# Changes to spouse visa requirements being announced next week



## lewismistreated

Hi all,

I know there's been quite a bit of speculation and discussion around this lately, but it looks like there's finally going to be an announcement from the government next week.

Copied and pasted the article because the board won't let me post a URL as a new member (spam prevention, I guess). It's from The Guardian though, published by Alan Travis earlier today.



> British citizens with foreign-born partners are to be given the choice of indefinite "exile" in countries including Yemen and Syria or face the breakup of their families if they want to remain in the UK, under radical immigration changes to be announced next week, MPs have been told.
> 
> The home secretary, Theresa May, is expected to confirm that she will introduce a new minimum income requirement for a British "sponsor" without children of up to £25,700 a year, and a stringent English speaking test for foreign-born husbands, wives or partners of UK citizens applying to come to live in Britain on a family visa.
> 
> Immigration welfare campaigners say that the move will exclude two-thirds of British people – those who have a minimum gross income of under £25,700 a year – from living in the UK as a couple if they marry a non-EU national. They estimate that between 45% and 60% of the 53,000 family visas currently issued each year could fall foul of the new rules.
> 
> Ministers have also been considering extending the probationary period for overseas spouses and partners of British citizens from two to five years and introducing an "attachment test" to show that the "combined attachment" of the couple is greater to Britain than any other country.
> 
> The changes are to be introduced alongside new immigration rules, making clear that an illegal migrant or a convicted foreign national facing deportation who has established a family life in Britain will only be blocked by the courts from being removed, under article 8 of the European convention on human rights, in rare and exceptional cases. Instead they, too, will face a choice between separating from their British-based spouse or partner or going to live with their partner as a family overseas.
> 
> The moves to restrict the family route for migrants coming to Britain form part of the home secretary's drive to reduce net migration from 250,000 to "tens of thousands" by the next general election.
> 
> The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) has sent MPs a dossier of 13 detailed cases of families who would face serious consequences under the proposals, "to provide a snapshot of the reality of the lives of ordinary British citizens and settled people who want their husbands, wives, civil partners and in some cases children to join them in the UK".
> 
> It includes the case of Anna, a British woman who is pregnant with twins, earning £31,000 a year, who may have to give up her home, job, flat and friends in the UK and move to Yemen to live with her husband, Ahmed, at a time when the Foreign Office has advised British nationals not to travel there. The fact that Anna is expecting twins means the minimum income maintenance requirement in her case will be set in a range from £24,800-£46,260, rather than at the childless couple rate of £25,700.
> 
> It also highlights the case of Emma , a British graduate who works, and is due to complete a journalism course this year, who may also have to give up her flat, family and friends in Britain, and travel to Syria where her Palestinian husband was born.
> 
> The JCWI says that the dossier shows how the ordinary circumstances of life, such as pregnancy, accidents at work, disability, low pay, poor currency exchange rates and nationality laws in foreign countries could penalise people if the proposals make it into Britain's immigration rules.
> 
> The dossier also highlights how an extension of the probationary period for those granted family visas could trap more women in violent marriages and suffering domestic abuse in silence because of the fear of being deported if they complain.
> "When, if ever, is it acceptable for British citizens to be placed in a position where they are effectively indefinitely exiled from their own country on account of choosing to have a relationship with a non-European Economic Area national?" asks the JCWI pamphlet, United by Love/Divided by Law?
> 
> When the home secretary published her proposals in May she said that it was obvious that British citizens and those settled here should be able to marry or enter into a civil partnership with whomever they choose: "But if they want to establish their family life in the UK, rather than overseas, then their spouse or partner must have a genuine attachment to the UK, be able to speak English, and integrate into our society, and they must not be a burden on the taxpayer. Families should be able to manage their own lives. If a British citizen or a person settled here cannot support their foreign spouse or partner they cannot expect the taxpayer to do it for them."


I married my wife - an American - in January of this year, so like many I'm eager to see exactly what will be changed, and when those changes will come into affect. Roll on next week I guess!


----------



## nyclon

Stark choice under new immigration rules: exile or family breakup | UK news | The Guardian


----------



## lewismistreated

Thanks for posting the link.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

Well I CAN post a link. I just had a feeling we would hear something today, darnit. Anyway, here is the link for the Guardian piece, if I can find anything on The Wail, erm, Mail, and/or the Telegraph I'll ETA:

Stark choice under new immigration rules: exile or family breakup | UK news | The Guardian

LOLOLOL, Nyclon ya beat me to it-can you find anything else?


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

As someone who won't be directly impacted by the proposed increase in maintenance levels, the only thing I don't like (other than that "attachment test" foolishness that they mentioned) is that 2 year probationary period to change to 5 for Fiancées and Spouses married to UK nationals.

I used to sing "God Save the Queen" when I was a little girl at school, as Her Majesty is also the queen of my country; I like most members of her family; I (supposedly) speak fluent English and I'm more than willing and able to contribute to the English way of life... heck, I'll even go so far as to join in complaining about the sodding rain - after all, I'm a Vancouverite and it rains here as well... in fact, it's raining as I type and it's expected to do so throughout the weekend. I'm learning to appreciate football and can make bacon sandwiches (Ed's favourite breakfast/snack food). 

If that doesn't show a foreign national's attachment to the UK, I'd like to know what would! :roll:


----------



## bookman0105

*I had heard it was coming*

In a letter to me dated 30 may 2012 my local MP confirmed just what the article says.. I can e mail a copy to anyone who wants to see it. 
And I am now trying to work out how I am to live abroad. 
After 30 plus years paying taxes in this country I am starting to hate this place.


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

I feel badly for you Bookman, and I'm sorry if my glee is offensive... it is not meant to be.

I wish that the Home Office/UKBA could go after illegal immigrants/work permit overstayers and student overstayers (and the post secondary institutions who issue the paperwork for their visas) and leave the rest of us alone... it seems unfair that for as difficult as the current rules make it to come to settle in the UK as spouses/proposed partners of UK citizens are to begin with, we (fiancé(e)s, spouses and their families who have followed the letter of the Home Office law to get in legally) are being further punished for the actions of those with no legitimate claim to be allowed to stay.

Hopefully the changes that the Home Office have coming next week aren't as severe as is being rumored (governments have a tendency to do this sort of thing)... it's a given that the changes are coming, but we can still hope that they'll ease off as far as severity goes.


----------



## Nicholas Crowe

Well, that's not good at all .


----------



## newlight1

Very sad day the day that happens.


----------



## nyclon

> the only thing I don't like is that 2 year probationary period to change to 5 for Fiancées and Spouses married to UK nationals.


This is the probationary period that economic migrants (who contribute to the economy pretty much as soon as they get off the plane) must meet to be eligible for ILR. While I sympathize with family migrants, I'm much more horrified at the short sightedness of limiting the number of the "best and brightest", those with exceptional talent, who can be recruited from outside of the EU to come to the UK help stimulate the economy. Additionally, while the UK has some great institutions of higher learning, they're making it extremely unattractive for international students by making it very difficult for them to gain international work experience after obtaining a degree. Higher learning institutions are going to to lose a lot of lucrative international student fees to countries that are much more accommodating. 



> I wish that the Home Office/UKBA could go after illegal immigrants/work permit overstayers and student overstayers (and the post secondary institutions who issue the paperwork for their visas) and leave the rest of us alone... it seems unfair that for as difficult as the current rules make it to come to settle in the UK as spouses/proposed partners of UK citizens are to begin with, we (fiancé(e)s, spouses and their families who have followed the letter of the Home Office law to get in legally) are being further punished for the actions of those with no legitimate claim to be allowed to stay.


You have conveniently left out those on spouse visas whose relationships have broken down but who are skirting the rules by not informing the Home Office and trying to stay. 

There is a bigger picture and there are problems in every immigration category and that includes family migration.


----------



## dr1

This is so heart wrenching. Is this retrospective? You're telling me after spending 2 years with my partner, I will now have to leave and we divorce because he doesn't make 25,700 a year? Our partnership will not be recognised by my home country so all hope's gone I guess. I feel so shattered now.


----------



## newlight1

What about people who have already applied for a spouse or fiance visa and are waiting for an Answer? As my Fiance applied for her Fiance visa this week! Anyone any ideas?


----------



## shellybeans

newlight1, My understanding is that this is retrospective, so it would not only apply to those who have already applied for their visas, but also to those of us who have gotten them and also to people who have been living in the UK as a spouse but not been there long enough to qualify for ILR yet. 

If it passes, my husband and I would be fine but it would mean that we would have to choose between having a child together (which we both very much would like) and staying in the UK. Having a child together would mean we were a 2 child family and I am pretty sure the maintenance requirement for that is somewhere around 46,000 pounds which is more than he makes.

I'm going to hope that, as WestCoastCanadianGirl said, the changes won't be as severe as rumoured. And if they are then I am going to really enjoy my 27 months in the UK and then I suppose my family and I will be packing up to move back to America after we get to go through the whole visa process in reverse for my husband this time.

Trying not to let it put a damper on my Visa Glee but I have to admit it has me a bit down.


----------



## Joppa

And here is the response by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) about the Home Secretary's proposals, as mentioned in the Guardian article. It gives an interesting slant to the issues in question from a pro-immigration pressure group:
UNITED BY LOVE - DIVIDED BY THERESA MAY | Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants...


----------



## nyclon

dr1 said:


> This is so heart wrenching. Is this retrospective? You're telling me after spending 2 years with my partner, I will now have to leave and we divorce because he doesn't make 25,700 a year? Our partnership will not be recognised by my home country so all hope's gone I guess. I feel so shattered now.


No official announcement has been made. Best to wait for an announcement and details.


----------



## casjoe

So if I apply for my spouse visa now, they'll be judging it on the prospective new rules?


----------



## Joppa

As I have stated many times here, I think the government will stay firm and introduce rules with as few exceptions and as little wriggle-room as possible to have the desired effect of reducing and discouraging immigration by family members. Next week will be very interesting.


----------



## dr1

shellybeans said:


> Trying not to let it put a damper on my Visa Glee but I have to admit it has me a bit down.


I just grabbed a bottle of wine...don't know how to break the news to my partner when he gets up in the morn


----------



## newlight1

> And here is the response by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) about the Home Secretary's proposals, as mentioned in the Guardian article. It gives an interesting slant to the issues in question from a pro-immigration pressure group:
> UNITED BY LOVE - DIVIDED BY THERESA MAY | Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants...


They wrote that in response to the Guardian Report already? In just a few hours? Wow!



> newlight1, My understanding is that this is retrospective


I hope not, I hope it only concerns those who have no as of yet applied.


----------



## Joppa

newlight1 said:


> They wrote that in response to the Guardian Report already? In just a few hours? Wow!


No. MPs have been briefed about proposed changes a few days ago.


----------



## newlight1

> No. MPs have been briefed about proposed changes a few days ago.


Right thanks, so the MPs informed the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and they then wrote that article. I was trying to see a date on the article but there wasnt one.


----------



## casjoe

I'm still confused. I'm waiting on the last of the papers that I need to come in the mail from my husband. 
If I submit the application online and pay, say, tomorrow, will they judge it on the current rules when they receive my packet? 
There's no point in me applying if they'll judge on the new rules.


----------



## newlight1

casjoe, thats the thing. An application is usually decided according to the rules in place on the date the application was made . 

It depends on what the particular Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules says (UK Border Agency | Statements of changes in Immigration Rules).
Such as 



> “The changes in paragraphs 5, 11 and 13 set out in this Statement shall take effect on 14 June 2012. However, if an applicant has made an application for entry clearance or leave before 14 June 2012 and the application has not been decided before that date, it will be decided in accordance with the rules in force on 13 June 2012.”


Occasionally (usually for legal reasons) it is necessary to bring rules into force for all applications at the same time. If a particular Statement of Changes does not contain a paragraph like the one above, then applications are decided according to the rules in place on the date the ECO decides the application even if the application and payment were made earlier. This is quite rare though.

What you need to pray for is that there is a transitional arrangement rather than it being retrospective.


----------



## newlight1

Casjoe, The date of overseas applications is always the date the payment is made. This is specified in the Immigration Rules and there is no leeway on it.


----------



## Joppa

Or what the government can do is to put a moratorium on all new applications from the day of announcement until new rules come into effect. This will stop people trying to beat the clock and will catch as many as possible into the net.

While changes in immigration rules can just be announced (or 'laid before the parliament') without debate or vote, some proposals require a change in law and will have to go through proper parliamentary procedure, and they can be open to amendment. If the coalition support can be obtained, it's likely that the proposals will be passed given the government's majority in the house.


----------



## newlight1

> some proposals require a change in law


In respect with these new rules, which part of them would require a change in the law?


----------



## Joppa

Restriction on UK courts to reverse or interfere with immigration decisions, for example. Minimum maintenance requirement, extension of probationary period and what is admissible as part of sponsor's and migrant's financial resources do not, I'd have thought.


----------



## newlight1

> Minimum maintenance requirement, extension of probationary period and what is admissible as part of sponsor's and migrant's financial resources do not, I'd have thought.


No I don't think they require a change in the law to make changes to those. 

At present from what I can see the there have been no robust changes to Restrict UK courts to reverse or interfere with immigration decisions.


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

nyclon said:


> This is the probationary period that economic migrants (who contribute to the economy pretty much as soon as they get off the plane) must meet to be eligible for ILR. While I sympathize with family migrants, I'm much more horrified at the short sightedness of limiting the number of the "best and brightest", those with exceptional talent, who can be recruited from outside of the EU to come to the UK help stimulate the economy. Additionally, while the UK has some great institutions of higher learning, they're making it extremely unattractive for international students by making it very difficult for them to gain international work experience after obtaining a degree. Higher learning institutions are going to to lose a lot of lucrative international student fees to countries that are much more accommodating.
> 
> 
> 
> You have conveniently left out those on spouse visas whose relationships have broken down but who are skirting the rules by not informing the Home Office and trying to stay.
> 
> There is a bigger picture and there are problems in every immigration category and that includes family migration.


I had "sham marriages" written in but for some reason deleted it while I was editing my post. :confused2: 

I am in _total_ agreement with you and everyone else trying to do this legitamately that the sham-ers and everyone else who tries to stay after the breakdown of the marriage should be sent back as well. In fact, I think this should be standard of practice for anyone in ANY country who tries to do this sort of thing.

I am also of the opinion that regardless of the country, after you get ILR (or similar permanent residence type status), if one commits a criminal offense, they should have the ILR permanently revoked and be deported back to their home country, regardless of whether or not one has established a family in the UK. ILR is a _privilege_ and not a right and if one can't fly right and obey the law, then they should be removed and banned from entering the country again.

In any event, the penny appears to be dropping and there is still not much we can do about it until next week. (and yes, I am still going to cross my eyes and fingers and hope that the probation period stays at 2 years for fiancé(e) and spousal visa holders).


----------



## Joppa

newlight1 said:


> No I don't think they require a change in the law to make changes to those.
> 
> At present from what I can see the there have been no robust changes to Restrict UK courts to reverse or interfere with immigration decisions.


The government wants to restrict an appeal to human rights legislation to stop a family being split up to the most exceptional and compassionate cases. At the moment, many failed aylum seekers and those served with deportation order prolong their stay by claiming right to family life, which makes nonsense of the ability of the government to control immigration and deport offenders and undesirables, like Abu Qatada.


----------



## newlight1

> The government wants to restrict an appeal to human rights legislation to stop a family being split up to the most exceptional and compassionate cases


I just hope that the government only restricts an appeal to Human rights in respect of offenders and undesirables rather than genuine families or couples.


----------



## Mervinia N

Well, I guess we all wanted to finally know one way or another, and it looks like increased maintenance is going to be applied to all households :'( 
I know why they're doing it, to reduce the immigration numbers, but it seems so unfair that I have to, in essence, sponsor my own children who will be here, irrespective of whether my fiancé is here or not. I share custody of my children 50:50 with my ex husband so they aren't in my household all the time, and more importantly, they're British Citizens who are already part of the population, already using their share of resources, entitled to benefits should they need it (which we don't). My fiancé coming here doesn't change that in any way.
Sorry to vent but this is just heartbreaking :'( I am going to grab onto the last glimmer of hope that nothing had been officially announced yet and cross every part of my anatomy that will cross.


----------



## newlight1

> I am going to grab onto the last glimmer of hope that nothing had been officially announced yet and cross every part of my anatomy that will cross.


Mervinia, you and I both!!! or atleast the changes will not come in for sometime.


----------



## Mervinia N

Joppa said:


> And here is the response by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) about the Home Secretary's proposals, as mentioned in the Guardian article. It gives an interesting slant to the issues in question from a pro-immigration pressure group:
> UNITED BY LOVE - DIVIDED BY THERESA MAY | Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants...


