to consider the issue of proportionality in relation to the guidance set out in the case of Razgar. It is contended that family life cannot be continue anywhere else other than the UK due to the illnesses suffered by our client partner which are evidenced in a letter from his GP which is attached in the supporting bundle.

However, this was written well before July 9th 2012 and since July 9th 2012 I do not know if what my Lawyer wrote above is now either a) not valid b) still valid but not as strong of an argument as before July 9th 2012 or c) still as strong as before July 9th 2012. As the application was submitted early June and the application date was early June, however the ECO has not yet made a decision. So I don't know even if the ECO is allowed to use the revised interpretation of ECHR when making the decision or has to use how ECHR was Pre July 9th.

Has you lawyer advised you that article 8 would be a good course of action for you?

My Lawyer has said that we meet all of the requirements. Ie accomodation, parties must have met in person (which we have) and there is no rules on for how long we must have spent in person together, but that we have met and have provided evidence of this, ongoining relationship- provided evidence that since last year we have been in DAILY communication for hours at a time most days etc etc and all of the other requirements including my lawyer saying we meet the maintenance requirement based on below.

£3914.56 in a Current account
£3915.61 in Cash ISA
£1,257 Fiance has her in current account
I receive 105 per week Contribution based ESA
We will live with my parents, no rent to pay.


However, this scenerio is not speculative I dont think

My Fiancée has applied for a Fiancée Visa June 2012 -
She is granted Fiancée Visa
She is then refused FLR
Would she be subject to the 10 year family route even though she applied before the 10 year family route was in place and DLR was in place?
If she is not would she have to leave the country?


As what are the rules pertaining to this if this was to happen next week for instance. If she was refused FLR there must be a set of possible outcomes that could take place? for instance 1) She would be put on the 10 year family route 2) She would be asked to leave? 3) she could appeal and be granted FLR, or put on the 10 year family route OR asked to leave? etc.

[Khrissy3000]

Newlight1,

The rules are illegally in place to reduce net immigration, Theresa May knows this, which is why she intends to introduce a UK Bill of Rights so that they can continue with their "draconian" policies.

What I'm saying is, there is a very high chance you will succeed if this did go to court, the courts will not use these rules.

[newlight1]

Khrissy3000, thanks as our application is heavily dependant on ECHR, I wish it wasn't but it is, so that's why I was trying to get the answers to those questions. Well, May wants rid of ECHR, the thing is that it would mean us living the EU I think? Do you think she will succeed in getting rid of ECHR?

[Khrissy3000]

Newlight1,

I really have no idea if she will succeed or not, I am still unsure as to what she aims to do next in terms of making these rules legal, there will be alot of protests if she does leave the ECHR, that's for sure.
I have started a campaign regarding these rules as they are absolutely unfair, a "bond" would have been a better approach and would provide more of a safeguard than her "draconian" rules, how does earning a salary of £18,600 safeguard the taxpayer, it doesn't, what happens if the sponsor lost their job.
You are in the same situation as me, I would like to take this to court, but I do not have the finance to do so, unfortunately!

[newlight1]

Krissy, what is the campaign you have started? Do you have a link? Sounds good.

[Khrissy3000]

Newlight1,

Facebook: xxx

Forum:
Please join the campaign, we are true activists.