Government launches consultation on family route

Post by **vinny** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:41 am

GrahamD85 · Post by **GrahamD85** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 9:18 am

I can't say I was shocked when I read this but I am disappointed. Strict isn't the word.

I expected the minimum income amount to be around Â£15,000 for the sponsor, a few grand over minimum wage. Â£24,000 seems unreasonable for the sponsor - I'm sure I read recently that the average wage in the UK was Â£20,000, so this immediately excludes the majority of people settled here or born here. Nice one.

There are a couple of things I'm wondering about now in terms of minimum income.

1. If this rule of Â£24,000 is applied will the sponsor have to earn that on their own when the couple apply for ILR, even if the applicant has been living and working in the UK for years and has FLR?

2. If the figure of Â£24,000 can't be met by the sponsor, will they be able to make that up by showing savings?

I earn a few grand less than the Â£24,000 apparently being discussed, but my girlfriend (the applicant) has FLR since September 2010 and earns over the 'required' amount. We have savings too. Does this mean if this rule comes in that we will be refused ILR in September 2011 all because I miss the Â£24,000 mark by a few grand?

midget · Post by **midget** » Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:29 pm

GrahamD85 wrote: There are a couple of things I'm wondering about now in terms of minimum income.

1. If this rule of Â£24,000 is applied will the sponsor have to earn that on their own when the couple apply for ILR, even if the applicant has been living and working in the UK for years and has FLR?

2. If the figure of Â£24,000 can't be met by the sponsor, will they be able to make that up by showing savings?

I wrote to my local MP, who passed my letter on to the Home Office. I received the following reply from Damian Green's office. My concerns were predominantly around my specific situation, where my partner is here on UPV and working, and I am currently not working.

"We will continue to consider cash savings held in a joint account to allow those sponsors who are not in employment, but who have direct access to adequate funds (including from the applicant's employment) to meet the requirement". The letter also says "We will consider whether, where the applicant is in employment in the UK, their income should also be taken into account, alongside the sponsor's income and savings (including those held in a joint account)." Despite the second quote I suspect they will only end up considering joint savings and not the applicant's income.

With regard to transitional arrangements for those already here - "Whilst I cannot comment on individual circumstances, I can say that we are looking closely at what transitional arrangements should be put into place to ensure that those granted a family visa or leave to remain before the changes come into force are not unfairly disadvantaged."

GrahamD85 · Post by **GrahamD85** » Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:22 am

Sounds hopeful midget, thanks for posting that. While it isn't the perfect response, it's good that they're actually answering questions with decent answers. My letter from the Home Office via my MP is set to arrive at my place today and I was thinking I'd get a vague response asking me to fill in the consultation, so this is promising.

MWill · Post by **MWill** » Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:36 am

That sounds more promising, but I don't understand why they wouldn't look at savings held in the applicant's name only - they're just as available to the couple, surely?

My wife has a lot of savings in her US bank account, but it's not an account that I can be added to. It would be a pain to have to set up a joint account here and move all that money just to prove a point, when her money is already freely available to her through ATM!

Think there could be a lot of confident Article 8 challenges if they try to introduce any kind of income requirement on in-country applications. If an established couple are unlucky enough to have fallen on hard times a few weeks before a visa runs out and then are split up because of it, this is surely the state disproportionately interfearing with family life ...

krs133 · Post by **krs133** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:01 am

Cameron's speech today is apparently going to identify 20k after tax as a reasonable minimum to support a family. I guess this amounts to about 25k before tax, which seems awfully high, and (as pointed out above) higher than the average UK wage.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/10/ ... pe=article

MWill · Post by **MWill** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 10:14 am

It's actually more like Â£28k. Can't see it being that - it's far too high, and well above the average wage.

GrahamD85 · Post by **GrahamD85** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:10 pm

Cameron's full speech on this today can be read here: http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analy ... ch-in-full

It's a bit scary to be honest.

MWill · Post by **MWill** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:55 pm

GrahamD85 wrote:Cameron's full speech on this today can be read here: http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analy ... ch-in-full

It's a bit scary to be honest.

It's scary how detatched from reality they are if they think a couple couldn't support themselves in less than Â£28k without the state's help - not only is that a ridiculous notion, it's a downright lie. They wouldn't be entitled to ANY benefits.

