Government launches consultation on family route

[MWill]

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'

Must be. Otherwise fairly well-off/comfortable people will have their families torn apart. Can't see them getting away with that.

[GrahamD85]

That's what I'm thinking. They can't say they want those remaining here to integrate and not be a burden on the tax payer but then refuse them because they have a good job, pay taxes and speak English.

Thinking about it, the examples in the consultation, from what I remember, were all citizens/those settled bringing in partners or family from outside the UK. Saying that though I do remember the document mentioning those choosing to remain in.the UK frequently too. I still think it must be unlawful for those en route to have to abide to new rules with only a few months notice.

I'm emailing my local MP tomorrow to make sure he's aware of this consultation and he effect it could have on our city. It probably won't make a difference but its good to make them aware of these issues.

[MWill]

That's what I'm thinking. They can't say they want those remaining here to integrate and not be a burden on the tax payer but then refuse them because they have a good job, pay taxes and speak English.

Thinking about it, the examples in the consultation, from what I remember, were all citizens/those settled bringing in partners or family from outside the UK. Saying that though I do remember the document mentioning those choosing to remain in.the UK frequently too. I still think it must be unlawful for those en route to have to abide to new rules with only a few months notice.

I'm emailing my local MP tomorrow to make sure he's aware of this consultation and he effect it could have on our city. It probably won't make a difference but its good to make them aware of these issues.

I think it's probably an error/lack of understanding within the document. There's a certain logic in only allowing the sponsor's money to count for external visa applications (though I do think the applicant's savings should be allowed to), and I think that's the real intention, albeit poorly phrased and not made clear. But within the country that's unworkable, and the consequences for a failed in-country application are more traumatic than a failed visa.

In many couples, the sponsor may have quit their job or only work part time in order to look after kids, while the applicant is working - I can't see them justifying refusing people like that, and tearing apart present and settled families over it. It's actually unthinkable that they would. And what about where the sponsor is disabled and can't work? It also punishes the most vulnerable.

Of course, we don't know yet what the income requirement will be. MigrationWatchUK, who are pretty right-wing, have suggested it be a combined salary equal to one full-time minimum wage job, plus 10% for each dependent, which isn't too bad (£11,000 a year for a couple), though the government may go a little higher than that. But again, it would be unfair if they considered it purely on London wages/costs of living ... what about those in the north?

Write to your MP, maybe write to the Lib Dems (their leader has a foreign wife!), and answer the consultation, because this is a crucial point which mustn't be missed.

[GrahamD85]

I've just pored through the FLR(M) and SET (M) forms and can't find a single mention of the word 'sponsor' anywhere. The person who is settled in the UK is only referred to as 'partner'.

I tried to look for forms for those looking for leave to enter as the partner or spouse of someone already present and settled but the site says you need entry clearance first and redirects to that page. I'm presuming the person settled here in the UK looking to bring their family here is the 'sponsor' referred to in the consultation.

So, and please correct me if you think I'm wrong, applying a minimum income threshold to a sponsor should only surely affect those wanting to bring their partner, spouse or family into the UK, not those who are already in the UK who have the FLR(M) visa already and are en route to apply for ILR. Someone posted that thought already here but I can't see their name from this screen so can't credit them, sorry.

This is doing my head in now and I can't even decide if I should be worrying or not because it might not apply to a lot of people if passed.

[MWill]

I've just pored through the FLR(M) and SET (M) forms and can't find a single mention of the word 'sponsor' anywhere. The person who is settled in the UK is only referred to as 'partner'.

I tried to look for forms for those looking for leave to enter as the partner or spouse of someone already present and settled but the site says you need entry clearance first and redirects to that page. I'm presuming the person settled here in the UK looking to bring their family here is the 'sponsor' referred to in the consultation.

That's correct - you only "sponsor" someone to bring them into the UK. Leave to remain applications just ask for partner's details, and for the partner to sign something which says the marriage is continuing. There's no requirement for the partner to financially support the applicant, or even to state that they will. It's combined earnings/savings.

That does, as you say, imply that they're only really talking about external visa applications for the only-sponsor's-funds-count thing (it does say "UK-based sponsor"), but the layout and wording is a bit of a shambles (it only mentions "to enter OR REMAIN" right at the end, when they ask the consultation question - before that it only seems to refer to visas). It's almost as if the author doesn't have a clue how the system currently works.

[skyepark]

Forgive me for being dim but can we as the public take part of the consultation or is it only for those in the immigration law industry? It is more then ludicrous to only view the applicant's funds as the only source of income and savings, I mean couple's depend on joint funds to obtain mortgages, this rule would mean thousands would not get ilr.

