Today's ruling

[newrulessuck]

Hopefully this will also cast into doubt the legality of the new family rules that came into effect on the 9th of July. One can only hope!


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/1 ... sfeed=true

[newrulessuck]

Actually this article is more relevant, this could be massive!:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jul/ ... tion-rules

[MPH80]

Given the 'emergency' action being taken by the home secretary is to ensure these changes are debated by the Lords on Friday so they are enacted same day, the chances of them being overturned there is low.

As a result, we'll have had 11 days of potentially 'wrong' applications. However, anyone who qualifies under the new rules will also qualify under the old rules.

So it's the refusals we have to worry about for the family rules.

It's also notable that no one (including the judge) is saying that the rule they are enforcing is sensible and it's likely there'll be an immigration bill to stop this being required.

M.

[newrulessuck]

I have to admit that most of this goes over my head, but I have made an attempt to read a few articles based on today's judgement. Is it really as simple as:

The court says to the government 'you can't go making any substantial changes to the immigration rules without going through parliament and having a proper debate'.

Government says 'OK, we will have a quick chat in the House of Lords on Friday, will that do? lovely.'

And bugger all changes and we just carry on like before?

[MPH80]

As I understand it, and this is just from reading the articles, the problem isn't the commons - it's the lords.

The 1971 framework requires a Lords debate for immigration changes. But the Lords generally won't stop the will of the commons - they can make changes and send it back, but that is highly unusual.

As a result, it merely requires some time in the Lords (which is still sitting) to ensure scrutiny and away we go.

[asim72]

What I have gathered is that new immigration rules are intact, its the home office guidance that has got question marks.

So, the requirement of £18600 yearly income is sound according to the judgement. But the quidance about how the income must be proved is not sound until the specific proofs required are also included in the immigration rules.

[Impatient]

Has anyone had a read of this -

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitec ... ofchanges/


2. In paragraph 6, for the definition of ‘adequate’ and ‘adequately’ substitute:
“’adequate’ and ‘adequately’ in relation to a maintenance and accommodation requirement shall mean that, after income tax and housing costs have been deducted, there must be available to the family the level of income that would be available to them if the family was in receipt of income support.”.

What does this mean, confused lol

[MPH80]

The previous version (from a cached google page) was this:

"adequate" and "adequately" in relation to a maintenance and accommodation requirement shall mean that, after housing costs have been deducted, there must be available to the family the level of gross income that would be available to them if the family was in receipt of income support

So the change is to include income tax and to change it to be clear that they are interested in residual income.

However, given appendix FM was already part of the rules and specified the £18,600 income threshold - and part 8 which uses the word 'adequately' has been overridden - for the family life route, it's business as usual.

[janata]

Are there changes to the wife Visa settlement

[MPH80]

No. No changes from the July 9th rules. Not as far as we've spotted so far anyway.

[karwan1]

No. No changes from the July 9th rules. Not as far as we've spotted so far anyway.

What about this (from the home office web page):

New immigration rules that came into force on 9 July 2012 changed the length of time that family members must be in the UK before applying for settlement. This applies to partners of those who are British citizens, settled in the UK, in the UK with refugee leave or humanitarian protection, or here as a worker in a points-based category.

If you applied to come to the UK or for permission to stay here on or after 9 July 2012 and that permission was granted, you will need to be in the UK for 5 years before you qualify for settlement. You will initially be given leave to enter for 2 and a half years, and then you can apply for another period of 2 and a half years.

If you do not meet the requirements on the 5 year route you may qualify for settlement after 10 years if you were given permission to stay on the basis of your family or private life in exceptional circumstances.

You can apply for settlement as a husband, wife or civil partner if:

you have completed a period of 5 years in the UK, with a visa or permission to remain here in this category;
you are still the husband, wife or civil partner of the person specified in your visa or permission to remain;
the marriage or civil partnership is existing and genuine (not a 'marriage of convenience', for example);
you and your partner both intend to live together permanently as husband and wife or civil partners;
you have adequate accommodation where both of you and any dependants can live without needing public funds, and at least part of that accommodation (for example, a bedroom) is for your and your partner's sole use;
both of you can support yourselves and any dependants without needing public funds;
you do not have any unspent convictions within the meaning of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974; and
you have enough knowledge of the English language and life in the UK. (You do not need to meet this last requirement if you are aged 65 or over.) You can find more information about this requirement on the Knowledge of language and life page.

[MPH80]

As I said - no changes from the July 9th rules.

Those quoted are the ones that came into force 2-3 weeks ago.