Just read the JCWI response who include within the highlighted proposed changes:
" Only those earning more than £25,700 to be able to bring their spouses to share their lives in the UK. This figure would rise significantly in cases where ****visa applications are also made for children. This would mean for example that in order to secure visas for a spouse and two children you could need an income of up to £46,260****"

JCWI read it as those children requiring visas, which my children do not. However, their dossier on sample cases affected by these changes mentions a UKC who is pregnant with twins... those children will be UKC by birth I presume, won't be requiring visas, but JCWI thinks this woman will be affected :0(
I've tried to use the link to the dossier of cases on the JCWI page to see if the JCWI include any families with children in their dossier, not just pregnant women or couples without children, but it won't work!!!!
aaarrggghhh! *pulls hair out and bites nails* ;0) This was going to be a long night... and week!


----------



## Mervinia N

Bit of rooting around and I've managed to find the JCWI page that the dossier of families .pdf is linked on (if anyone would like to have a look)

http://www.jcwi.org.uk/blog/2012/05/23/arming-resistance-family-migration-restrictions

The pregnant lady Anna is highlighted NOT because of increased maintenance levels applying to her two, as yet unborn, children but because she may be on Statutory Maternity Pay therefore may be considered to be unable to make the income levels required to sponsor her husband.

My glimmer of hope just shone the tiniest bit brighter


----------



## Mervinia N

Not sure if this has been posted before but I have also found the UKBA consultation request .pdf on the following page 
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/consultations/family-migration/
which is a hefty 77 page document but sets out the proposed changes and is what the MAC advisory board were asked to respond to with their recommended maintenance levels etc.
Just some light bedtime reading if anyone is unable to sleep lol

In the end, we can post links to documents and read paragraphs with the slant that's most favourable to us but until those rules are formally announced, there's not a lot any of us can do but wait that tiny bit longer to find out how our lives are going to be affected.


----------



## bookman0105

*no offence taken*

No offence taken ! Peopel have toild me in one of the "nice guys".. i stick to the law, I follow rules. I am rapidly losing faith in any form of justice in teh world. 
BUI i never feel bitter that someone else has a good life . 




WestCoastCanadianGirl said:


> I feel badly for you Bookman, and I'm sorry if my glee is offensive... it is not meant to be.
> 
> I wish that the Home Office/UKBA could go after illegal immigrants/work permit overstayers and student overstayers (and the post secondary institutions who issue the paperwork for their visas) and leave the rest of us alone... it seems unfair that for as difficult as the current rules make it to come to settle in the UK as spouses/proposed partners of UK citizens are to begin with, we (fiancé(e)s, spouses and their families who have followed the letter of the Home Office law to get in legally) are being further punished for the actions of those with no legitimate claim to be allowed to stay.
> 
> Hopefully the changes that the Home Office have coming next week aren't as severe as is being rumored (governments have a tendency to do this sort of thing)... it's a given that the changes are coming, but we can still hope that they'll ease off as far as severity goes.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

The JCWI had been soliciting first person accounts from couples and families since soon after the UKBA consultation 'Family Migration July 2011' was published (July 2011 and was available on their web pages-but finding the information was difficult, the seeker had to know where to look). 

The trouble with the JCWI Dossier is that *every one of the couples and families profiled in the Dossier are made up of the very immigrant groups the UKBA finds to be the biggest burden on the State. 
*
There are *NO white+white profiles, NO civil partnership profiles, and NO profiles of any couple/family who are from Australia, Canada, US, or NZ*.

This could be a problem as I don't think reminding the UKBA and the government of the very people they would like to see the back of is a brilliant idea. When I found the JCWI request for first person accounts I thought about submitting our story (both retired, own home outright, with combined savings and pension income borderline to the new amount but would be discounted for being combined under the proposed new rules) but the very strong impression on the site was 'whites or same sex couples/families need not apply'-the focus there and on other immigrantion rights activist pages is very definitely towards the very countries the people of the UK have the biggest 'problem' with.

My husband found a job that meets/exceeds the highest proposed amounts, and has come out of retirement. But we know younger couples and families do not have that option. 

We can meet the 'attachment' tests as well-he is a Scot by birth, and I am only the second generation on the paternal side to have been born outside of Scotland; I do have a son and grandson in the US, though, and it is possible that will throw the balance off as naturally the blood-ties are in the US. I don't think the UKBA is going to care much that I have sold my US home and got rid of everything I owned except the little bit I brought over when I married and relocated to the UK. 

As many have stated, the only thing we can do whilst awaiting the formal announcement is pray, stay calm, and frankly be thinking worst case scenario plans.


----------



## uzi

I think these rules wont come out and even if they do they wont stay for long like the min age rule of 21 then they changed it to 18 again.....I am staying positive but looks like after reading the article the long wait will end next week.........
I am about to put my application but now i am thinking of waiting till next week for rules to finally come......
Hope for the best and prepare for the Worst


----------



## Joppa

uzi said:


> I think these rules wont come out and even if they do they wont stay for long like the min age rule of 21 then they changed it to 18 again.....I am staying positive but looks like after reading the article the long wait will end next week.........
> I am about to put my application but now i am thinking of waiting till next week for rules to finally come......
> Hope for the best and prepare for the Worst


What the government is trying to do, and I broadly agree with them, is to make would be-migrants including dependants at least revenue-neutral. Up to now, they have worked along the principle that, provided they don't claim benefits, they are not being a burden on the public purse. Now they are going further and saying that the financial resources, in terms of UK sponsor's income, must be such that they not only don't claim benefits (which they aren't allowed in most cases) but also public services they will be entitled to use must be covered by tax and NI contributions they will be paying into the system. So, for example, an adult migrant with an ongoing health problem, who will make heavy use of NHS, should at least be paying in tax and NI the pro-rata cost of proving the health service. And for children, the cost of providing free state education should likewise be covered by their parents' contribution to the national coffers.

They had to reduce the age limit from 21 to 18 because of the supreme court decision. Similar challenges are possible with regard to new rules over maintenance and probationary period. I think the crucial test is whether the new rules unfairly penalise families and interfere with their human rights. If the government can make out a convincing case why the revison is necessary - and they have taken a rather long time before announcing changes, then they are likely to stick.


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle

Joppa said:


> What the government is trying to do, and I broadly agree with them, is to make would be-migrants including dependants at least revenue-neutral. Up to now, they have worked along the principle that, provided they don't claim benefits, they are not being a burden on the public purse. Now they are going further and saying that the financial resources, in terms of UK sponsor's income, must be such that they not only don't claim benefits (which they aren't allowed in most cases) but also public services they will be entitled to use must be covered by tax and NI contributions they will be paying into the system. So, for example, an adult migrant with an ongoing health problem, who will make heavy use of NHS, should at least be paying in tax and NI the pro-rata cost of proving the health service. And for children, the cost of providing free state education should likewise be covered by their parents' contribution to the national coffers.
> 
> They had to reduce the age limit from 21 to 18 because of the supreme court decision. Similar challenges are possible with regard to new rules over maintenance and probationary period. I think the crucial test is whether the new rules unfairly penalise families and interfere with their human rights. If the government can make out a convincing case why the revison is necessary - and they have taken a rather long time before announcing changes, then they are likely to stick.


If the new probationary period increases from 2 to 5 years it would be interesting to see if access to public funds will still be granted after an initial two years or if this time will be increased to 5 years as well. 

It's clear that a British citizen sponsoring a spouse on FLR would need to have a decent income to support his or her partner while he or she looks for a position so as to contribute to the state. This was explained more clearly and more succinctly in the above entry than on the UKBA website. 

I'm curious about the subsequent application for ILR. By the time 2 years or 5 passes, the sponsored spouse will hopefully have been able to find a position to make the household more financially secure. I wonder if then the maintenance requirement will increase, remain the same as that which was required on the FLR, or become a moot point since both are, and presumably have been earning an income. Do you know?


----------



## Joppa

BailyBanksBiddle said:


> If the new probationary period increases from 2 to 5 years it would be interesting to see if access to public funds will still be granted after an initial two years or if this time will be increased to 5 years as well.
> 
> It's clear that a British citizen sponsoring a spouse on FLR would need to have a decent income to support his or her partner while he or she looks for a position so as to contribute to the state. This was explained more clearly and more succinctly in the above entry than on the UKBA website.
> 
> I'm curious about the subsequent application for ILR. By the time 2 years or 5 passes, the sponsored spouse will hopefully have been able to find a position to make the household more financially secure. I wonder if then the maintenance requirement will increase, remain the same as that which was required on the FLR, or become a moot point since both are, and presumably have been earning an income. Do you know?


Nobody knows but the logic suggests that the ban from accessing public funds will be extended to 5 years, as it's the case with existing migrants with 5-year qualifying period like PBS work visa holders.


----------



## chek

Does anybody know when the new rules will be effective I am assuming next year dnt think any changes wil apply this year and am assuming if u already have spouse visa the new rules dont apply,


----------



## Joppa

chek said:


> Does anybody know when the new rules will be effective I am assuming next year dnt think any changes wil apply this year and am assuming if u already have spouse visa the new rules dont apply,


I think it will be much sooner than that. The government originally wanted the new rules to come into force in June, so later this month or July would be my guess. They need to cut immigration and quickly.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

Also, there is something very important about all of this that a lot of people are not getting-at each 'next-step' visa, the applicant must meet the requirements of the rules in force at the time of application. 

In other words, those of us who are in the probationary period would have to apply for the FLR(M) extension to go out to the full five years. 

We would have to meet the requirements of the rules of the FLR(M), and Part 8 of the Immigration Rules are the rules to be met (my bold, from the 'can you apply' page linked from the FLR(M) info page, quoted page link to follow):



> The information on these pages is *based on Part 8 of the Immigration Rules*.
> 
> If you apply but cannot meet all the requirements for this category, you will be refused and your application fee will not be refunded.


UK Border Agency | Can you apply?

Part 8 would be changed as part of the implementation of the proposed new rules-and applicants must meet the rules current at the time of application. 

Likewise, the settlement info page we would use for the ILR states (again, my bold, and link to follow):



> The information on this page is *based on Part 8 (paragraph 297) of the Immigration Rules*.
> 
> You must meet all the requirements of the Immigration Rules at the time when you apply for settlement. If you are considering applying for settlement in the future, you should note that the Immigration Rules are subject to change


UK Border Agency | Settlement

The only immigrants in the UK right now who can exhale are the ones who already have the ILR or British citizenship.


----------



## Joppa

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> The only immigrants in the UK right now who can exhale are the ones who already have the ILR or British citizenship.


That's what I've been saying all along. The fact that you have been granted 27- or 24-month spouse visa won't save you if the new rules extend the probationary period to 5 years. You'll have to extend your visa for further 3 years (not a cheap option) before going for ILR.

This has happened in the past when a rule change caught those already in UK under previous rules. Sometimes the Home Office has made transitional arrangement to help such people, but I don't expect such generosity this time when the need to cut immigration is so great and urgent.


----------



## chek

So by next week it will be announced officially on the UKBA websites. Only God can save us all that have spouse abroad. Am so depress right now and where is the job!


----------



## chek

I am just hoping all this is rumour and not fact because none of this is on the UKBA websites apart from cutting down the family appeal which is due to apply 2014.


----------



## Joppa

I can see visa processing time shooting up everywhere as people try desperately to beat the clock.
Or they can put a moratorium on new applications, and no new settlement visa will be issued until the new rules come in, except those who have applied before announcement.
Anything is possible.


----------



## Nicholas Crowe

So let’s say...

> I earn over the proposed maintenance amount.
> My spouse moves over to the UK (yey)
> We have a baby in 3 years time

What affect will that have on us regards to Visas? Like would the whole 'you need to earn over £30k+' if you have a child apply? Or is that if we already had a child and she was proposing to move over?


----------



## Joppa

chek said:


> I am just hoping all this is rumour and not fact because none of this is on the UKBA websites apart from cutting down the family appeal which is due to apply 2014.


It is press speculation but since JCWI has already responded to proposed changes, there is a good chance that announcement is due next week. MPs have been briefed last week by Home Secretary.


----------



## chek

I want to try and stay positive until is officially announced on the UKBA websites or the news.


----------



## chek

I am currently pregnant and due early next month. How much do I need to earn to meet the new rules pls anyone?


----------



## Joppa

Nicholas Crowe said:


> So let’s say...
> 
> > I earn over the proposed maintenance amount.
> > My spouse moves over to the UK (yey)
> > We have a baby in 3 years time
> 
> What affect will that have on us regards to Visas? Like would the whole 'you need to earn over £30k+' if you have a child apply? Or is that if we already had a child and she was proposing to move over?


I'd say that at the point of applying for extension or ILR following the birth of your first child, increased maintenance requirement will apply. The fact the child will be a dual citizen may have a bearing on the outcome, but we don't know yet.


----------



## newlight1

I am praying that the changes will not affect applications already being processed, as my FIance applied for her Fiance visa this week. 

Although it would be pointless if when we apply for the IRL or the FLR after we are living and married here that we then have to meet the new rules, that would actually be worse if we have paid all that money on a lawyer, for the FIance Visa, her leaving her job, moving here, cost of flights, wedding and then we are spit up right after we get married when we apply for the FLR as we then dont meet the new rules.


----------



## dr1

I'm just trying to wrap my head around the extent of the proposed changes. Are some of these changes even legal? It's almost telling UK citizens they can't build a life with anyone outside of the EEA and if they do they have to go to that country. I'm sure many persons won't have a problem living in the country of their spouse but what happens in the case of civil partnerships etc?

I already started planning ahead just incase I have to move back home but me and my partner have also started looking at other options because my partnership wouldn't be recognised in my home country and we doubt he'll be making 25,700 when i need to extend my FLR. Very upsetting all of this.


----------



## bookman0105

*We will see...*

I suppose its wait and see (again). 
As the rules are now I know it would be hard - my income is ok to live but not huge. With new new rules (whatever they are) it will be even harder. 
I am now applying for higher paid jobs .. gonna have to spend 5 or 6 years commuting to London just to get a higher gross wage then spend every penny of the extra money commuting to and fro or paying high rents in london. 

I cant even move abroad. (Philipines ) - jobs there are hard to get. ( although I will look)

..


----------



## bookman0105

I wouldn't object or even mind if the rules included more stringent proof people are in serious relationships. Its this constant looking at peoples income that gets my goat!


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

dr1 said:


> I...It's almost telling UK citizens they can't build a life with anyone outside of the EEA...


No, not 'almost'. It is telling UK citizens that without being at least upper middle class, you can forget having a non-EEA spouse. 

Also, I'm thinking that those same-sex couples from countries that have demonstrable criminal or social penalties against same-sex couples may have a human rights case. 

I don't think that would be a possibility for same-sex couples facing a relocation to the US because US laws forbid that (criminal or social penalties against same-sex couples). Sadly, most states in the US also forbid same-sex marriage, and don't recognise same-sex civil partnerships or marriages from other countries.

*@Joppa*, I really wish they had put a moratorium in place the minute they decided they needed to make drastic changes.

As it is now, how many thousands of couples/families are going to be torn apart? That's what sickens me about this, that people mid-process (pending apps or on probationary and FLR(M)s) are going to be shredded by this, and in good conscience it could have been stopped.


----------



## newlight1

> The Home Office are required to give a minimum of 21 days notice


Am I correct in thinking that this is not true, that the government can just implement it the day the announce it?


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

newlight1 said:


> Am I correct in thinking that this is not true, that the government can just implement it the day the announce it?


NL1, where are you finding this? Can you link?


----------



## chek

That is what am saying Is impossible for the changes to apply this month or next maybe next year


----------



## newlight1

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> NL1, where are you finding this? Can you link?


I think, it was something Joppa has said before, BUT I could be wrong?? so don't quote me on that.


----------



## Joppa

newlight1 said:


> Am I correct in thinking that this is not true, that the government can just implement it the day the announce it?


That's what they try to do but have in the past broken this undertaking several times. It's not statutory and it's a kind of gentleman's agreement, but has no legal force and they can choose start date at will, just like the Budget announcement, even retrospective.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

newlight1 said:


> I think, it was something Joppa has said before, BUT I could be wrong?? so don't quote me on that.


Nuts, I was hoping you'd seen it on the Home Office website, or maybe the UKBA site, and could link back to it. I would like to read where it comes from-it may be that the HO has give 21 days notice before laying any changes? 

My head hurts :ranger:


----------



## newlight1

An order in council can be tabled at any point & there is no mandatory start date for any changes




> Nuts, I was hoping you'd seen it on the Home Office website, or maybe the UKBA site, and could link back to it. I would like to read where it comes from-it may be that the HO has give 21 days notice before laying any changes?


American, I wish there was....but I dont think there is.


----------



## bookman0105

The immediate / 21 days notice thing was ( i think ) on the other thread a few weeks ago.. 

I have tweeted the author of the news article in the Gardian to see if he know where he got this info from.. there is nothing official anywhere else at all.


----------



## chek

Am happy to hear that @bookman hope is just all rumour.