My husband just got his spouse visa, at a hiked price, I hope that 2 years down the line we don't have to apply for 3 more, this puts out whole future in jeopardy, we wanted to start a business and a family. With the recession as it is I don't know if we will be able to show that we have enough while living the life we want.

It changes a lot of lives. on the one had research says that a combined household income of 50k is mid range living but at this rate the ukba may not think so.

[MWill]

It changes a lot of lives. on the one had research says that a combined household income of 50k is mid range living but at this rate the ukba may not think so.

If they make it 50k, me and my wife have absolutely no chance of ever making it, and that would probably be the case for a lot of people. Despite what the mean averages say (and they're slanted due to London prices anyway), most lower-middle/working-class UK couples outside London probably earn in the region of £15,000-£25,000 a year. A couple can live on that.

I don't think it will be that high though - look around the world and no other country sets it nearly that high. Most are set a bit above poverty/income support/minimum wage levels. More likely to be some proportion of the minimum wage - let's say 1.25 times the minimum wage, and if you're below it you have to prove you can make up the difference with your savings for 5 years. Maybe something like that, but that's all speculation.

[GrahamD85]

I've been through the consultation again and I thought MWill was right until I got to page 30, where the confusion once again surfaces.

If you look at the diagram on that page it shows the proposed criteria that must be met for a leave to remain application and the requirements for settlement (ILR). Under the Settlement section it says "New minimum income threshold for sponsors". If they're getting rid of the rule that gives you immediate ILR as long as you've been married in other country for 4 years, it suggests that they're applying the minimum income threshold to those going for ILR, which will mostly mean people who have been in the country for at least 2 years and often longer.

Just when I thought I was getting somewhere!

That diagram also shows the proposed new timeline of waiting 5 years after leave to remain for ILR. So, in a worst case scenario where they bring in the minimum income threshold for a British citizen, regardless of whether their partner is in the UK or not, surely they'd also have to apply the 5 year rule at the same time. They couldn't expect those already en route for ILR to still have the same application date of 2 years from their leave to remain application (for me that's September 2012) and bring in just the minimum income threshold, that'd be massively unfair.

In my eyes, if these new rules come in they'll have to either forget those already en route so they're not affected by minimum income threshold or the proposed 5 year wait, or they apply the rules to everyone so we all have to wait another 3 years from the date we were due to go back for ILR and have to meet the income requirements. If the latter happens, which it's still tough to say based on that sham of a consultation document, it at least gives me three and a half years to find another job IF it's deemed I won't meet the requirements.

What a mess.

[MWill]

I've been through the consultation again and I thought MWill was right until I got to page 30, where the confusion once again surfaces.

If you look at the diagram on that page it shows the proposed criteria that must be met for a leave to remain application and the requirements for settlement (ILR). Under the Settlement section it says "New minimum income threshold for sponsors". If they're getting rid of the rule that gives you immediate ILR as long as you've been married in other country for 4 years, it suggests that they're applying the minimum income threshold to those going for ILR, which will mostly mean people who have been in the country for at least 2 years and often longer.

That's ... ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. You're right - sponsor income test for ILR, but no mention of the applicant's funds. That's just insane.

[skyepark]

I talk about other research, not great research but even the tax brackets have come down to around 43k per year before you are in the higher tax bracket. House prices also skew this household income threshold. People have proven that they can live off a lot less like you say but in order to get a mortgage one must earn more. London may be a seperate rule but surely this will affect the general rule from UKBA? Right now the measure is the income supprt received, I think no doubt this will go up. Rent and mortgages are the biggest outgoings for most people.

It changes a lot of lives. on the one had research says that a combined household income of 50k is mid range living but at this rate the ukba may not think so.

If they make it 50k, me and my wife have absolutely no chance of ever making it, and that would probably be the case for a lot of people. Despite what the mean averages say (and they're slanted due to London prices anyway), most lower-middle/working-class UK couples outside London probably earn in the region of £15,000-£25,000 a year. A couple can live on that.

I don't think it will be that high though - look around the world and no other country sets it nearly that high. Most are set a bit above poverty/income support/minimum wage levels. More likely to be some proportion of the minimum wage - let's say 1.25 times the minimum wage, and if you're below it you have to prove you can make up the difference with your savings for 5 years. Maybe something like that, but that's all speculation.

[MWill]

Looks like I'd better be prepared to leave my country, then. Despite us comfortably living, no benefits, wife having good savings.

Insanity.

Worth noting also that about 50% of UK households have a total income of £20,000 or less, and about 30% have £15,000 or less after tax. So if they set it too high, they're denying a big chunk of the population. Can't see that flying.