Frightens me what they're getting away with here.

krs133 · Post by **krs133** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:58 pm

I'm fairly sure that the MAC will not propose such a high threshold. In this case, their mandate is not to support the government's objective of reducing immigration, but to propose the minimum level at which the applicant "will not be a burden on the state". You can't possibly argue that 20k after tax is reasonable in this context.

After Cameron's speech, however, I'm not at all confident that the government will accept the MAC's proposals. We know already from the abolition of Tier 1 that they will ignore the MAC's advice if it suits their political objectives. This may be another such instance. If so, the only hope is that it might run up against Article 8 of the ECHR.

MWill · Post by **MWill** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:42 pm

krs133 wrote:I'm fairly sure that the MAC will not propose such a high threshold. In this case, their mandate is not to support the government's objective of reducing immigration, but to propose the minimum level at which the applicant "will not be a burden on the state". You can't possibly argue that 20k after tax is reasonable in this context.

After Cameron's speech, however, I'm not at all confident that the government will accept the MAC's proposals. We know already from the abolition of Tier 1 that they will ignore the MAC's advice if it suits their political objectives. This may be another such instance. If so, the only hope is that it might run up against Article 8 of the ECHR.

Which they will. IOs are already encouraged not to refused FLR/ILR based on maintenance, because it's open to a strong challenge on Article 8 grounds. Any income threshold on in-country applocants will increase that tenfold - courts will be full, and those refused will get to stay here anyway. The courts will likely decide that splitting an established couple who are supporting themselves, just because they don't meet a threshold, is a disproportionate violation of their human rights.

But it's nasty on those who aren't here yet.

colestom · Post by **colestom** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:50 pm

My partners here at the moment on family visit visa as our daughters a two year old British ciziten living with me(British born).we are currently waiting a reply on a discretionary visa application for my partner to stay on and are a little worried about current developments.what's the opinion?should we be worried at all?

MWill · Post by **MWill** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:14 pm

colestom wrote:My partners here at the moment on family visit visa as our daughters a two year old British ciziten living with me(British born).we are currently waiting a reply on a discretionary visa application for my partner to stay on and are a little worried about current developments.what's the opinion?should we be worried at all?

If your partner gets discretionary leave to remain, I wouldn't really worry - it would be (I think) for six years and is technically outside the immigration rules.

colestom · Post by **colestom** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:19 pm

Many thanks for your reply...what we are worried about is if she will web e granted her discretionary visa in the first place...it is causing us no end of worry as you can imagine.we hired a case worker ,presented all relevant papers etc etc but for some reason I'm not confident,especially now it seems government is getting alot stricter.can anyone offer constructive advice?

MWill · Post by **MWill** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:52 pm

colestom wrote:Many thanks for your reply...what we are worried about is if she will web e granted her discretionary visa in the first place...it is causing us no end of worry as you can imagine.we hired a case worker ,presented all relevant papers etc etc but for some reason I'm not confident,especially now it seems government is getting alot stricter.can anyone offer constructive advice?

I'm not a professional of any sort, so don't rely on my advice ... But anything they're changing with regard to family visas won't change until April at the earliest. And I haven't seen anything about them changing the rules regarding discretionary leave.

GrahamD85 · Post by **GrahamD85** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:34 am

I thought I'd post the letter I got back on behalf of Damian Green last week. It's similar to the letter I think another member posted on this thread (sorry, can't remember who it was) but there may be other things that are different.

I'd written to my local MP and voiced my concerns over the minimum threshold and those it could affect when applying for settlement - such as a foreign man who has a well-paid job so the British sponsor doesn't work and stays at home and looks after children.

Dear John,

Thank you for your letter of 4 August on behalf of Mr X about the family migration consultation.

Mr X is concerned about the proposal to introduce a new minimum income threshold for UK-based sponsors of family migrants and to take into account only the income of the sponsor.

We are clear that British citizens and those settled here are able to marry or enter into a civil partnership with whomever they choose. But family migrants must have access to enough money to support themselves, without their UK-resident spouse or partner needing help from the taxpayer, and to enable them to participate in everyday life in a way that facilitates integration.

Those wishing to bring a non-European Economic Area national spouse or partner (and dependants) to the UK already have to show they can maintain and accommodate them.

The current rules allow the UK Border Agency to take the joint income of the couple into consideration when assessing the adequacy of the funds available, including the employment prospects of the foreign spouse. However, in the current economic climate, we do not consider it appropriate to take into account a foreign spouse's potential earnings should they gain employment here. The current provision is also difficult for the UK Border Agency to apply or verify in practice.