----------



## Joppa

bookman0105 said:


> The immediate / 21 days notice thing was ( i think ) on the other thread a few weeks ago..
> 
> I have tweeted the author of the news article in the Gardian to see if he know where he got this info from.. there is nothing official anywhere else at all.


There won't be anything official until an announcement is made by Home Secretary (rather than Immigration Minister Damian Green). But a political correspondent gets off-the-record briefing from MPs, who must have spoken about it.


----------



## bookman0105

If I get any response I will post it ..


----------



## newlight1

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> NL1, where are you finding this? Can you link?


We got less than one day notice when they scrapped the HSMP. So I guess obviously they do not have to abide by any 21 day rule.


----------



## bookman0105

Ahh Ok .. so he wont be telling me much then !


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

newlight1 said:


> We got less than one day notice when they scrapped the HSMP. So I guess obviously they do not have to abide by any 21 day rule.


I think you're right. 

RE finding anything in other MSM sources, good luck! I've been all over the non-paywall sites and the Guardian piece is the only thing out there. 

Has anyone tried to contact their MP since the story hit the Guardian?


----------



## newlight1

I have already contacted my MP yes.

JCWI are encouraging people to write to Chris Bryant who is Labour's immigration spokesman, to urge him to oppose this. I would encourage others to follow JCWIs advice.


----------



## ALKB

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> The JCWI had been soliciting first person accounts from couples and families since soon after the UKBA consultation 'Family Migration July 2011' was published (July 2011 and was available on their web pages-but finding the information was difficult, the seeker had to know where to look).
> 
> The trouble with the JCWI Dossier is that *every one of the couples and families profiled in the Dossier are made up of the very immigrant groups the UKBA finds to be the biggest burden on the State.
> *
> There are *NO white+white profiles, NO civil partnership profiles, and NO profiles of any couple/family who are from Australia, Canada, US, or NZ*.
> 
> This could be a problem as I don't think reminding the UKBA and the government of the very people they would like to see the back of is a brilliant idea. When I found the JCWI request for first person accounts I thought about submitting our story (both retired, own home outright, with combined savings and pension income borderline to the new amount but would be discounted for being combined under the proposed new rules) but the very strong impression on the site was 'whites or same sex couples/families need not apply'-the focus there and on other immigrantion rights activist pages is very definitely towards the very countries the people of the UK have the biggest 'problem' with.
> 
> My husband found a job that meets/exceeds the highest proposed amounts, and has come out of retirement. But we know younger couples and families do not have that option.
> 
> We can meet the 'attachment' tests as well-he is a Scot by birth, and I am only the second generation on the paternal side to have been born outside of Scotland; I do have a son and grandson in the US, though, and it is possible that will throw the balance off as naturally the blood-ties are in the US. I don't think the UKBA is going to care much that I have sold my US home and got rid of everything I owned except the little bit I brought over when I married and relocated to the UK.
> 
> As many have stated, the only thing we can do whilst awaiting the formal announcement is pray, stay calm, and frankly be thinking worst case scenario plans.


I just read the dossier and I agree that it does not seem to serve its purpose well. 

In the case of Anna, it seems that it´s not 'I won´t get a visa!' but: 'I won´t get a visa when I want it' = before she returns to full time work. Also, the JCWI bemoans that her husband´s job prospects will not be taken into account. The job prospects of a teacher without valid qualification for the Uk who is struggling with the language requirements? Seriously?

I fear that quite a few people will read this and think: "These people will be kept out? Brilliant!"


----------



## akdh

*Horrific.*

I'm American. I met my husband while teaching English in Japan. In January 2011 we decided to make our life together in England after we were married in Japan in May of 2010. I found out I was pregnant in February after we had already applied for my visa. Then the earthquakes, the tsunami, the nuclear disaster hit. 

I wanted nothing more than to flee Japan, but we stayed until July responsibly fulfilling our work commitments, ending our lease, shipping our goods over, and saying our goodbyes.

I was so happy make my way here to England with my husband and my little half-British boy in the making in my tummy. We had to live with my husband's parents until he could find a job. Grimsby isn't the best place to do that so we moved to Manchester in April and he finally found a job. He received absolutely no benefits save for the child benefit. No housing, no job-seekers allowance. I received no maternity leave, he had no paternity leave. 

It is a full-time job but he only makes half of what would be required for us to stay. He has extensive savings, but if the savings aren't counted...then what? We go to the U.S.? How am I to sponsor him when I'm caring for our little one? I haven't lived there since 2006. Our family is here. We face unemployment discrimination in the US. The unemployment rate in Oregon is similar to the rate here and I don't make enough to sponsor my husband.

Right now, we are supporting the British economy through VAT as babies are expensive. We are responsible, we don't take benefits. We don't cheat the system. We just applied for credit cards because we are wanting to purchase a house. We do use the NHS system as it turns out our little one has epilepsy. If we go to the US, my husband and son would not have insurance.

We came here and paid money for my spousal visa under the understanding that I would be able to stay here and become a citizen. The citizenship test app has been on my iphone since April of 2011. Our flights were expensive. The visa process is expensive. We've made our investments in the UK. My husband paid into National Insurance the entire time he lived in Japan.

I've integrated. I've born a British citizen. I've followed the laws and the rules. My husband is working full-time and we are living within our means.

These changes should make people feel sick to their stomachs. We are a family. We've endured so much these past few years and we were finally getting on our feet. We have A LOT of friends back in Japan who have married Japanese and they will be in the same boats with us if they ever want to come back here to take care of their parents or just return to their HOME.


----------



## Dylan-is-Caths

We have gone through a long battle as well. I am so worried about this "Prove you have more ties in England" deal. I gave up everything for 2farapart. I gave up my family, who quite frankly will never speak to me again as I admitted being Gay. So what ties do I have? I have a partner I adore, in a country where we are accepted. We do not have the option of returning to the states. She can only be with me 3 months in the US and chance losing a good position making decent money. I happen to love this country. I want to become a UK citizen. I want to contribute not take away! It's not fair and prejudicial for not only gay people who simply cannot live in another country together, but also women.... families, WHAT are they thinking? I understand the need to cut down on certain aspects of the immigration, the ones that take advantage, but at what cost? Tearing families and loved ones apart? THIS is inhumane.

I await the announcement with trepidation and hope. I hope that someone will listen to all of our pleas. I hope that the inhumane aspect of this can be re-assessed and looked at in individual circumstances. One has to have hope.


----------



## Joppa

I quite understand the plight of individuals trying to make a living in UK but cannot meet the supposed new income requirement. But as I have said before, the government only want to admit into the country those who are net contributors, and during their probationary period, be it 2 or 5 years, want them to earn enough to pay the per capita share of public services they use, chiefly health service and education (for those with dependants) through income tax and NI contributions. I think it would be better to keep the income at a modest level, but make accessing public services fully chargeable, so you pay to see your GP, full cost of medication and for any hospital treatment, and for sending your children to state schools. Then you are only paying for the services you actually use. But it would be difficult for the government to do this, as it requires a major change in how services are funded. While NHS has a system of demanding payment from overseas visitors for anything other than A&E treatment, it would be completely new and alien for a school or local authority to charge for state education.
Alternative would be compulsory health insurance or private cover, and private education.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

Has every one signed this:

Stop Changes to Immigration Laws in June 2012 - e-petitions

You need to be a resident or citizen. I've signed and am urging my UK friends to sign as well. It's not got many signatures and likely won't reach the needed number to trigger debate but signing it felt really, really, really good!


----------



## chek

I just signed thanx for the info.


----------



## Joppa

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Has every one signed this:
> 
> Stop Changes to Immigration Laws in June 2012 - e-petitions
> 
> You need to be a resident or citizen. I've signed and am urging my UK friends to sign as well. It's not got many signatures and likely won't reach the needed number to trigger debate but signing it felt really, really, really good!


Good luck, but I suspect the majority of UK population would support government proposals (85% are said to back lower immigration), except those who are or whose family or close friends are involved in cross-border family reunion/migration. Because of the numbers involved, there can't be that many in that category. If each of 50,000 annual migrants has a dozen supporters, that's 600,000, 1% of UK population.


----------



## bookman0105

from the consultation document .. 
•	Basic English (A1 of CEFR)
•	Test of relationship – 
clear and objective criteria
•	Minimum age of 21
•	Possible attachment 
requirement
•	New minimum income 
threshold for sponsors
•	Housing certificate required 
in some cases to meet 
accommodation requirement 
•	No access to contributor y or 
non-contributor y benefits
•	New restrictions on sponsorship

then 5 years later a load more requirements ..


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

Joppa said:


> Good luck, but I suspect the majority of UK population would support government proposals (85% are said to back lower immigration), except those who are or whose family or close friends are involved in cross-border family reunion/migration. Because of the numbers involved, there can't be that many in that category. If each of 50,000 annual migrants has a dozen supporters, that's 600,000, 1% of UK population.


Oh I know. It just felt very good to sign it. I mean really good. Sometimes the futile has a deeper significance.

When I first heard of it this morning it had 188 signatures, it just now has 250, up from the 238 it was at a half hour ago.


----------



## Joppa

bookman0105 said:


> from the consultation document ..
> •	Basic English (A1 of CEFR)
> •	Test of relationship –
> clear and objective criteria
> •	Minimum age of 21
> •	Possible attachment
> requirement
> •	New minimum income
> threshold for sponsors
> •	Housing certificate required
> in some cases to meet
> accommodation requirement
> •	No access to contributor y or
> non-contributor y benefits
> •	New restrictions on sponsorship
> 
> then 5 years later a load more requirements ..


Since the cosultation, age limit of 21 has been found to be inadmissible so reduced to 18 from the end of last year.
I don't think there is anything basically wrong in those proposals, provided they can be justified on financial and legal grounds.
The basic argument, which I find difficult to refute, is why should the British tax-paying public have to pay for the cost of allowing overseas family members to live in UK, accessing non-chargeable public services like NHS and education?


----------



## akdh

Joppa said:


> I quite understand the plight of individuals trying to make a living in UK but cannot meet the supposed new income requirement. But as I have said before, the government only want to admit into the country those who are net contributors, and during their probationary period, be it 2 or 5 years, want them to earn enough to pay the per capita share of public services they use, chiefly health service and education (for those with dependants) through income tax and NI contributions. education.


I feel that if this was really the case, then the immigrant's income would also be counted. 

Personally, our purchases and investments in the UK have far outweighed our toll on the NHS system...epilepsy and all (oh but wait, my son is a citizen...so he is just as much as entitled to an education as everyone else). 

This is clearly xenophobia at its worst. Coming from Grimsby...where I saw that the majority of non-net contributors were not immigrants but...ahem...the younger folk.


----------



## JollyCynic

Joppa said:


> The basic argument, which I find difficult to refute, is why should the British tax-paying public have to pay for the cost of allowing overseas family members to live in UK, accessing non-chargeable public services like NHS and education?


Because it can be cheaper than the alternative. Nobody has made the distinction between citizen dependents and non-citizen dependents.

If a family of four moves to the UK together, with one non-citizen spouse, then there are two major negatives: The non-citizen spouse is a burden on NHS and taking a job away from a British national.

If the family of four is split, the single spouse and two children can become a much larger burden on the taxpayer.

The best solution, of course, as you suggest is to make those services chargeable.

This does not mitigate the problem of taking a job away from a British national.


----------



## akdh

Joppa said:


> The basic argument, which I find difficult to refute, is why should the British tax-paying public have to pay for the cost of allowing overseas family members to live in UK, accessing non-chargeable public services like NHS and education?


Because at the heart of the situation, there is a son who needs his mother. There is a husband who needs his wife. The son is a UK citizen, and so is his father. 

The British tax-paying public is NOT paying for the costs of allowing overseas family members to live in the UK. The public didn't pay for my visa, my plane ticket, my food, my lodging, my clothes, my furniture, my toiletries, my transportation, my utilities, my education et cetera. I did, and it is all taxed and paid to the government (save for my education). 

I'm all for the argument that education should be for everyone everywhere but that is a different argument. 

As for the NHS...well...we didn't come here for it but sometimes medical treatment is a necessity. It's not an immigrant's fault if it is free is it?

Some words I found to better explain my feelings:

Neoliberal economics has gleefully supported the free movement of capital and goods, to the benefit of big finance and big business, but when it comes to the free movement of people, reaction is skittish. Toxic loans to economically strapped nations? No problem. Cheap plastic goods made by exploited laborers shipped around the world by burning fossil fuels? That’s business. But an individual or family seeking better access to education, health care or decent living conditions is subject to severe restrictions and prejudice.

Clearly there is an argument for improving conditions in countries that give rise to emigration. But people who are living outside of their country of birth and who contribute to society in their country of residence though work, involvement in the school system, in local associations for culture and sport and in a myriad of other ways, should be treated as full citizens. If citizenship means being a member of a community, then excluding people from that membership can only lead to alienation. Simpler access to citizenship would foster greater equality in the world, and enhance democracy. 

Also, more thoughts on borders/citizenship etc. :http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/opinion/citizenship-to-go.html?_r=1&ref=opinion


----------



## Sorta Fairytale

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Has every one signed this:
> 
> Stop Changes to Immigration Laws in June 2012 - e-petitions
> 
> You need to be a resident or citizen. I've signed and am urging my UK friends to sign as well. It's not got many signatures and likely won't reach the needed number to trigger debate but signing it felt really, really, really good!


Thanks AAIS  this is awesome. It may make no difference at all, but its good to stand for what u believe in whether you think it will make any significant changes or not. If everyone followed their hearts, we could all make a difference in support of each other and human rights. I cannot sign but my fiancé and family and friends will.


----------



## Joppa

akdh said:


> Because at the heart of the situation, there is a son who needs his mother. There is a husband who needs his wife. The son is a UK citizen, and so is his father.
> 
> The British tax-paying public is NOT paying for the costs of allowing overseas family members to live in the UK. The public didn't pay for my visa, my plane ticket, my food, my lodging, my clothes, my furniture, my toiletries, my transportation, my utilities, my education et cetera. I did, and it is all taxed and paid to the government (save for my education).
> 
> I'm all for the argument that education should be for everyone everywhere but that is a different argument.
> 
> As for the NHS...well...we didn't come here for it but sometimes medical treatment is a necessity. It's not an immigrant's fault if it is free is it?


Ok, that's why the government is tightening the criteria for sponsoring non-EEA family members to relocate to UK, with much higher maintenance requirement and other proposals. 
Yes, NHS is free to anyone resident here with no cost at the point of use, but it was created in post-war era very different from today, and it should only be free to those settled in UK. Everyone else should pay, as they have to just about anywhere else in the world. Same with free state education and social care.
Only then you can claim that non-EEA family members are completely independent and self-financing.
I do take your point that British and non-EEA children should be distinguished, though the government wants a simple system easy to understand and implement.


----------



## Joppa

Just to say that I am just about the only person on this forum, regardless of my moderator status, who generally supports the government proposals. By the nature of Expat Forum, almost all contributors have a stake in immigration policy and would probably find the proposed change distasteful, unjust, anti-family, racist and discriminatory.

I come from a neutral position. And I try to put another side of the coin to balance the discussion. That's all.

Let's keep the discussion friendly without acrimony! If it gets out of hand, I will consider closing this thread, as I had to do with similar threads in the past.


----------



## newlight1

Sorta Fairytale said:


> Thanks AAIS  this is awesome. It may make no difference at all, but its good to stand for what u believe in whether you think it will make any significant changes or not. If everyone followed their hearts, we could all make a difference in support of each other and human rights. I cannot sign but my fiancé and family and friends will.


OK a few questions if thats OK?

How many signatures does it need to have it discussed in parliament?

Why didn't Denmark appeal against the decision for a Min Maintenance requirement?

How long from the point of the age restriction for 21 being announced to it being brought back to 18 was it?


----------



## Joppa

newlight1 said:


> OK a few questions if thats OK?
> 
> How many signatures does it need to have it discussed in parliament?


100,000.



> Why didn't Denmark appeal against the decision for a Min Maintenance requirement?


Can you elaborate?



> How long from the point of the age restriction for 21 being announced to it being brought back to 18 was it?


About 3 years, and about a month after Supreme Court judgement if I can remember. See UK Border Agency | New policy guidance on the marriage visa age of 21


----------



## newlight1

> Can you elaborate?


Yep, Denmark intoduced similar rule changes (I think) in their maintence requirement and just wondering if anyone knew if anyone took the goverment to court over it? or if there was any reaction, and what happened in that situation etc? 



> 100,000.


Well that petition is not going anywhere then!



> About 3 years, and about a month after Supreme Court judgement if I can remember.


So it would be about 3 years IF the new rules for a Minimum maintenance level were challenged and subsequently overturned.

Interesting new article

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...unch-new-crackdown-on-foreign-prisoners.html#

Telegraph now saying the threshold will be £18k, rising to 27k with 3 kids.