[GrahamD85]

I can't see that kind of level being applied either, it is plain unreasonable. We got a mortgage based on what we could jointly afford. If I lost my job or my girlfriend lost hers we'd still have £139 per week after mortgage and c tax (or much more if my girlfriend was the one still in employment.

Refusing an application for a couple who have followed the rules, both work, pay taxes, own a house and bring in just under 50k a year between them is madness. Barely anyone would pass it. I agree with MWill too- I hope London prices don't skewer the result too much. Not everyone lives in London and here in Manchester the cost of living isn't as expensive.

If an income rule comes in I still think it will come in jointly with the new 5 year rule, so those already with further leave to remain have time to try and meet the income rule if they don't already. If you already have further leave to remain there must be a cut-off period, as I've mentioned. Those who received FLR before these conditions are implemented shouldn't have to meet new rules. When I received the FLR visa last September I was made aware of what I needed to do for ILR. They shouldn't make me abide by new rules that come in 5 months before I go for ILR.

[MWill]

I can't see that kind of level being applied either, it is plain unreasonable. We got a mortgage based on what we could jointly afford. If I lost my job or my girlfriend lost hers we'd still have £139 per week after mortgage and c tax (or much more if my girlfriend was the one still in employment.

Refusing an application for a couple who have followed the rules, both work, pay taxes, own a house and bring in just under 50k a year between them is madness. Barely anyone would pass it. I agree with MWill too- I hope London prices don't skewer the result too much. Not everyone lives in London and here in Manchester the cost of living isn't as expensive.

No, I doubt it'll be that high. I'm still concerned, though. We've budgeted in order to rent a nice flat. I do earn below the average salary even for this area, and my wife doesn't work yet, but we're comfortable - after rent and council tax we'll have about £115 a week left over, and since we don't own a car and I walk to work, our living costs are low - usually just bills and food. My wife also has good savings in her account - so good, in fact, that we're not entitled to ANY benefits. So there's no question of us being a burden on the taxpayer - we're not allowed to be!

So, we live comfortably, my wife is well-integrated, and we're not entitled to any benefits. But if they set the income requirement at, say, £19,000 a year, and decide not to allow any of the applicant's savings to be used, she could be refused and have to go back to her home country, despite being married to me and present and settled here for 2 and a half years.

And what about sponsors who lose their job 3 weeks before their spouse has to apply for ILR ...

Surely there's something wrong with this picture ...

[atikhonee]

These rules could never be applicable on the people who are already here under spouse or FLR (M). How can they apply this law over them. They could not remove the family's who are illegal in this country because of human rights violation. so how can they ruin some one life who is citizen of this country. who have more rights.

These rules will effect only those who come after it become law and applicable.

[GrahamD85]

Know

These rules could never be applicable on the people who are already here under spouse or FLR (M). How can they apply this law over them. They could not remove the family's who are illegal in this country because of human rights violation. so how can they ruin some one life who is citizen of this country. who have more rights.

These rules will effect only those who come after it become law and applicable.

One way or another I also think the rules won't be retrospective, but its a tricky area and you never know. What is classed as retrospective? Technically we haven't applied for ILR yet even if we do have FLR, but as the diagram I mention above shows that a minimum income threshold could apply to ILR then I might still fall under that category.

[GrahamD85]

Just a thought, but does anyone think the diagram mentioned above means that those who had to show that they met the minimum income threshhold during their FLR(M) application are the ones who have to show this again when applying for ILR, and those applying for ILR shortly after the system is introduced won't have to because they didn't when applying for FLR(M)?

Sorry to post twice in a row but I'd love to hear more thoughts on this and how everyone will be affected by it.

[skyepark]

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/7X6HHLX

the ukba survey

[GrahamD85]

I've emailed my MP this morning to explain how these proposals could affect normal, decent people in his constituency. If I get a reply I'll be sure to post it here.

[aosun007]

How many further leave to remain will those already in the route will be applying for.
There is already FLR(M)
what is the meaning of further then when further can not be final stage before applying for ILR.
This proposal is not well planned,They just copied and paste the research done by an individual

[MWill]

How many further leave to remain will those already in the route will be applying for.
There is already FLR(M)
what is the meaning of further then when further can not be final stage before applying for ILR.
This proposal is not well planned,They just copied and paste the research done by an individual

It does seem a bit shambolic. Hopeufully that's why they're consulting on it, because it's full of holes.