That is why we are proposing to place greater emphasis on the income and cash savings of the sponsor of family migrants applying for entry clearance or leave to remain. We will continue to consider cash savings held in a joint account to allow those sponsors who are not in employment, but who have direct access to adequate funds (including from the applicant's employment) to meet the requirement.

Those sponsoring family migrants applying for settlement in the UK will have to demonstrate that they continue to meet the minimum income threshold requirement. We will consider whether, where the applicant is in employment in the UK, their income should also be taken into account, alongside the sponsor's income and savings (including those held in a joint account).

Any changes to the Immigration Rules arising from the consultation are due to be implemented in April 2012. We are looking closely at what transitional arrangements should be put in place for those granted a family visa or leave to remain before the changes come into force.

The family migration consultation is open until 6 October and I would encourage Mr X to respond to the consultation if he has not already done so.

Yours, Damian

Damian Green MP

MWill · Post by **MWill** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:32 am

GrahamD85 wrote: Those sponsoring family migrants applying for settlement in the UK will have to demonstrate that they continue to meet the minimum income threshold requirement. We will consider whether, where the applicant is in employment in the UK, their income should also be taken into account, alongside the sponsor's income and savings (including those held in a joint account).

I think this is where they're going to fall down - as I said, already it's rare that they refuse in-country applications based on maintenance, because under Article 8 it's almost impossible to split up a couple who are already present and established in the UK. An income threshold for FLR or ILR will just lead to masses of court cases.

I wonder if, for in-country people who don't meet the income threshold, they won't issue ILR - which gives access to benefits - but instead just give them another extension? Because they'll find it hard to kick them out.

archipelago · Post by **archipelago** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:20 pm

Surely they need to take the applicants savings into account, especially if they are large savings. If they don't take the applicants income into account once in the UK, then what is the point of them even looking for work and integrating into society?

I can see these potential new rules leading to an increased amount of overstayers.

MWill · Post by **MWill** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:31 pm

archipelago wrote:Surely they need to take the applicants savings into account, especially if they are large savings. If they don't take the applicants income into account once in the UK, then what is the point of them even looking for work and integrating into society?

I can see these potential new rules leading to an increased amount of overstayers.

You're right - it shouldn't matter whose name is on the account, or which country the account is based. If the money is available to the couple, surely it has to be counted.

Not sure about overstayers, but at the very least there are going to be a LOT of Article 8 appeals, and they'll have a good case. If a couple is living here at a decent standard and hasn't used any public funds, then any rule which wants to split them up based on how much money they have (and in which accounts they have it) is surely the very definition of the state disproportionately interfering with their right to a family life.

barker · Post by **barker** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 5:00 pm

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitec ... iew=Binary

The section for PBS dependants on page 55 only lists entrepreneurs, investors and people of exceptional talent amongst Tier 1 categories. Given that Tier 1G was closed earlier this year, is this an indication that the new rules will be applicable only to applicants who entered after a certain date. For example April 2011 / April 2012

If they apply it retrospectively it is a financial burden for most Tier 1 dependants. as the partner will have to apply separately for leave to remain as spouse, then apply for ILR after 3 more years.

SSEF · Post by **SSEF** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:11 pm

krs133 wrote:Cameron's speech today is apparently going to identify 20k after tax as a reasonable minimum to support a family. I guess this amounts to about 25k before tax, which seems awfully high, and (as pointed out above) higher than the average UK wage.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/10/ ... pe=article

Awfully high??? A single person could struggle to live on that, let alone a family of 4...Most households have an average of circa. 40k coming and find it difficult to manage...So I think he is being rather lenient with that figure...

shade00 · Post by **shade00** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 1:03 pm

SSEF wrote:
krs133 wrote:Cameron's speech today is apparently going to identify 20k after tax as a reasonable minimum to support a family. I guess this amounts to about 25k before tax, which seems awfully high, and (as pointed out above) higher than the average UK wage.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/10/ ... pe=article
Awfully high??? A single person could struggle to live on that, let alone a family of 4...Most households have an average of circa. 40k coming and find it difficult to manage...So I think he is being rather lenient with that figure...

A single person would struggle to live on 20k?

Either you are used to a lavish lifestyle or your lost.