----------



## Joppa

newlight1 said:


> Yep, Denmark intoduced similar rule changes (I think) in their maintence requirement and just wondering if anyone knew if anyone took the goverment to court over it? or if there was any reaction, and what happened in that situation etc?


No idea. I've enough trouble keeping pace with what's happening in UK! All I know is tougher immigration control has wide public support in Denmark.



> So it would be about 3 years IF the new rules for a Minimum maintenance level were challenged and subsequently overturned.


Because the government would defend it all the way from the lower court to the highest. Meanwhile, new rules get implemented and visas are issued only when meeting new criteria. And even if the government eventually lose, they are only obliged to reverse immigration decisions made since the date of judgement in favour of plaintiff/appellant. You can always reapply, but will have to pay again.


----------



## lewismistreated

The Telegraph have just reported that the income threshold is now being raised to *only £18,600 for spouses* only! Again, I can't post the URL due to being new here - but published today, by Robert Watts. If someone else could post it in one of the posts below, that would be appreciated. 

Also saying that the announcement will be tomorrow (Monday I assume)!



> In moves set to spark a showdown with judges, Mrs May will announce plans to end the abuse of human rights laws that have allowed offenders to use “family rights” laws to escape deportation.
> 
> She will ask Parliament to tell the courts that the right to a family life is not absolute. Details of the Home Secretary’s tough new stance was first revealed by The Sunday Telegraph earlier this year.
> 
> The right to a family life is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. Last year nearly 200 foreign criminals successfully used this right to delay or prevent deportation.
> 
> Mrs May is also set to introduce a new “financial independence” rule next month that will oblige a*nyone wanting to bring a spouse from overseas to the UK to have a minimum salary of £18,600*. This threshold rises if the couple have offspring, with *someone applying to bring three children into the UK obliged to have an annual income of £27,200.*
> 
> The tough new stance follows a lengthy campaign by this newspaper and aims to combat a rise in so-called “sham marriages”, which have been used by tens of thousands of migrants to come to the UK and may become a burden on the taxpayer.
> 
> The Home Secretary will also extend the probationary period of a non-EU spouse from two years to five and announces rules to keep out elderly relatives of migrants who might require extensive NHS treatment.
> 
> There will also be new language and “British values” tests for immigrants. It will also no longer be possible to extend visas simply for being in a relationship.
> In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph in late March, Mrs May said: “By the summer, I will have changed the immigration rules so that we can end the abuse of the right to a family life.”
> 
> *Although tomorrow’s announcement will be popular with her party and a large proportion of the general public,* it is like to unsettle Liberal Democrats and face opposition from lawyers and judges.


Maybe they lowered the threshold in the face of political opposition at the last minute? 

Again - roll on Monday when we'll know for sure...


----------



## Joppa

I don't understand why they are only opting for £18,600 and £27,200 for those with three children. That's only slightly more than the current figure of £13,700 to £15,000 (dependent on parts of the country) and about the same for those with three kids.
Of course they can increase the amount when the new figures don't lead to a significant reduction in immigration.
Other proposals are as expected.
We still don't know about restriction on external sponsorship and migrant's job prospect and savings, and inclusion of British children.

Yes, the announcement will be due in parliament on Monday, which will be followed by a release of detailed regulations and other papers by Home Office on their website.

Implementation is said to be 'next month', so 1st July seems likely.

It's gonna be a busy day, and I'm travelling to London! Plus England playing France in Euro 2012!

Full text: Government to launch new crackdown on foreign prisoners - Telegraph

It's also the top news story in Sunday Times, but online access is by subscription only.


----------



## newlight1

Lets just hope that these will only apply to new applications from out of country, not in county applications such as FLR and ILR.


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

Joppa said:


> Just to say that I am just about the only person on this forum, regardless of my moderator status, who generally supports the government proposals. By the nature of Expat Forum, almost all contributors have a stake in immigration policy and would probably find the proposed change distasteful, unjust, anti-family, racist and discriminatory.
> 
> I come from a neutral position. And I try to put another side of the coin to balance the discussion. That's all.
> 
> Let's keep the discussion friendly without acrimony! If it gets out of hand, I will consider closing this thread, as I had to do with similar threads in the past.


I hate to say "I told you so" about the minimum income requirement thingie, but... well, I had a feeling that it would probably spin out this way - i.e. "leak" the proposed changes at an artificially high level, then make themselves look less mean by introducing the changes at a lower level... I've seen it happen here in Canada in the past, so it doesn't surprise me that the Home Office would resort to doing this sort of thing as well.

As much as I hate the fact that I'm going to now have to spend 5 years waiting to get citizenship, I agree with you that these proposals are needed. 

In fact, I wish that the Canadian government would grow a pair and make similar changes here too. You can't know how much it irritates me to see the cheating that goes on for public services - I w*rk in health care and while residents have to pay a monthly fee, it would curl your hair the lengths that some would go to not have to pay. It also irritates me that people can come into the country without showing some sort of appreciable knowledge of English or French and expect to be helped in the language that they do speak. 

I'm all for foreign immigration, but seriously... if you're going to come to a new country, I don't think that it's unreasonable to expect that you have some sort of rudimentary knowledge of the official language of the country and are NOT a drain on the social services system... making a positive contribution to said system would be helpful, but failing that, at least don't expect to be allowed to use what you can't pay for.


----------



## Mervinia N

Wow! Now it's all kind of confusing lol but hopefully the figures will be more like those mentioned in this article then the maximum the MAC board advised 

and I've yet to see a report which talks about 'children' without using the terms 'requiring a visa', 'sponsor a...' or 'wishing to bring in a...' right from the very first consultation, through MAC to these reports now  I really do think that this increased maintenance will be applied (and quite rightly applied I hasten to add!) only to children requiring visas and sponsorship, but that's JMHO.

British children are already using resources, working parents pay tax and NI for their education, their NHS usage, maybe even private medical care. They live here by right so to take them into account for calculations to bring a sole spouse/fiancé(e) here bears no relevance as the childrens' effect on the country's resources exists irrespective of whether the partner is here or not.

The government wouldn't dream of means testing British parents on whether they can support their British children... yet, if (and it's an 'if' getting bigger by the day it seems) increased maintenance is applied to British children, this is in essence what is being done.

Roll on Monday and I hope as many of us as possible get something we can work with in the new rules!


----------



## Joppa

WestCoastCanadianGirl said:


> I hate to say "I told you so" about the minimum income requirement thingie, but... well, I had a feeling that it would probably spin out this way - i.e. "leak" the proposed changes at an artificially high level, then make themselves look less mean by introducing the changes at a lower level... I've seen it happen here in Canada in the past, so it doesn't surprise me that the Home Office would resort to doing this sort of thing as well.


The higher figure was quoted in the leaked letter to Nick Clegg, Lib-Dem leader and deputy PM in March. Perhaps Nick won the argument and managed to get it reduced?



> As much as I hate the fact that I'm going to now have to spend 5 years waiting to get citizenship, I agree with you that these proposals are needed.
> 
> In fact, I wish that the Canadian government would grow a pair and make similar changes here too. You can't know how much it irritates me to see the cheating that goes on for public services - I w*rk in health care and while residents have to pay a monthly fee, it would curl your hair the lengths that some would go to not have to pay. It also irritates me that people can come into the country without showing some sort of appreciable knowledge of English or French and expect to be helped in the language that they do speak.
> 
> I'm all for foreign immigration, but seriously... if you're going to come to a new country, I don't think that it's unreasonable to expect that you have some sort of rudimentary knowledge of the official language of the country and are NOT a drain on the social services system... making a positive contribution to said system would be helpful, but failing that, at least don't expect to be allowed to use what you can't pay for.


I agree 100%!


----------



## newlight1

So if it goes from £13,700 - £18,600 what will that equate to per week in savings for a person to have, as at the moment its based on the Income support level for a spouse which is £111.45 per week and needs to be shown that can be available for 26 weeks or more.


----------



## Joppa

Mervinia N said:


> Wow! Now it's all kind of confusing lol but hopefully the figures will be more like those mentioned in this article then the maximum the MAC board advised
> 
> and I've yet to see a report which talks about 'children' without using the terms 'requiring a visa', 'sponsor a...' or 'wishing to bring in a...' right from the very first consultation, through MAC to these reports now  I really do think that this increased maintenance will be applied (and quite rightly applied I hasten to add!) only to children requiring visas and sponsorship, but that's JMHO.
> 
> British children are already using resources, working parents pay tax and NI for their education, their NHS usage, maybe even private medical care. They live here by right so to take them into account for calculations to bring a sole spouse/fiancé(e) here bears no relevance as the childrens' effect on the country's resources exists irrespective of whether the partner is here or not.
> 
> The government wouldn't dream of means testing British parents on whether they can support their British children... yet, if (and it's an 'if' getting bigger by the day it seems) increased maintenance is applied to British children, this is in essence what is being done.


All we need is clarification of what is meant by 'dependants' when foreign spouse/partner is involved. The reports don't make it clear, though they give the impression that even when British (dual national) kids living abroad are being brought into the country with their foreign parent, higher sponsor's income applies. I think we can safely exclude settled children already in UK.


----------



## Joppa

newlight1 said:


> So if it goes from £13,700 - £18,600 what will that equate to per week in savings for a person to have, as at the moment its based on the Income support level for a spouse which is £111.45 per week and needs to be shown that can be available for 26 weeks or more.


We don't know yet and we don't even know if savings are taken into account and not just actual income from employment or business. If the criteria stay the same, easiest way is to work out pro rata, so you get £151.31 per week net. To work out exactly, get net income of £18,600 gross, subtract the yearly housing cost and council tax (assumed to be £120 per week and £20 per week respectively) and divide by 52. This gives roughly £148.66.


----------



## newlight1

Thanks Joppa, so rather than £111.45 as it is currently it would be £148.66 at the rate of £18,600?

What about couples who applied for a fiance visa at the age of 18, then the age limit changed to 21 after they applied for the Fiance Visa and then when they applied for FLR, and they were still 18 were they then deported? As that would be similar to a couple who apply for a Fiance visa who meet the current regulations but then do not meet them when they apply for the FLR right?


----------



## Joppa

Home Secretary, Theresa May, is the guest on Andrew Marr programme from 9 to 10 am (UK time) on BBC1 today, and is being interviewed about the new visa rules.


----------



## chek

Thanks Joppa for the info


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

Joppa said:


> Home Secretary, Theresa May, is the guest on Andrew Marr programme from 9 to 10 am (UK time) on BBC1 today, and is being interviewed about the new visa rules.


I wasn't going to boot up the laptop this morning, now I'm very glad that I did! The interview with Theresa May hasn't started yet, they are talking news just now. But I have a notepad and pen at the ready. 

Thank-you for the heads-up on this!


----------



## Nicholas Crowe

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> I wasn't going to boot up the laptop this morning, now I'm very glad that I did! The interview with Theresa May hasn't started yet, they are talking news just now. But I have a notepad and pen at the ready.
> 
> Thank-you for the heads-up on this!


I'm now actually doing the same. Lets hope the interview is an informative one and not a 'you will have to wait until it's offically announced to know the main rules'.


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

B*gger!
P*ss!
B*llox!

Can't get BBC iPlayer to w*rk on my sodding iPhone and can't access the stream on BBC, as am in Vancouver and not the UK.

GRRR!


----------



## Nicholas Crowe

What I've gained so far from the interview...

Income required:


£18600 - No children
£22400 - with 1 child
£2400 for every extra child

Sounds like this would be brought in next year? I swear I caught her saying 'Settlement from next year..'


----------



## bookman0105

*18600..*

If its just 18600 it leaves me only 2000 short a year !.. which is better than and extra 7000 on top of that.


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

Nicholas Crowe said:


> What I've gained so far from the interview...
> 
> Income required:
> 
> 
> £18600 - No children
> £22400 - with 1 child
> £2400 for every extra child
> 
> Sounds like this would be brought in next year? I swear I caught her saying 'Settlement from next year..'


That's all well and good (well, actually, it isn't really, but that's beside the point).... what inquiring minds want to know is how have they f*cked over us FLR(M) and SET(M) types?

Are we going to be relegated to the 5 year pool with everyone else or will we continue to enjoy 2 years of probation before being allowed to apply for ILR?


----------



## Nicholas Crowe

WestCoastCanadianGirl said:


> That's all well and good (well, actually, it isn't really, but that's beside the point).... what inquiring minds want to know is how have they f*cked over us FLR(M) and SET(M) types?
> 
> Are we going to be relegated to the 5 year pool with everyone else or will we continue to enjoy 2 years of probation?


I didn't catch anything in the interview about that.


----------



## bookman0105

Any mention of english language requirements?


----------



## Mervinia N

Nicholas Crowe said:


> What I've gained so far from the interview...
> 
> Income required:
> [*]£18600 - No children
> [*]£22400 - with 1 child
> [*]£2400 for every extra child


*does a silly happy dance* I'll meet the criteria for my two boys based on the figures above if they decide to apply it across the board to all households  
I don't think they will apply it to settled children, or any child not requiring a visa to be here tbh, but did they give better clarification of 'dependents' when they gave the increased figures for children?


----------



## uzi

Originally Posted by Nicholas Crowe 
What I've gained so far from the interview...

Sounds like this would be brought in next year? I swear I caught her saying 'Settlement from next year..'

I wish this last bit be true.... i am not worried to go on 5 years probationary period as long as we stay together....can any 1 post a link for the recording of that interview


----------



## Nicholas Crowe

Mervinia N said:


> *does a silly happy dance* I'll meet the criteria for my two boys based on the figures above if they decide to apply it across the board to all households
> I don't think they will apply it to settled children, or any child not requiring a visa to be here tbh, but did they give better clarification of 'dependents' when they gave the increased figures for children?


They didn't give much clarification during the interview but I'm sure there will be a news article about it at some point today. I will have a look around and see if I can find a recording online for anyone who is interested.


----------



## uzi

Thanks i will appreciate it as cant play bbc 1 streaming outside the uk


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

uzi said:


> Originally Posted by Nicholas Crowe
> What I've gained so far from the interview...
> 
> Sounds like this would be brought in next year? I swear I caught her saying 'Settlement from next year..'
> 
> I wish this last bit be true.... i am not worried to go on 5 years probationary period as long as we stay together....can any 1 post a link for the recording of that interview


I'm not worried about the potential of having to stay put for 5 years (I am prepared to do whatever it takes to legally become a British Citizen)... it's more of a case of I don't want to if it's at all possible (and the way that I see it, it _is_ possible)... i.e. if they can spread the severity of the new rules equally across all immigrant groups in such a way so as to limit the (negative) effect that the changes will have on FLR(M) and SET(M) visa holders and let us _legitimate_ married types have the 2 years as a compromise (i.e. increase the minimum required income levels to what they propose and in exchange keep us out of the 5 year pool), then there'd be a bunch of much happier immigrants.


----------



## liam85

Well I'm happy about the maintenance figures as thankfully I earn enough, what I'm waiting for is the details about the new english language requirements, proving relationship and "ties to the UK"

I am waiting for IPlayer to put the Andrew Marr show up, does anyone have any details on those above point? When they make the announcement tomorrow will the UKBA already have all the regulations on their site?

For those of you outside the UK who want to see the Andrew Marr show, use a UK based proxy server such as: 

http://www.daveproxy.co.uk/

Its not up yet though

Andrew Marr Show


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

Nicholas Crowe said:


> What I've gained so far from the interview...
> 
> Income required:
> 
> 
> £18600 - No children
> £22400 - with 1 child
> £2400 for every extra child
> 
> Sounds like this would be brought in next year? I swear I caught her saying 'Settlement from next year..'


That's what I got from it as well. I thought it was interesting that she says the Life In The UK test will have to be passed, and didn't say anything about any 'attachment test' in addition-that could simply have not been brought up, though.

What I didn't get from the interview was a sense of when the changes will be announced. I was sitting in front of the telly from start to finish but I may have missed that part. Did she say anything about when the big announcement is going to be made?

I did hear her say that Parliament will have to discuss and then vote on the way the judges look at Part2 of Article8. I'm not clear as to why the judges haven't used Part2 anyway, it seems clear enough to me that a man who mows down a child and then runs from the scene is not someone who should be granted a family life in the UK anyway-especially since he created a family after killing that poor little girl!

**I'd like to take this opportunity to remind my fellow Americans that whilst we enjoy a certain comfort level in speaking scornfully of our elected and appointed government officials, we are guests here in the UK until we achieve citizenship, and as such should restrain ourselves from publicly discussing our feelings (if negative) towards the elected and appointed government officials of our host country.

Yes, we are expats. I think it's important to remember that we are immigrants as well. I know that word lately has an unpleasant connotation to us all-the US has experienced some very serious problems with immigration and calling ourselves immigrants is a new and for some, unpleasant thing to do. 