[dms_sbs]

Dear everyone,
I gave my feedback to the consultation today. May I request everyone to write in comment box in the consultation that Govt should not bring this proposal to those who are already here. There are many boxes in which we can write our suggestions. I wrote -
"After reading all the valuable information in this consultation I can understand that this consultation primary purpose is to stop the sham marriages in the UK so that is why Govt. is forming all new rules including increase of probationary period from 2 to 5 years. But we think that this law will not be justice to the dependents of tier 1 or tier 2 visa holders who has been here for 2 or more years. Theses dependents when married to main visa holders did not have true intention for settlement in UK and mostly their marriage should be genuine. All those who are here on tier 2 or 1 dependent visa must not be included.
Can we please write somewhat these kind of ideas in consultation form.
Let us unite.
We totally respect Govt intention but it will affect to innocent people as well so they should make new rules to only those who have not entered UK yet and it should not be to tier 1 or tier 2 dependents because there are less chances of sham marriages in this. As no body will do fake marriage to tier 1 or tier 2 holders for settlement purpose only in UK.. Can we bring this to Govt Mind please ?
I hope if we write that for tier 1 or tier 2 visa there is no point of introducing this rule then it will be great. And also not for those who are already here

[GrahamD85]

Wasn't there a reform recently for work visas or something? If so, was there a cut-off date on that? I only keep up with things that affect our situation unfortunately so I'm not sure what's happened with new rules in other categories...

[vinny]

Dear All,

As you are already aware, an consultation has begun by government which propose a change in family route. As a whole, this would have a great impact on non-european nationals including spouses and elderly parents and relatives to enter, permanent stay and nationality. Also it could affect the family visitor as well.

Although some of the points raised like language skills, sham and forced marriages are for the welfare of general public but most of the rules once implemented would make the life pretty hard for genuine cases if in doubt.

What i have learnt from the English system especially related to immigration is that there is no way out once you get stranded and english courts itself find it difficult and hence only improvise the law except in very few cases where either authority is under no influence or there is a great degree of uncertainity and pressure involved through an community or group.

Once implemented, it will make the situation worse especially for spouses or partners come from outside as around 80% of them been abused by immediate family members whether male or female. The reason behind this is that many british partners who marry outside because of one or other weaknesses dont work or pay attention to family commitments hence leave no choice other than for their partner to take whole responsibily which make him or her to suffer physically and mentally.

As being socially active in society, i feel that atleast a person under the current rules could raise a voice once get settled or in extreme could take a unavoidable decision to protect him or her. Even under the current rules under two year probation i have gone through so many domestic voilence cases where family in uk has continuosly abused the victim knowing a favour from immigration system which has nothing for the victim but only reward is deportation. You can eaisly imagine how would that be in 5 year probation.

I am fully aware that this is one way to look at the proposal but believe me this side is much more heavier(90%), if you smell real world.

I hereby request all of you to take part in consultation and raise the voice whether related or not especially on probation from 2 to 5 years for spouses,elderly dependent family and forced marriges. You can eaisly take part in consultation by clicking the link below.

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/famil ... on-consult

Thank You,

Regards,
SainiJK

[GrahamD85]

I agree with the crackdown on forced and sham marriages and also don't have a problem with the extension from two to five years. If the relationship is genuine it doesn't matter if you have to wait a little longer. I'm still not sure how sham and forced marriages will be weeded out though, and UKBA really has its work cut out on that.

Man, its going to be a nervous few months for a lot of us though. I still think the biggest danger in the proposals is the minimum income threshold. If that's applied without real thought most of us are screwed. Imagine having your application refused because the 'sponsor' doesn't have loads of money left after rent, when in actuality your rent is less than a quarter of your combined earnings as a couple.

[MWill]

Man, its going to be a nervous few months for a lot of us though. I still think the biggest danger in the proposals is the minimum income threshold. If that's applied without real thought most of us are screwed. Imagine having your application refused because the 'sponsor' doesn't have loads of money left after rent, when in actuality your rent is less than a quarter of your combined earnings as a couple.

Or the foreign applicant has a shedload of savings, making you both ineligible for any benefits, but these aren't taken into account because they're in the applicant's bank account.

Or the sponsor is, or becomes, seriously disabled or ill, and has to stop working. They're relying on their foreign partner, who is then shipped off home, where they can't follow.

Or the sponsor stops working in order to raise kids while the applicant continues to work - the family would be truly torn apart as one parent is shipped off home, leaving the other without the money to raise the child.

Or the sponsor loses their job four weeks before their partner needs to apply. No matter what the partner is doing, no matter how many savings they had, they'd be sent home.

The consequences are awful, and utterly ridiculous. Tearing apart comfortable families who don't rely on public funds. The headlines would bring the system down.

And if anything, the period being extended to 5 years makes this a bit worse - someone could settle here for 5 years, then just due to a bit of bad luck end up having to go home again.