MWill · Post by **MWill** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:34 pm

SSEF wrote:
krs133 wrote:Cameron's speech today is apparently going to identify 20k after tax as a reasonable minimum to support a family. I guess this amounts to about 25k before tax, which seems awfully high, and (as pointed out above) higher than the average UK wage.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/10/ ... pe=article
Awfully high??? A single person could struggle to live on that, let alone a family of 4...Most households have an average of circa. 40k coming and find it difficult to manage...So I think he is being rather lenient with that figure...

Sorry, but you're just completely wrong there. Most couples, outside central London at least, don't need to earn nearly that much.

When my wife was first here on her fiance visa, I think I was earning about Â£18,500 a year before tax. It left us with about Â£1140 a month after tax, which comfortably covered our bills - Â£500 rent, Â£100 council tax, Â£60 electric, Â£20 water, Â£20 Sky, Â£40 phone/internet, Â£200 food (including wine every night). I walk to work and we don't own a car, so transport costs are zero.

We had Â£200 left over each month to do what we wanted with. We lived happily, comfortably and didn't want for anything. To be honest, we could have got by nicely on Â£15,000 a year - we could still rent a nice 2 bedroom flat for Â£400, cut down on wine and Sky, and still live happily with the extra cash left over.

And David Cameron reckons people living like that are not earning enough, and are a danger to the welfare state? Utter rubbish. I've never claimed any benefits or been entitled to any. This isn't about "better" migration - it's a nasty way to cut down on migrants, split up families, and - as is the Tory way - reward the rich while punishing the less well-off. Pure nastiness, plain and simple.

krs133 · Post by **krs133** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:31 pm

The MAC's website says they were asked to report by October 2011 on a minimum income threshold.

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/about ... odies/mac/

Half an hour to go, and no sign of any report, at least in public.

SSEF · Post by **SSEF** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:37 pm

MWill wrote:
SSEF wrote:
krs133 wrote:Cameron's speech today is apparently going to identify 20k after tax as a reasonable minimum to support a family. I guess this amounts to about 25k before tax, which seems awfully high, and (as pointed out above) higher than the average UK wage.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/10/ ... pe=article
Awfully high??? A single person could struggle to live on that, let alone a family of 4...Most households have an average of circa. 40k coming and find it difficult to manage...So I think he is being rather lenient with that figure...
Sorry, but you're just completely wrong there. Most couples, outside central London at least, don't need to earn nearly that much.

When my wife was first here on her fiance visa, I think I was earning about Â£18,500 a year before tax. It left us with about Â£1140 a month after tax, which comfortably covered our bills - Â£500 rent, Â£100 council tax, Â£60 electric, Â£20 water, Â£20 Sky, Â£40 phone/internet, Â£200 food (including wine every night). I walk to work and we don't own a car, so transport costs are zero.

We had Â£200 left over each month to do what we wanted with. We lived happily, comfortably and didn't want for anything. To be honest, we could have got by nicely on Â£15,000 a year - we could still rent a nice 2 bedroom flat for Â£400, cut down on wine and Sky, and still live happily with the extra cash left over.

And David Cameron reckons people living like that are not earning enough, and are a danger to the welfare state? Utter rubbish. I've never claimed any benefits or been entitled to any. This isn't about "better" migration - it's a nasty way to cut down on migrants, split up families, and - as is the Tory way - reward the rich while punishing the less well-off. Pure nastiness, plain and simple.

Really, wine every night? What were you drinking because last time I checked a cheap bottle of vino was circa. Â£5.00? (I use it for cooking) You also didn't mobile phone bills for 2 people, occassional transport costs, insurance (household I am assuming you dont own!) lunches whilst at work, clothes ( we need to put clothes on our backs, no?) holidays, things for the home, going out to the movies and for dinner (dinner and the movies can cost nearly or over Â£100)...bowling, enjoying life etc etc.

Your "life" isnt a "life" if you can "exist" off what you do, but maybe life is different in your home countries, this is the UK, not Pakistan or India, dont expect the government to set its standards by yours!

As for splitting up families, there is nothing stopping you from joining your new wife in your home country...It's your choice after to come to the UK..

As for your assumption most couples dont bring in more than 20K outside of London, that must be your social circle, my friends in couples bring in at least Â£70K and we all live in Manchester which is well outside of London, its more a reflecton of who you know and you are all immigrants, then I doubt you are the "highly skilled migrants" the last government opened its doors to! Thank god it shut them!

People like you make me angry because you give such a false perception of the UK...

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

Government launches consultation on family route