But we are immigrants. We are guests here until and only if we earn citizenship. Until then we have certain responsibilities as guests-and we need to remember that. 

So the lowered amount is going to be a disappointment to a lot of UK citizens, and I can well understand why. Please remember that disappointment is going to be affecting your personal relationships with the locals, and try to alleviate some of the concern by having private health insurance, not taking a job from a local unless no-one else can fill the job, and other 'good guest' behaviours. PLEASE.


----------



## uzi

how bad new english requirement can be? they cant expect people from non english speaking countries to get a 7 band in IELETS test....


----------



## Guest

Those outside the UK can watch BBC iplayer using expat shield to catch the interview. Worked for us in Australia.


----------



## liam85

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> I thought it was interesting that she says the Life In The UK test will have to be passed, and didn't say anything about any 'attachment test' in addition-that could simply have not been brought up, though.


So the test has to be passed before the Visa is issued?


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

uzi said:


> how bad new english requirement can be? they cant expect people from non english speaking countries to get a 7 band in IELETS test....


I think that the requirement is going to be a lot higher than it is now-Ms May didn't address that in the interview, only that people were going to have to be able to function in an English speaking environment. 

What she did say is that everyone will have to pass the Life In The UK test, and let me tell you from studying it and doing several of the practice tests, your English writing and comprehension needs to be quite high! Which is as it should be, in my opinion. JMPO, but I cannot understand anyone wanting to come to a country with a different language and then expecting everything to be translated for them.

I'm an American. In my country an immigrant never need speak English because for some lunatic reason our government prints everything in over two hundred (I exaggerate but only a little!) languages. Wanna make people of a country turn against immigrants in less than half a heartbeat? Welcome them in their own language and never help them learn to speak the language of the country they have immigrated to. 

I've lived all over the world. The US and the UK are the only countries I've ever seen that are so willing to translate things for newcomers-I had to sit my driving test in Central America in Spanish, buy my groceries in Spanish, visit the doctor, government offices, utilities offices, everything in Spanish. I even had to read the news in Spanish, and hear TV in Spanish. 

Why shouldn't a newcomer to the UK have to speak English well enough to do those things?!

*@Liam85*-no hint in the interview on when that was going to be implemented, or if there was I missed it. Probably like it is now, though-before the ILR is applied for.


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

liam85 said:


> Well I'm happy about the maintenance figures as thankfully I earn enough, what I'm waiting for is the details about the new english language requirements, proving relationship and "ties to the UK"


You bring up a good point... how do we prove that we have a relationship and "ties to the UK" ?

I would like to come over to marry and settle in the UK because our prospects are better in the UK than they would be if we chose to settle here in Canada. I have an employable skill that will initially require some educational upgrading to get me on par with my contemporaries in the UK, but that upgrading scheme includes an apprenticeship that could very well lead to gainful employment once it's successfully completed and that employment opportunity has the potential for me to earn in excess of the new minimum income requirement. 

Edward is blind but in a job that pays more than even the pre-Andrew Marr/Home Office interview's rumoured minimum income level. His salary in the UK is also much higher than what I currently earn in Canada, even if one were to assume a 1:1 ratio between CAD $ and GBP £. I cannot begin to imagine what his employment prospects might be like in Canada, even if one did not count his visual impairment against him. 

I would hope that my willingness to leave a stable full time job in a country that has comparatively few economic problems and come to the UK, where I have no job offers and where the economy is going through some turmoil, to marry someone with a sensory disability as a true and undeniable sign of a genuine relationship. I was not forced to accept his proposal, nor do I feel any pity just because he's "poor blind Edward." I accepted of my own free will and am voluntarily giving up everything I know and hold dear to my heart to marry the man I love... yes, I think that its a shame that he's blind, but there's not a whole hell of a lot we can do about it (nor would the sudden restoration of his eyesight achieve peace in the Middle East or feed all of the starving in Africa), so we just deal.

I look forward to hearing what the UKBA expects myself and others to do to prove ourselves to their standards.


----------



## uzi

I agree on the minimum language requirement but look it from this perspective that a person learns to speak a new language you cant expect him to be a pro unless he/she actually spend some time in the english speaking country, gain confidence in speaking and people learn it more quicker that way.....So i guess the minimum requirement of a band 4 is already quite hard for alot of people i have spoken to in the past making it more harder will definitely discourage people....and if they increase and people have given their tests already so they have to go through all the process again....


----------



## Joppa

The Sunday Times, which is accessible online by subscription only, reports that_* from 9th July*_, a financial independence rule will come into force. 
This is just a change in immigration rules, which only needs to be laid before parliament and no discussion and voting is required, though MPs are free to raise the matter in PM's or ministerial question time. The government can decide when to start implementing new rules, but a gentleman's agreement stipulates 21-day notice, which is well within the start date of 9th July.

The ST gives further details to changes.
Those who sponsor elderly relatives must give a 5-year undertaking not to access public funds and support them financially.
Visitors who overstay by more than 28 days cannot switch their stay for family reasons such as having a child or being in a relationship. As you cannt switch from visitor in-country, this will apply to those who subsequently apply for a settlement visa in their home country, I'd imagine.
From October 2013, all applicants for settlement need to pass English language and Life in the UK tests. How this differs from present rule isn't clear. 
Increase from 2 to 5 years for settlement for non-EEA family members. I'd imagine from 9th July, and probably includes those already in UK on probationary period, unless transitional arrangement is announced. So we need to wait and see.


----------



## liam85

Joppa said:


> The Sunday Times, which is accessible online by subscription only, reports that_* from next month (July)*_, a financial independence rule will come into force.
> This is just a change in immigration rules, which only needs to be laid before parliament and no discussion and voting is required, though MPs are free to raise the matter in PM's or ministerial question time. The government can decide when to start implementing new rules, but a gentleman's agreement stipulates 21-day notice, which will make the start date as Monday 2nd July.


What does this rule entail?

The Andrew Marr show has just come online The Theresa May interview starts at 37 minutes.


----------



## chek

All this implementation is just rumours until Is finally on the UKBA website I dnt think anyone should believe wat the paper says first the telegraph says £27000 minimum we now hear it frm Therasay May that is £18000+ and she didn't say anything about it being apply next month she said dey need to debate on it. I wuld advise everyone to have it confirm first instead of worrying for no reason.


----------



## 2farapart

I'm only just here after a short break with family, but have already read two separate articles in the Telegraph today also stating a new requirement that we hadn't before discussed - *that people must have at least £18000 in SAVINGS* (with an additional couple of thousand on top for each child) before being admitted into the country.

Foreign criminals will no longer be able to argue 'right to family life' to stay in Britain - Telegraph and Theresa May orders judges to accept that 'right to family life not absolute' - Telegraph



> ...Mrs May unveiled plans to stop people bringing their husbands or wives to live in Britain unless they have at least £18,000 in savings


THAT would have screwed us, and may still do so *if* the reqirement is set for an ILR application (but hopefully I'm reading far too much into that - and that the literal meaning is 'you will not be granted entry unless you have the required savings').

And I have no idea how we are to prove ties to the UK being stronger than ties to other countries. In some cases it will be obvious, but for many it's going to be a very grey area.


----------



## uzi

All this is so confusing..........joppa can you not copy paste the sunday times article?


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

uzi said:


> I agree on the minimum language requirement but look it from this perspective that a person learns to speak a new language you cant expect him to be a pro unless he/she actually spend some time in the english speaking country, gain confidence in speaking and people learn it more quicker that way.....So i guess the minimum requirement of a band 4 is already quite hard for alot of people i have spoken to in the past making it more harder will definitely discourage people....and if they increase and people have given their tests already so they have to go through all the process again....


True, but new immigrants should be able to speak and understand English at the adanced intermediate conversational level (i.e. comprehension of some idiomatic English) and not just depend on tourist English to get by.

I'd love to have gone to Japan to live and w*rk (I can get an ancestry visa to go, as my grandparents were from there), but since my Japanese is very bad (I'm talking slightly better than tourist level) I couldn't reasonably expect to be able to get by with what little I know.

Hell, I couldn't even realistically go to get a j*b in the Canadian province of Québec (and I'm a Canadian citizen!) because my spoken and aural French ability is not strong enough enable me to cope (it _is_ better than my Japanese ability) in every day situations in the more rural areas of the province (i.e. basically anywhere in the province except Montréal or Québec City). As hospital based health care employee, I would likely be expected to be able to field calls in both English and French... I have done it in the past with a modest degree of success, but it made my head hurt to have to think in English and automatically speak in French.

@aA_i_S... Canadian Bilingualism doesn't always work so well... if you ignore the extremist groups (i.e. on one side, the so-called French language police in Québec whose mandate seems to be to make French the only official language in Québec, thus making it virtually impossible for the Anglos in the province to be able to conduct business without incurring costs to make sure that all signage is up to the language law while on the other side, there are factions in English Canada who absolutely _hate_ the French language (and the fact that it's an official language) and while not nearly as vocal/proactive about their dislike of that language as the French Language police are about English in Québec, would love to see French lose official language status)... if you ignore the extremist groups, you still have people coming to Canada who speak neither English or French and refuse to learn how to speak either of the languages once they get their immigration status. This irritates me to no end... we don't expect you to be a fluent speaker, but we do expect you to try.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

uzi said:


> I agree on the minimum language requirement but look it from this perspective that a person learns to speak a new language you cant expect him to be a pro unless he/she actually spend some time in the english speaking country, gain confidence in speaking and people learn it more quicker that way.....So i guess the minimum requirement of a band 4 is already quite hard for alot of people i have spoken to in the past making it more harder will definitely discourage people....and if they increase and people have given their tests already so they have to go through all the process again....


My personal opinion only, but I think that the English ability might be assessed during the intial visa application process-it may be that face to face interviews will be required as part of the determination process as has been recently implemented in Pakistan for student visa-which btw, has caught out several fraudulent applicants who were arrested for the attempt.

If I'm right, I'm sure there will be tests that indicate not only command of English so far, but also whether or not the applicant shows willingness and aptitude to come up to the functional level after being immersed in an English speaking environment. 

I will say that people in Central America were nice to me once they realised I was making a very real effort to become comfortable, conversational, and lol, grammatically correct in Spanish. They appreciated that I arrived able to function, and that I was working towards fluency, and I think that is what is to be expected here in the UK as well-that incomers be functional on arrival and demonstrated continued effort towards fluency. 

You have to understand the need to test, and the need on the part of the applicant to demonstrate aptitude and willingness to achieve fluency. Unfortunately there are hundreds if not thousands of people who have come here and been rudely open about their lack of interest in acquiring fluency in the English language, and the people of the UK quite rightly find that offensive.


----------



## liam85

2farapart said:


> I'm only just here after a short break with family, but have already read two separate articles in the Telegraph today also stating a new requirement that we hadn't before discussed - *that people must have at least £18000 in SAVINGS* (with an additional couple of thousand on top for each child) before being admitted into the country.
> 
> Foreign criminals will no longer be able to argue 'right to family life' to stay in Britain - Telegraph and Theresa May orders judges to accept that 'right to family life not absolute' - Telegraph
> 
> 
> 
> THAT would have screwed us, and may still do so *if* the reqirement is set for an ILR application (but hopefully I'm reading far too much into that - and that the literal meaning is 'you will not be granted entry unless you have the required savings').
> 
> And I have no idea how we are to prove ties to the UK being stronger than ties to other countries. In some cases it will be obvious, but for many it's going to be a very grey area.


I think the telegraph have got it wrong here, just watched the interview and she specifically says "income", not savings.

As for the "Life in the UK test" she says this will apply to settlement, so I'm guessing this is before you apply for ILR.


----------



## akdh

WestCoastCanadianGirl said:


> True, but new immigrants should be able to speak and understand English at the adanced intermediate conversational level (i.e. comprehension of some idiomatic English) and not just depend on tourist English to get by.
> 
> I'd love to have gone to Japan to live and w*rk (I can get an ancestry visa to go, as my grandparents were from there), but since my Japanese is very bad (I'm talking slightly better than tourist level) I couldn't reasonably expect to be able to get by with what little I know.


I went to Japan knowing only knowing how to say "hello" and "thank you". You don't need to know any Japanese to get by. I know from experience. As long as you have a University degree, you can get a company sponsorship.


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

*Stupid question time....*



Joppa said:


> The Sunday Times, which is accessible online by subscription only, reports that_* from 9th July*_, a financial independence rule will come into force.
> This is just a change in immigration rules, which only needs to be laid before parliament and no discussion and voting is required, though MPs are free to raise the matter in PM's or ministerial question time. The government can decide when to start implementing new rules, but a gentleman's agreement stipulates 21-day notice, which is well within the start date of 9th July.
> 
> The ST gives further details to changes.
> Those who sponsor elderly relatives must give a 5-year undertaking not to access public funds and support them financially.
> Visitors who overstay by more than 28 days cannot switch their stay for family reasons such as having a child or being in a relationship. As you cannt switch from visitor in-country, this will apply to those who subsequently apply for a settlement visa in their home country, I'd imagine.
> From October 2013, all applicants for settlement need to pass English language and Life in the UK tests. How this differs from present rule isn't clear.
> Increase from 2 to 5 years for settlement for non-EEA family members. I'd imagine from 9th July, and probably includes those already in UK on probationary period, unless transitional arrangement is announced. So we need to wait and see.


So, if I were to apply and pay for my application on _07 July_ (as I've previously whinged about doing before), would that exempt me from the changes that are slated for July 9th, even if I don't get my biometrics done until 23 July? 

And if the Home Office was going to be kind enough to exempt people from the 2-5 year rule change who were in the system already, would this exemption include people who applied for Fiancée visas before the July 9th change date and were subsequently approved for the visas after July 9th? I recall you saying something recently about how applications would be held up to the standard(s) that were in place at the time of application. Theoretically, I would tend to think that this technicality would include people in my boat, given that the visa was applied for before the rules changed and as such, if/when we are approved for the visa we would have 180 days to fulfil the conditions of the visa or be forced to leave the country... I should think that this would leave a very small pool of people caught in the Fiancé(e)/FLR(M) limbo, as a July 8th cut off for applications would translate into a maximum of 270 days from July 9th for them to get their paperwork in order or miss out on their window of opprotunity.

Yes, I know that I'm grasping at straws and splitting hairs finer than they need be split, but I am trying to avoid having to wait 5 years to get an ILR.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

liam85 said:


> I think the telegraph have got it wrong here, just watched the interview and she specifically says "income", not savings.
> 
> As for the "Life in the UK test" she says this will apply to settlement, so I'm guessing this is before you apply for ILR.


The following quote is from the second link, not had a chance to read the first yet. But yes, if the reporter is going strictly on what was said in the interview, the following is not what Ms May said:



> It came as Mrs May unveiled plans to stop people bringing their husbands or wives to live in Britain *unless they have at least £18,000 in savings*.
> For every foreign child, they must have an additional £2,400 to stop families becoming dependent on benefits.
> “It is important that we say you should be able to support yourselves and not be reliant on the state,” she told the Andrew Marr Show.


She said 'income', NOT savings. I do wish the Telegraph had got that right!

*ETA-* oh dear, same writer on the first link as on the second. I've not read it, just noted the writer is the same on both pieces, one of which I already know contains incorrect information (unless the writer knows something Ms May didn't say in the interview...)


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

akdh said:


> I went to Japan knowing only knowing how to say "hello" and "thank you". You don't need to know any Japanese to get by. I know from experience. As long as you have a University degree, you can get a company sponsorship.


Yes, but if one was looking to settle down permanently there, I don't think that it's unreasonable to expect potential settlement candidates to have some knowledge of the Japanese culture and a knowledge of the language beyond a few words, and I think that the UKBA is trying to ensure that potential settlement applicants have this knowledge as well, as it pertains to the UK.


----------



## Joppa

WestCoastCanadianGirl said:


> So, if I were to apply and pay for my application on _07 July_ (as I've previously whinged about doing before), would that exempt me from the changes that are slated for July 9th, even if I don't get my biometrics done until 23 July?
> 
> And if the Home Office was going to be kind enough to exempt people from the 2-5 year rule change who were in the system already, would this exemption include people who applied for Fiancée visas before the July 9th change date and were subsequently approved for the visas after July 9th? I recall you saying something recently about how applications would be held up to the standard(s) that were in place at the time of application. Theoretically, I would tend to think that this technicality would include people in my boat, given that the visa was applied for before the rules changed and as such, if/when are approved for the visa we would have 180 days to fulfil the conditions of the visa or be forced to leave the country.
> 
> Yes, I know that I'm grasping at straws and splitting hairs finer than they need be split, but I am trying to avoid having to wait 5 years to get an ILR.


This is only my speculation, but those who apply (i.e. send off or make online application) before 9th July will be assessed using existing rules. But in case of fiancé(e) visa, when you come to apply for FLR, you will be caught by the new rules (that's how things normally work). And those who are already here on 24-month probation will in all likelihood have to extend their stay by 3 years before becoming eligible for ILR, UNLESS the government make a transitional arragement.


----------



## liam85

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> The following quote is from the second link, not had a chance to read the first yet. But yes, if the reporter is going strictly on what was said in the interview, the following is not what Ms May said:
> 
> 
> 
> She said 'income', NOT savings. I do wish the Telegraph had got that right!
> 
> *ETA-* oh dear, same writer on the first link as on the second. I've not read it, just noted the writer is the same on both pieces, one of which I already know contains incorrect information (unless the writer knows something Ms May didn't say in the interview...)


Yes I am sure they have got it wrong, if you go to the telegraph news front page and follow the link there, the article looks to be a work in progress, it repeats one paragraph twice at the bottom and has a few spelling mistakes. Hopefully they will sort it out.


----------



## 2farapart

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> The following quote is from the second link, not had a chance to read the first yet. But yes, if the reporter is going strictly on what was said in the interview, the following is not what Ms May said:
> 
> 
> 
> She said 'income', NOT savings. I do wish the Telegraph had got that right!
> 
> *ETA-* oh dear, same writer on the first link as on the second. I've not read it, just noted the writer is the same on both pieces, one of which I already know contains incorrect information (unless the writer knows something Ms May didn't say in the interview...)


We missed that interview and it's still not up at the BBC, but if the writer is quoting that, then it's a relief to know it's just sloppy journalism - again!


----------



## Mervinia N

Phew! Was on the phone to my very happy fiancé when I saw the word 'savings' and a cold shudder went through me  damn journalists and their 'not checking facts properly, let's just be the first to print' attitude lol


----------



## lope85

That's just great - was going to apply for fiance visa in July if these rules are all put in place then there's no way I can.


----------



## Mervinia N

Talk about sloppy journalism!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2156993/New-law-demands-20-000-salary-marry-foreigner.html

Figures are a little off (having now seen the actual interview with Theresa May - thank you BBC iplayer) and is purely written to ignite the DM readership on immigration again, judging by the comments already listed.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

Mervinia N said:


> Talk about sloppy journalism!!
> 
> New law demands £20,000 salary to marry a foreigner | Mail Online
> 
> Figures are a little off (having now seen the actual interview with Theresa May - thank you BBC iplayer) and is purely written to ignite the DM readership on immigration again, judging by the comments already listed.


I have just now finished reading the article and the comments, and I agree, the slant on the article is inflammatory, and the information misleading, and misquoted. 

But hey, it's the Wail, why are we surprised, lol!


----------



## liam85

After having looked at a few other forums, it seems to me (all speculation at this point obviously) that the English requirement will still be A1 for entry visa, with a requirement for B1 or more when applying for settlement (ILR) Also the "Life in the UK" test will have to be taken before ILR also.

I think the only thing which will affect initial spousal/fiancée visas are the new maintenance requirements. 

I also have no idea what the "attachment to UK" thing is all about, also nothing seems to have been mentioned about toughening up the "proving relationship" aspect, so this could affect the initial entry visas, anyone know anything about these?


----------



## newlight1

> But in case of fiancé(e) visa, when you come to apply for FLR, you will be caught by the new rules (that's how things normally work).


Do you think they could make a transitional arrangement for this though? Ie you meet the requirements when applying for the Fiance Visa - new rules come in - you apply for FLR - you are still bound by the rules that were in place when you first applied for the FIance Visa?


----------



## liam85

She does say "To come into affect next year" when talking about the "life in uk" test and language requirements.


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle

newlight1 said:


> Do you think they could make a transitional arrangement for this though? Ie you meet the requirements when applying for the Fiance Visa - new rules come in - you apply for FLR - you are still bound by the rules that were in place when you first applied for the FIance Visa?


It seems to depend on what the rules are at the time of present application. So you probably need to move fast before the 9 July date for FLR. But they can decide on transitional rules if they want, no one knows. It also seems that they stand to make a lot more money by requiring more applications, which also increases the possibility of catching some people out who might not be in genuine relationships. It will no doubt be good for us when this matter is settled!


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

liam85 said:


> After having looked at a few other forums, it seems to me (all speculation at this point obviously) that the English requirement will still be A1 for entry visa, with a requirement for B1 or more when applying for settlement (ILR) Also the "Life in the UK" test will have to be taken before ILR also.
> 
> I think the only thing which will affect initial spousal/fiancée visas are the new maintenance requirements.
> 
> I also have no idea what the "attachment to UK" thing is all about, also nothing seems to have been mentioned about toughening up the "proving relationship" aspect, so this could affect the initial entry visas, anyone know anything about these?


The following is from the UKBA Family Migration Consultation July 2011:



> 2.15 In order to meet the attachment requirement,
> the applicant for a marriage visa must have
> visited Denmark at least twice and the
> sponsor must have resided legally in Denmark
> for 15 years. The attachment requirement is
> not applicable if either party has held Danish
> citizenship or resided legally in Denmark
> for at least 28 years. We invite views on
> whether a similar attachment provision
> in the UK could support better
> integration of family migrants, and
> could provide additional safeguards
> against abuse of family migration
> through sham or forced marriages.


Other countries 'attachment test' criteria include blood tie relationships, ancestry, and it there is someone in the non-EEA citizen's home country who can provide care, usually applied in dependent applications like elderly parents and adult children. If I can find those quotes and links I'll post them. I'm pretty sure I saw them in the MAC Report, and in a couple other UKBA publications, seems I've also seen info on other sites like JCWI, Transpondia, MigrantWatch and Migrant Voice.


----------



## newlight1

> It seems to depend on what the rules are at the time of present application.


I am sure some people got a letter from Damien Green who said that those already on the family path would not be affected or caught up by the changes.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

I'm going to try and paste in a quote that contains the entire attachment section from the consultation, for those who are interested. We don't know yet that this will or will not be a part of the new rules, Theresa May didn't say anything about it in this mornings interview (my edit to attempt to return it to a readable condition, lol):



> 18
> 
> 2.14 We could consider additional measures to test
> the genuineness of the relationship, marriage
> or partnership, and promote the effective
> integration of family migrants to the UK.
> 
> *In Denmark, for example, the combined
> attachment* to Denmark *of both parties
> to a visa or leave to remain application based
> on marriage must be greater than their
> combined attachment to any other country*.
> 
> *In determining whether this is so, the Danish
> Immigration Service takes a number of
> factors into consideration, including:*
> 
> •	How long each party has lived in
> Denmark;
> 
> •	Whether one or both parties have family
> and/or acquaintances in Denmark;
> 
> •	Whether one or both parties have
> custody of or visiting rights to a child
> under 18 in Denmark;
> 
> •	Whether one or both parties have
> completed an educational programme in
> Denmark, or have a solid connection to
> the Danish labour market;
> 
> •	How well both parties speak Danish;
> 
> •	The extent of both parties’ ties to another
> country, including whether extended visits
> have been made to that country; and
> 
> •	Whether the applicant has
> children or other family members in
> any other country.
> 
> 28 EUR-Lex - Simple search
> =en&lng1=en,en&lng2=da,de,el,en,es,fi,fr,it,nl,pt,sv,&val=2215
> 03:cs&page= (accessed 8 June 2011)
> 29 New to Denmark - Coming to Denmark
> familyreunification/family_reunification.htm
> (accessed 8 June 2011)
> 30 For more information about the attachment requirement,
> please go to New to Denmark - Coming to Denmark
> familyreunification/family_reunification.htm
> (accessed 5 July 2011)


----------



## liam85

Thanks for the info AiS, I hope something similar doesn't come into affect!


----------



## akdh

*From the Guardian*

Theresa May cannot dictate to judges on human rights cases, lawyers warn

Home secretary willing to bring in primary legislation if judges fail to implement rules prioritising deportation over family rights

Alan Travis, home affairs editor
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 10 June 2012 14.07 BST	

Leading human rights lawyers have warned Theresa May that she cannot dictate to judges over their interpretation of the rights of foreign prisoners battling to avoid deportation.

The home secretary signalled a renewed showdown with the courts over immigration law on Sunday by indicating that she was willing to bring in primary legislation if judges fail to implement rules giving priority to deportation over the right to family life enshrined in article 8 of the European convention on human rights.

MPs are to be asked in the next few weeks to approve a Commons motion advising the judges that the right to family life is not absolute and should be overridden if doing so is in the national interest.

May said she would set out on Monday an overhaul of the rules on family migration that will mean UK citizens earning less than £18,600, depending on the number of children involved, will not be allowed to bring a foreign husband, wife or partner into Britain to live with them.

The gross income threshold is lower than the minimum £25,700 figure that May tried to persuade Nick Clegg to accept, according to a letter leaked in March. The home secretary said a minimum gross income of £24,800 would be needed if there were two children involved, with a further £2,200 for each extra child.

It is believed that as many as 25,000 families a year could be affected by the changes.

Critics say British citizens will face a choice of exile or splitting up their families, and warned that it would lead to a string of legal challenges under article 8.

The home secretary first promised action over article 8 at the Tory party conference last year, when she cited the case of a Bolivian man and his pet cat.

On Sunday she told the BBC she was now prepared to bring in legislation if the judges ignored the will of parliament in redefining the right to family life.

"This is not an absolute right. So in the interests of the economy or of controlling migration or of public order – those sorts of issues – the state has a right to qualify this right to a family life," she said. "What I am going to do is actually set out the rules and say this is what parliament, this is what the public believe is how you balance the public interest against an individual's interest.

"We are going to ask parliament to vote on this to say very clearly what constitutes the right to a family life. I would expect that judges will look at what parliament has said.

"If they don't then we will have to look at other measures and that could include primary legislation."

Lawyers warned that ministers could not use secondary legislation such as the immigration rules to dictate to judges or trump their interpretation of article 8.

"Parliament cannot predetermine the results of individual cases, which all depend on careful and compassionate assessment of very different facts. However merciless Mrs May may be, hard cases make bad law and politicians make bad judges," Geoffrey Robertson QC told the Sunday Times.

Sir Geoffrey Bindman said: "Any change is ineffective because ultimately what controls the situation is article 8 as interpreted by the court of human rights and the domestic courts.

"The legal position is that in so far as the immigration rules are incompatible with the human rights convention then the convention prevails."

Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, told the Guardian that article 8 had always been qualified and allowed the government considerable latitude over immigration control. "The home secretary is far better reviewing immigration rules than bashing the Human Rights Act or the judiciary," she said.

"But given the toxic nature of immigration politics in a recession, it becomes especially important to distinguish – in both rules and rhetoric – between abuse and criminality and anything that splits up genuine innocent families of British nationals."


----------



## LondonSquirrel

*Sunday Times*

I saw the article in the Sunday Times too. It said the new rule will be out 9th July. The income requirement of £18,600 for just a foreign spouse rises to £27,200 with 3 children. Lower than we thought, but I still think it will be difficult for some people especially those outside London, particularly in the north where earnings (and cost of living!) are lower. 

I do hope they will allow parents to co-sponsor like under the current rules. (The US spousal immigration rules allow this). It would save people getting part time jobs to earn extra income they may not actually need but will have show to pass the visa requirement.


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

BailyBanksBiddle said:


> It seems to depend on what the rules are at the time of present application. So you probably need to move fast before the 9 July date for FLR. But they can decide on transitional rules if they want, no one knows. It also seems that they stand to make a lot more money by requiring more applications, which also increases the possibility of catching some people out who might not be in genuine relationships. It will no doubt be good for us when this matter is settled!


Baily, this is what I want to happen as well... for them to let everyone who started the Fiancé(e)/Spousal process before the rule change (I.e. before midnight Eastern Daylight Time on 08 July for the North AmUericans) and then granted a visa have until end of business hours on Thursday 04 April 2014 (exactly 270 day after 08 July - 3 month pre travel allowance plus 6 month visa validity = 270) to get their FLR(M)/SET(M) granted or be removed.

It would seem logical to me that since the government is going to get our application fees anyway, it would be in their best interests to follow that tack (and let the lot of us have that concession) given that it would be a 'sure thing' revenue stream, even if it's a temporary one... It'd be a win win situation for everyone. They get the FLR/SET/ILR fees sooner, they weed out the scammers & overstayers (and those who are unable to suppor themselves & their partners.... not everyone has the £££ sitting around or the ability to cough up the initial application fees, wedding/airfare/moving/household set up costs, daily living costs AND the settlement application costs all within a 9 month period) and and we get a shorter probationary period on the road to citizenship.

Ah well, gal can dream, can't she? 


b.t.w., I HATE THE DAILY FAIL!!!


----------



## dstone

okay here's my question, my Fiance' earns less than 18,600 per year. I currently also work, own a house, a car, and make 30k (US dollars a year). I"m not apposed to working but under this rule I can't even come over and get married. I don't want to suck off the public funds ( never have never will) Why can't they gage it more on a Debt to Income ratio rather than stating an over all Income. I realize for 6 months I wouldn't be able to work but I have enough savings to cover my debt. So Tell me where the logic is in this move for the "honest couples".


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

One question that hasn't been looked at... will these new rules bring about a new fee schedule for applicants, regardless of what part of the process they're in?

Or is there some established protocol for fee hikes? I know that in Canada, when the government raised the cost of getting a pardon for a criminal record, they indicated right away and on the appropriate section of the gc.ca website what the current fee was, what the new fee would be and when the new fee would take effect.

While it seems unfair to bring about this rule revision AND a possible new fee schedule, I just thought I'd throw it out there to see what its chances are of being enforcible at this time. I could see it changing next year when the Language Test and Life in the UK test requirements come into effect (I actually think the Life test is a good thing... have a copy of the current booklet to study from and am actually learning stuff about my new homeland that I hadn't learned before in school).

Anyway, since this has been such a hot topic, I thought I'd ask - and f.w.i.w., I think that the exchange rate that they're charging is just plain mean... Friday's market close had the £ at USD $1.547, and even with the 3% consumer market mark-up that the banks would charge, that would only increase it to USD $1.59 and _*not*_ the USD $1.65 that is currently posted on the UKBA website (yes, I know I'm whining, but they're gouging us CAD $ and USD $ income earners!)


----------



## newlight1

Interesting article in the guardian that TM can not use secondary legislation to dictate to judges or trump their interpretation of article 8, which was what she was saying she would do.


----------



## Mervinia N

Just watched Channel 4 news, who had the head of JCWI on regarding the immigration news.

The C4 presenter showed his surprise when he was told that an EU person in the UK can bring a spouse without restriction but a British citizen can't... "what, you mean a Spanish person living in the UK can bring a spouse in without these restrictions?"... "Exactly" was the very simple reply causing a moment or twos pause from the presenter.

This is the issue when people talk about immigration; the fact that many don't realise the separation between non-EU migration requiring visas and EU migration which doesn't require a visa and had very few rules.
These new rules will potentially hit family migration hard but with very little dent in overall immigration figures - family migration is 18% of total visas issued and new rules will stop 40% of them.


----------



## 2farapart

dstone said:


> okay here's my question, my Fiance' earns less than 18,600 per year. I currently also work, own a house, a car, and make 30k (US dollars a year). I"m not apposed to working but under this rule I can't even come over and get married. I don't want to suck off the public funds ( never have never will) Why can't they gage it more on a Debt to Income ratio rather than stating an over all Income. I realize for 6 months I wouldn't be able to work but I have enough savings to cover my debt. So Tell me where the logic is in this move for the "honest couples".


The government has only two goals in mind: _reduce net immigration by 2015_ and to be able to _deport foreign national criminals when required_. In that regard, fairness (or even logic) doesn't really have a part. That sounds much more cynical than I mean it to sound, but the best way to realise your goals is find a way _around_ the new restrictions rather than wait in the hope someone will call 'foul' on the government.

In your situation, it might be better to get married in the US before you apply for a UK visa, thereby skipping the fiancé visa altogether. This would mean you could seek work and hopefully be supporting yourself by the time the ILR application comes around. The only 'unknown' here at this point is whether the onus would STILL be on the sponsor (your fiancé) meeting the minimum threshold, but having listened to the Home Secretary's interview, the thrust was still very much on a couple supporting themselves and their family with no burden on the British taxpayer. So we can hope!


----------



## lope85

Please sign this petition to stop these new rules being imposed.

google e petitions direct gov uk 32167


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

lope85 said:


> Please sign this petition to stop these new rules being imposed.
> 
> google e petitions direct gov uk 32167


Ya mean this one?

Stop Changes to Immigration Laws in June 2012 - e-petitions


----------



## lope85

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Ya mean this one?



Yep! Won't allow me to post actual link as I'm new here!


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

lope85 said:


> Yep! Won't allow me to post actual link as I'm new here!


Since I signed it yesterday over a hundred new signatures have been added. I hope you (and anyone reading this) understand that this is essentially a futile gesture (but one that feels really-really-really good!) because:

*100,000 signatures are needed to trigger a debate

*We may have run out of time for it to make a difference anyway because we've been led to believe there is going to be an announcement. and Joppa has found an article on the news paywall site The Sunday Times that these rules are effective on the 9th (scroll back up the thread, somewhere around page 10-15)

But still, it felt REALLY good to sign that thing! In fact, let me post that link again...

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/32167


----------



## dr1

Seems like many of you are now out of the water. I'm still not though, I make more than my partner and he still falls short of the 18,000 but combined we make a significant amount as I have a better paying job. Do these changes take into consideration if the partner is already on FLR in country? Any word on it being retrospective?


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

dr1 said:


> Seems like many of you are now out of the water. I'm still not though, I make more than my partner and he still falls short of the 18,000 but combined we make a significant amount as I have a better paying job. Do these changes take into consideration if the partner is already on FLR in country? Any word on it being retrospective?


No word on any transitional arrangements so hope still floats on that. Also, in her interview this morning she didn't say anything about the income being strictly the sponsor's, so hope floats there as well.

ETA: have you signed?:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/32167


----------



## 2farapart

dr1 said:


> Seems like many of you are now out of the water. I'm still not though, I make more than my partner and he still falls short of the 18,000 but combined we make a significant amount as I have a better paying job. Do these changes take into consideration if the partner is already on FLR in country? Any word on it being retrospective?


We don't yet know, and might not know even after the official announcement. This is something that will be ironed out before the date the changes are to come into effect. The Home Secretary repeatedly stresses that _couples must be able to support themselves_ but there was nothing she said that implied that only the UK partner's income would be counted (it might be so, but if so it hasn't yet been mentioned). I think it won't matter who is earning provided that the couple between them meet the requirement, *but that's my personal thought*. However, I also think that relying on third-party sponsors will be decidedly risky (I think it will be much safer to ensure if possible you can make that money yourselves before reaching the ILR stage).

As far as whether the changes will be retrospective, that's something we all want to know. I hope we know soon!


----------



## lope85

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Since I signed it yesterday over a hundred new signatures have been added. I hope you (and anyone reading this) understand that this is essentially a futile gesture (but one that feels really-really-really good!) because:
> 
> *100,000 signatures are needed to trigger a debate
> 
> *We may have run out of time for it to make a difference anyway because we've been led to believe there is going to be an announcement. and Joppa has found an article on the news paywall site The Sunday Times that these rules are effective on the 9th (scroll back up the thread, somewhere around page 10-15)
> 
> But still, it felt REALLY good to sign that thing! In fact, let me post that link again...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it does, all my friends are signing it too! I think I read that post about this coming into effect 09/07 however my partner and I are wondering if we apply for a fiance visa before that date if it's even going to be worth it (can't meet the required income)


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

lope85 said:


> Yeah, it does, all my friends are signing it too! I think I read that post about this coming into effect 09/07 however my partner and I are wondering if we apply for a fiance visa before that date if it's even going to be worth it (can't meet the required income)


We won't know anything for certain until the announcement is made officially, and is posted with all details on the Home Office and UKBA sites-we have been led to believe the announcement will be made tomorrow, so try not to let this get you down until we know for sure.

ETA: Let me add that link again for folks who may have missed it earlier...

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/32167


----------



## dr1

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> No word on any transitional arrangements so hope still floats on that. Also, in her interview this morning she didn't say anything about the income being strictly the sponsor's, so hope floats there as well.
> 
> ETA: have you signed?:
> 
> Stop Changes to Immigration Laws in June 2012 - e-petitions


Yup just signed . But i was wondering how effective it would be as the petition states £25,700 but Theresa May said £18,000??


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

dr1 said:


> Yup just signed . But i was wondering how effective it would be as the petition states £25,700 but Theresa May said £18,000??


Actually she said £18,600.

Lol, I think that's another reason why signing is probably not going to make a difference. I think too that 100,000 signatures are needed to make a difference, and that an official announcement and set implementation date also take away from any real significance. 

But come on, after you signed, didn't you feel great for having done?


----------



## peppera-ann-

My spousal visa is expiring July 22, so only in 2 weeks I will be applying for ILR- 
My husbands income alone will not meet the 18,600 let alone the 25+ but if we can combine it, we will just meet the 25+ ...ugh. Ive been searching everywhere for updated information...
Fingers crossed that its not effective untill later in the year?


----------



## Dylan-is-Caths

peppera-ann- said:


> My spousal visa is expiring July 22, so only in 2 weeks I will be applying for ILR-
> My husbands income alone will not meet the 18,600 let alone the 25+ but if we can combine it, we will just meet the 25+ ...ugh. Ive been searching everywhere for updated information...
> Fingers crossed that its not effective untill later in the year?


I send all the good vibes I can for you. AND **hugs**. This is the whole point. Do they even realise how many legitimate families this could tear apart? I hope it works out for you.


----------



## 2farapart

peppera-ann- said:


> My spousal visa is expiring July 22, so only in 2 weeks I will be applying for ILR-
> My husbands income alone will not meet the 18,600 let alone the 25+ but if we can combine it, we will just meet the 25+ ...ugh. Ive been searching everywhere for updated information...
> Fingers crossed that its not effective untill later in the year?


I hope so too. 

People with their ILR coming up won't have had any chance to prepare for this. Fact is that you are contributing and paying your way jointly, and jointly you exceed the new minimum, so fingers crossed that you'll be absolutely fine.


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle

peppera-ann- said:


> My spousal visa is expiring July 22, so only in 2 weeks I will be applying for ILR-
> My husbands income alone will not meet the 18,600 let alone the 25+ but if we can combine it, we will just meet the 25+ ...ugh. Ive been searching everywhere for updated information...
> Fingers crossed that its not effective untill later in the year?


Sorry if I've missed something, but I thought you could apply for ILR no more than 28 days before your FLR visa expired. That means that you can prepare and submit an application 28 days before 22 July, placing you squarely within the current rules.


----------



## peppera-ann-

BailyBanksBiddle said:


> Sorry if I've missed something, but I thought you could apply for ILR no more than 28 days before your FLR visa expired. That means that you can prepare and submit an application 28 days before 22 July, placing you squarely within the current rules.


Well Ive not seen the update as to when the new maintenance rules will take affect? But yeah I can apply on June 25th.


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle

peppera-ann- said:


> Well Ive not seen the update as to when the new maintenance rules will take affect? But yeah I can apply on June 25th.


It looks like 9 July, but that what is in the papers. But if it is so and you can get it in on the 25th, good luck and go for it, my prayers and best wishes are with you!


----------



## peppera-ann-

BailyBanksBiddle said:


> It looks like 9 July, but that what is in the papers. But if it is so and you can get it in on the 25th, good luck and go for it, my prayers and best wishes are with you!


Oh holy bajezubuz!! If its the 9th, I will be fine, but in my happiness- there is terrible thoughts of all the others that will not be able to. Its terrible.

Thank you for your kind words <3


----------



## dstone

I have forwarded that link on Facebook and have tagged my friends, fiance and others in it. Where I'm a US citizen I can't sign it but they sure can. Maybe it will go viral. (lol here's hoping)

As for the 18,600.. No he doesn't make that (honestly tell me what middle class citizen actually does) but if they'll take into account my savings and his annual income we'd be fine.

I was looking to put in for my Fiance' visa next week so would that still count under the existing rules? I am actually traveling over to England for a friends wedding in september and was just going to use my already booked ticket to stay. My fiance and I were planning our wedding for November 24th?

Still so many questions... HELP??????


----------



## manny.j

I have been following the changes proposed for spouse immigration rules and feel very relived that my wife recently got her ILR based on her 4+ years marriage where we lived abroad. In fact, we rushed our return to the UK just so that we do not fall into the new rules.

To be honest the threshold of 18.6K is significantly lower than expected 26K earlier...this should relieve a lot of people here concerned with the proposed changes. 

I guess the other 3 crucial concerns people here have are:
(a) if savings will be taken into account 
(b) co-sponsors will still be allowed and
(c) whether people already on 2 year visa would be required to extend it to 5 years.

My feeling is that Govt. was intending to introduce 26K threshold but the delays in implementing new changes only suggests they analyzed all the variables and realized not to mess with family immigration rules too much...otherwise reduction of _only _ 25,000 out of current 250,000 visas based on family migration is not what I would call a paradigm shift in the inflow of immigrants into the United Kingdom.


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

dstone said:


> I have forwarded that link on Facebook and have tagged my friends, fiance and others in it. Where I'm a US citizen I can't sign it but they sure can. Maybe it will go viral. (lol here's hoping)
> 
> As for the 18,600.. No he doesn't make that (honestly tell me what middle class citizen actually does) but if they'll take into account my savings and his annual income we'd be fine.
> 
> * I was looking to put in for my Fiance' visa next week so would that still count under the existing rules? I am actually traveling over to England for a friends wedding in september and was just going to use my already booked ticket to stay. My fiance and I were planning our wedding for November 24th?
> *
> Still so many questions... HELP??????


From what I understand, (it was 4am PST/Noon GMT yesterday when I was reading and posting), as long as complete (pay for) your application _*BEFORE MIDNIGHT EASTERN DAYLIGHT TIME*_ on *JULY 08, 2012* (I don't know what part of the US you are in... I'm in Vancouver, so I'd have to finish before 9 p.m. Pacific, as we're 3 hours behind New York) then you should be o. k. for fitting in under the current rules, as I would imagine that WorldBridge would be using EDT as their frame of reference.

However, when they approve your visa (and mine too), there's a good chance that you and I will be subject to the 5 year wait to get ILR. We still have to file for our FLR(M) card before our shiny new visas expire, but after that hoop has been hopped, we then have to do the Life in the UK test and sit tight for 5 years before applying for ILR. 

If I were you, since the English Language requirement doesn't apply to you or me (by virtue of the fact that we are both nationals of countries that have an automatic exemption), I'd do the Life in the UK test as soon as possible after your FLR(M) is approved (I plan to write in the new year, as my wedding date is exactly 3 weeks before yours), just to get it out of the way and also use it as a safeguard against any further changes in regards to that part of the rule... again, it's my understanding that once we have a pass, it's a pass and is valid for use towards the ILR/citizenship application


----------



## dstone

WestCoastCanadianGirl said:


> From what I understand, (it was 4am PST/Noon GMT yesterday when I was reading and posting), as long as complete (pay for) your application _*BEFORE MIDNIGHT EASTERN DAYLIGHT TIME*_ on *JULY 08, 2012* (I don't know what part of the US you are in... I'm in Vancouver, so I'd have to finish before 9 p.m. Pacific, as we're 3 hours behind New York) then you should be o. k. for fitting in under the current rules, as I would imagine that WorldBridge would be using EDT as their frame of reference.
> 
> However, when they approve your visa (and mine too), there's a good chance that you and I will be subject to the 5 year wait to get ILR. We still have to file for our FLR(M) card before our shiny new visas expire, but after that hoop has been hopped, we then have to do the Life in the UK test and sit tight for 5 years before applying for ILR.
> 
> If I were you, since the English Language requirement doesn't apply to you or me (by virtue of the fact that we are both nationals of countries that have an automatic exemption), I'd do the Life in the UK test as soon as possible after your FLR(M) is approved (I plan to write in the new year, as my wedding date is exactly 3 weeks before yours), just to get it out of the way and also use it as a safeguard against any further changes in regards to that part of the rule... again, it's my understanding that once we have a pass, it's a pass and is valid for use towards the ILR/citizenship application



That's what I'm reading too.. I"m just waiting for my Fiance's paperwork (traveling to me by British Royal Mail) 

I'm keeping my fingers crossed and honestly I don't mind taking a test for the "country Loyalty". I love English history and find it really interesting, especiallly the Royals. Little known fact: Lady Jane Grey was Queen for 14 days before Mary Queen of Scott's had her beheaded for trying to steal her thrown. 

as for the 5yr thing.. I'm not worried about that either as long as I'll be able to work other wise I'll go a bit cookoo.


----------



## newlight1

> From what I understand, (it was 4am PST/Noon GMT yesterday when I was reading and posting), as long as complete (pay for) your application BEFORE MIDNIGHT EASTERN DAYLIGHT TIME on JULY 08, 2012 (I don't know what part of the US you are in... I'm in Vancouver, so I'd have to finish before 9 p.m. Pacific, as we're 3 hours behind New York) then you should be o. k. for fitting in under the current rules


Yes that is true probably, BUT it would be pointless if say she does that, gets the Fiance Visa, travels to the UK for instance Aug 1st, gets married Aug 20th, applies for her FLR on Aug 22nd and then has to meet the new rules on that date and if she cant meet the new rules be deported?


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

newlight1 said:


> Yes that is true probably, BUT it would be pointless if say she does that, gets the Fiance Visa, travels to the UK for instance Aug 1st, gets married Aug 20th, applies for her FLR on Aug 22nd and then has to meet the new rules on that date and if she cant meet the new rules be deported?


The timing of their application would depend on their financial situation. 

If they find that they won't qualify under the July 9 rules, then they have no choice but to file online before midnight Eastern Daylight Time on July 8, just to make sure that the application is in the system... we are of the understanding that all applications filed online before the midnight EDT on July 8 will be exempt from the July 9 rules. Once she's in, she's in i.e. if she is approved for the Fiancée visa under the current rules, then she need only get married before that visa expires and get her FLR(M) approved. As far as we know, the only change to the FLR(M) visa is that the probation will be changed from 2 to 5 years... there is no burden of proof as far as income level at this stage of the game... she just has to prove that she's fulfilled the conditions of her original visa (which is to get married, which will be accomplished on November 24). If they susupect it's a sham marriage, then they could decline the FLR and potentially deport, but as long as she shows the PEO what they want to see, she should be good to go.

If they're in a similar boat I am in (where the July 9 rules are still being met), then the're free to apply at any time, before or after July 8th.

She and I will still be subject to the July 9 rules as it pretains to the 5 probation period (which she says is not a problem... it's not a problem for me either... I'm just being selfish and impatient in my whining), as neither of us will have had their FLR granted.

I still think that it's in our best interests to get the Life test out of the way sooner rather than later (and I'd think definitely _before_ October 2013, when they'll be mandatory for _everyone_) because not only do I think that they'll make the test harder (to further thin out the immigration pool), they'll likely try and jack the testing fees as well (for the simple fact that the rules will have changed).


----------



## newlight1

Yes I hear what you are saying but what I mean is that she will apply for the Fiance Visa BEFORE July 9th, qualify under the old rules but then would she be subject to the NEW rules when she applies for the FLR after she gets married?


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

newlight1 said:


> Yes I hear what you are saying but what I mean is that she will apply for the Fiance Visa BEFORE July 9th, qualify under the old rules but then would she be subject to the NEW rules when she applies for the FLR after she gets married?


It would appear that she and I (and a good many others out there) will be caught in that trap... our applications will be started under the old rules but our FLR will be subject to the new rules. 

There is also speculation that those who _are already on the FLR(M) and SET(M)_ will be tossed into this same trap, regardless if they've been on it for 1 day or are 1 day away from getting ILR as of July 9th. They will need to apply for an extension on their visas.

It is our hope (whish? desire?) that everyone who applies by July 8 and is subsequently approved for a fiancé(e) visa as well as those on FLR(M) and SET(M) visas will be given a special exemption from the July 9 rules, as it pertains to the increased probation. It's not likely that this will happen, but it would be awfully generous of the Home Office to do that for us.


----------



## newlight1

So basically she dstone would be deported if her spouse did not meet the new rules then when applying for the FLR? That would be pretty terrible I think. 

Although changes to visas over the last 5 years, grandfathering is common and usually the rule changes will only affect new applications outside the UK.

For example, they got rid of the Tier 1 General visa in April 2011, however, people who are already living in the UK on a Tier 1 visas are still allowed to apply for a Tier 1 extension when their visa expires, even though technically the visa no longer exists. They can also still apply for ILR after 5 years in the UK on Tier 1.

Similarly with Tier 2 General - the new restrictions on income for ILR will only apply to people who apply for ILR after April 2016... which means that the majority of people who are already in the UK on work permits or Tier 2 visas will still be able to qualify for ILR under the current/old requirements (i.e. only people who got their visas after April 2011 will not reach 5 years in the UK before April 2016).

And not related to immigration, but similar things have occurred in other area


----------



## Joppa

According to the order paper, ministerial statements are due to be delivered at 3.30 pm, so I expect the Home Secretary's statement on immigration reform to be made around that time.


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

Theoretically, she could be rendered ineligible to stay in the UK if her husband doesn't qualify under the July 9 rules, but we won't know until the official announcement is made some time on Monday.

It's unknown right now if her savings or third party support will be acceptable. If it is acceptable under July 9 and it boosts them over the £18600p.a. threshold, then she can stay. If it is not acceptable, then they will have to consider their alternatives.

Tomorrow will be Judgement Day, of sorts, for a good number of people in the UK and out of it. While we have had a preview of what is coming down the pipes, we don't know the full extent of what the Home Office is planning to do.

In the best case scenario, those who get their papers into the system before July 9th get grandfathered in to ILR under pre-July 9 rules. 

Worst case scenario, dstone and so many other people will have to find alternate places to live.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

Joppa said:


> According to the order paper, *ministerial statements* are due to be delivered *at 3.30 pm*, so I expect the Home Secretary's statement on immigration reform to be made around that time.


Thank-you Joppa. (my bold to highlight time and event)


----------



## 2farapart

I'm thinking we'll only hear today what has already been announced already (in an ordered way), and not yet the finer details on whether it will be rolled back to affect people already on transitioning visas such as spouse and FLR (which might still need to be fine-tuned before the policy comes into effect).

I'm also hoping I'm wrong because I, like so many of us here, badly want to know what we face next.


----------



## Joppa

2farapart said:


> I'm thinking we'll only hear today what has already been announced already (in an ordered way), and not yet the finer details on whether it will be rolled back to affect people already on transitioning visas such as spouse and FLR (which might still need to be fine-tuned before the policy comes into effect).
> 
> I'm also hoping I'm wrong because I, like so many of us here, badly want to know what we face next.


True, the ministerial statement will be the bare outline of proposed changes, but the devil is in the details and usually it's accompanied by papers that are deposited in the Commons library and usually available online on Home Office site at Welcome to the Home Office and the familiar UKBA site (usually later) at UK Border Agency | Home Page.
As the expected start date is 9th July, I'm pretty certain revised immigration rules will be published at the same time (Statement of Change), though staff memoranda (those that are published) will probably not be updated until closer to the July date.


----------



## dstone

I'm hoping for somewhere in the middle of the road. Get my fiance visa under the old rules but realistically expect to be on probation for 5 yrs and have to take the test. (honestly i'm surpised they didn't implement a test sooner. )


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

dstone said:


> I'm hoping for somewhere in the middle of the road. Get my fiance visa under the old rules but realistically expect to be on probation for 5 yrs and have to take the test. (honestly i'm surpised they didn't implement a test sooner. )


Actually, the test has been in place for all visas involving settlement since 2007 for applicants from countries like the US where English is the national language. 

Coming in on the fiancee visa from the US under the current rules, you have to enter the UK and marry during the six months of the fiancee visa. 

You would then apply for the FLR(M) which turns the fiancee visa into a probationary spouse visa. 

At the end of the probationary period, even under the current rules, you must first take and pass the Life In The UK test if you are from an English speaking country, and then apply for the Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR).

I don't know why the LiUK test is being mentioned at all unless it's because under the proposed rules the option to take an English as a second language test if you are from a country that English is not the national language is eliminated-if the new rules are really implemented, all potential ILR applicants will have to take the LiUK test.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

dstone said:


> ...I love English history and find it really interesting, especiallly the Royals. Little known fact: Lady Jane Grey was Queen for 14 days before Mary Queen of Scott's had her beheaded for trying to steal her thrown.


It can be confusing, all these Marys. But as a Scot by heritage and hopefully by citizenship soon, I have to correct that one

Actually, the Queen Mary who had Lady Jane Grey beheaded was the Mary known as 'Bloody Mary'; she was the child of Henry VIII and his first wife Catherine (of Aragon) and the only of their children to survive infancy. 

Mary, Queen of Scots was beheaded by Bloody Mary's sister Elizabeth I, several decades later.


----------



## Dylan-is-Caths

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> I don't know why the LiUK test is being mentioned at all unless it's because under the proposed rules the option to take an English as a second language test if you are from a country that English is not the national language is eliminated-if the new rules are really implemented, all potential ILR applicants will have to take the LiUK test.


Not to make light of this situation, but 2farapart INSISTS I don't speak "proper" English and why did they skip us.


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

dstone said:


> I'm hoping for somewhere in the middle of the road. Get my fiance visa under the old rules but realistically expect to be on probation for 5 yrs and have to take the test. (honestly i'm surpised they didn't implement a test sooner. )


The test has never NOT been an option for ILR/Citizenship, which I think is a good thing... we should be able to prove that we know something about our adopted countries... immigrants to the Canada and the United States have to take a citizenship test, so it seems only fair that we have to take one as well.

I still think that it's a good idea to get it over and done with as soon as possible after your FLR(M) has been granted (I think that I read somewhere that the test fee is like £50 or something like that).... I have a feeling that with all of the changes coming down the pipe for October '13, they're going to mess with the exam and possibly the fee, and since ILR candidates just need a "Pass" on the exam (and it's my understanding that it doesn't matter _when_ the pass is from, as long as one has proof of the pass), doing it NOW (before the end of 2012) will hopefully avoid grief further down the line.

I've also heard that the LiUK isn't super difficult. One of Ed's friends (a guy from western Canada) passed it in some stupidly fast time (less than 15 minutes, I think).


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

Dylan-is-Caths said:


> Not to make light of this situation, but 2farapart INSISTS I don't speak "proper" English and why did they skip us.


LOL, my husband does the same thing. He says 'No, you do not speak English. You speak American!' He's right of course, even though I did spend half my childhood in the UK (divorced parents) I'm finding I don't speak Queen's English nearly as well as I thought-I sometimes wish I could take the ESL classes. 

I think the Canadians have a bit of an edge:lol:


----------



## shellybeans

Dylan-is-Caths said:


> Not to make light of this situation, but 2farapart INSISTS I don't speak "proper" English and why did they skip us.


This made me laugh. My husband says the exact same thing. I have been going on and on about all of this to him and he has not reacted very much and has just kept repeating to me that it will all work out and be fine. But when I told him one of the new requirements would be a test of spoken English, he laughed and said that was the part I should be sweating.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

I have a question.

If the probationary period is extended out to five years, will they have to also change the citizenship rule?

For example, I'd planned to apply for the ILR in spring 2013, and then for citizenship in 2014 because I will have been resident in the UK for a total of three years. (I've no travel plans for more than the permitted time during the establishing years) 

If our probationary periods are extended and they don't make a change to the three years to citizenship application, does that mean we can apply-even on a probationary period?

Not looking for loopholes, am looking for understanding.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

I've deleted a double post (see above), and I'm really not sure how that happened-didn't hit send twice, and didn't refresh during the hang. 

Things that make you go hmmmm!


----------



## nyclon

> I'm keeping my fingers crossed and honestly I don't mind taking a test for the "country Loyalty". I love English history and find it really interesting, especiallly the Royals. Little known fact: Lady Jane Grey was Queen for 14 days before Mary Queen of Scott's had her beheaded for trying to steal her thrown.


Lucky for you, the Life in the UK test has very little to do with English or to be more precise, British history.



> It can be confusing, all these Marys. But as a Scot by heritage and hopefully by citizenship soon, I have to correct that one
> 
> Actually, the Queen Mary who had Lady Jane Grey beheaded was the Mary known as 'Bloody Mary'; she was the child of Henry VIII and his first wife Catherine (of Aragon) and the only of their children to survive infancy.
> 
> Mary, Queen of Scots was beheaded by Bloody Mary's sister Elizabeth I, several decades later.


----------



## nyclon

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> I have a question.
> 
> If the probationary period is extended out to five years, will they have to also change the citizenship rule?
> 
> For example, I'd planned to apply for the ILR in spring 2013, and then for citizenship in 2014 because I will have been resident in the UK for a total of three years. (I've no travel plans for more than the permitted time during the establishing years)
> 
> If our probationary periods are extended and they don't make a change to the three years to citizenship application, does that mean we can apply-even on a probationary period?
> 
> Not looking for loopholes, am looking for understanding.


You can't apply for citizenship without first having Indefinite Leave to Remain. People on work permits/Tier 2/ HSMP (and whatever else it has been called) can apply for ILR after 5 years and citizenship after 1 year or longer of ILR. There is nothing saying that you have to apply for citizenship. You'll be on the same timetable. Since you wouldn't be able to apply for ILR until you have been in the UK for 5 years, you certainly wouldn't be able to apply for citizenship after 3.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

nyclon said:


> You can't apply for citizenship without first having Indefinite Leave to Remain. People on work permits/Tier 2/ HSMP (and whatever else it has been called) can apply for ILR after 5 years and citizenship after 1 year or longer of ILR. There is nothing saying that you have to apply for citizenship. You'll be on the same timetable. Since you wouldn't be able to apply for ILR until you have been in the UK for 5 years, you certainly wouldn't be able to apply for citizenship after 3.


Thank-you Nyclon, that's the clearest answer I've got from anyone on this. I thought that might be the case, and I appreciate your clarifying it for me


----------



## dstone

nyclon said:


> lucky for you, the life in the uk test has very little to do with english or to be more precise, british history.



   

roflmao


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

Joppa said:


> According to the order paper, *ministerial statements are due to be delivered at 3.30 pm*, so I expect the *Home Secretary's statement on immigration reform to be made around that time*.


REMINDER-this is about to be televised, BBC Parliament on channel 81 (FreeView) has it listed in the digital on screen guide. 

(Gnaws nails, grabs digital recorder, notepad, and biro...)


----------



## casjoe

Has it been announced? I'm trying to find more information and can't.


----------



## dr1

I haven't even seen Theresa May in these proceedings

Side Note: Why do the Ministers stand up every time there's a rebuttal? Never seen this practise in other westminster systems.


----------



## chek

They are just discussing about the VAT and Therasay May is not present.


----------



## newlight1

TM for some reason is not in the room? I wonder why? would have thought she would be?


----------



## uzi

So any news yet? its half 3


----------



## erimou

I'm so nervous!!


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

@Dr1, yeah, I'm wondering about that standing up thing too. Sigh, maybe it's something I missed, or haven't got to yet in the LiUK book yet.

And I don't see TM either. Maybe she is on her way? I know they are running behind schedule-the discussion on defense was supposed to end by 1530 and it ran over at least 20 minutes. 

Still don't see Ms May. I wonder how long it will take to get to her turn?


----------



## chek

Nope no news guess is just rumours they are just debating on TAX.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

chek said:


> Nope no news guess is just rumours they are just debating on TAX.


LOL, they are really going at it on those U-Turns. 

However, I'm sure that Ms May will be addressing today, and we all just have to keep an eye on the telly until she appears. Hague is also supposed to make an address-whoops, he's on, Ms May is scheduled just after him!


----------



## chek

The news papers are not always right only few of them are . We should all try to worry less


----------



## uzi

i cant find expat shield for mac so cant watch the thing  
huh tax..... are they increasing the tax too?


----------



## newlight1

she sitting in middle of second row!! TM is!


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

newlight1 said:


> she sitting in middle of second row!! TM is!


She slipped in from somewhere.

*She's up after Mr Hague*...


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

Shadow Foreign Secretary is speaking now, and I do have to say, what they are talking about puts our immigration situation into perspective. God help the innocents caught up in this. 

Ms May will be speaking soon.


----------



## newlight1

Seems like it has been delayed till 5pm?

BBC - Democracy Live - Family migration statement


----------



## uzi

I just pray that TM says the rules will be implemented from next years......


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

newlight1 said:


> Seems like it has been delayed till 5pm?
> 
> BBC - Democracy Live - Family migration statement


5pm makes sense as the issue they are discussing right now will undoubtedly take at least till 5.

I'm staying on BBC Parliament tv, but this is a great link you've posted, I'm bookmarking it for the future, thank-you!


----------



## erimou

newlight1 said:


> Seems like it has been delayed till 5pm?
> 
> BBC - Democracy Live - Family migration statement


Thank you for posting this!! I'm glad I can watch from the US.


----------



## mehemlynn

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> 5pm makes sense as the issue they are discussing right now will undoubtedly take at least till 5.
> 
> I'm staying on BBC Parliament tv, but this is a great link you've posted, I'm bookmarking it for the future, thank-you!


Actually Parliament TV is pretty interesting. Such an important topic, it is very interesting to hear the debate.

M


----------



## uzi

Thanks for the link i can watch it from pakistan too.....YES!!!


----------



## Dylan-is-Caths

Seems politicians are the same no matter the country.....They go on and on and on.....still waiting. Hopefully not long now.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

She's up now!!


----------



## Dylan-is-Caths

Dylan-is-Caths said:


> Seems politicians are the same no matter the country.....They go on and on and on.....still waiting. Hopefully not long now.


Not meant as disrespect. Just sitting on pins and needles and here she goes, I agree with her so far.


----------



## dr1

She mentioned all *new spouses*. What does this mean for users already on FLR?


----------



## Dylan-is-Caths

dr1 said:


> She mentioned all *new spouses*. What does this mean for users already on FLR?


She is very unclear


----------



## george567

Hi, just watching the live feed, it was mentioned that the minimum income needs to be 18,600 per year. How definite is that amount, as in what is the case when you are beneath the amount by about 1-2K? Thanks


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

Dylan-is-Caths said:


> She is very unclear


Why am I getting the impression these changes have to be voted on-she said something about hoping the Shadow Sec goes along with support when the voting on Article and family migration changes is done-what vote, I thought this was a done deal?!

@Dr1, I think this all means we still don't know anything and must wait for an actual publication on the UKBA site under the actual rules.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

She just said that there will be leeway and flexibility for disabled sponsors. 

Still nothing about transitional arrangements commonly known as 'grandfathering'...


----------



## dr1

These opposing MP's are asking all the wrong questions my goodness i wanna scream at them. It's almost like they're bypassing the technicalities of these changes and focusing way too much on Article 8 in relation to criminal activity.


----------



## casjoe

What was it that the woman just asked about spouses not even being able to get a 6 month visitor's visa? 
Spouses can't come for a visit????


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

dr1 said:


> These opposing MP's are asking all the wrong questions my goodness i wanna scream at them. It's almost like they're bypassing the technicalities of these changes and focusing way too much on Article 8 in relation to criminal activity.


Me too, I want one of them to ask 'why do you keep implying these people are a burden when their visas clearly say no recourse to public funds?'

3rd party sponsorship to be tightened up but still possbile-I'm thinking they'll have to sign the sponsor undertaking.

She just let it slip that there WILL be transitional arrangements, details to follow when rule laid in July...

@casjoe, foreign spouses can apply for visitor visas to come in and see loved ones but if the application is refused, the right to a full appeal is gone, and the applicant should simply reapply according to Ms May, because often new documents are presented that had those documents been presented with the initial application would have likely resulted in an approval, appeals cost the taxpayers a lot so the thinking is the applicant must submit (and pay) a new app rather than cost the taxpayers...


----------



## casjoe

Thanks.
Do spouses necessarily need to apply for a visitor's visa ahead of time? I thought that spouses were able to just come and be granted the visa on arrival.


----------



## Dylan-is-Caths

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Why am I getting the impression these changes have to be voted on-she said something about hoping the Shadow Sec goes along with support when the voting on Article and family migration changes is done-what vote, I thought this was a done deal?!


I think it's a 2farapart said. This will go into affect and then hashed out in the legislative body. Eventually everything will be nailed down. But WE here are interested in the grandfathering, income thresholds, etc. Income thresholds effective in July? 2farapart and I will have no worries with that but nothing answered really on the Overseas Partner Income being counted.Seems this is geared at deportation of criminals? None of this answered any of our questions.


----------



## Team Stephenson

Okay, I know this question is going to be asked a million times over, but was there any mention as to what this means for people like me. People who have their 2 year probationary spouse settlement visa? My wife isn't going to be sent home, is she? I earn over the thresholds, just barely, but she has not arrived in the UK yet. She is due to arrive July 2nd. We have injected ALL of our savings and earnings, I mean all, in to our move here... Flights... transporting her belongings... If she can't come, this could financially ruin us, because she has also quit her job in the US.

I am a little worried.


----------



## mehemlynn

casjoe said:


> Thanks.
> Do spouses necessarily need to apply for a visitor's visa ahead of time? I thought that spouses were able to just come and be granted the visa on arrival.


There are countries that people don't have the visa waver from. Also sometimes if someone was refused a settlement visa they will get a visitor visa to enter the country so they aren't turned away at the border (even if it is a visa waver country).

M


----------



## mehemlynn

Team Stephenson said:


> Okay, I know this question is going to be asked a million times over, but was there any mention as to what this means for people like me. People who have their 2 year probationary spouse settlement visa? My wife isn't going to be sent home, is she? I earn over the thresholds, just barely, but she has not arrived in the UK yet. She is due to arrive July 2nd. We have injected ALL of our savings and earnings, I mean all, in to our move here... Flights... transporting her belongings... If she can't come, this could financially ruin us, because she has also quit her job in the US.
> 
> I am a little worried.


You all already have the spouse visa, so you have a 2 year waiting game. She won't be turned away, but at some point you will have to apply for her ILR visa, that is the point you could get caught (but the rules could change before then again anyhow). 

We will all learn more as it is announced.


----------



## newlight1

So nothing about transitional arrangements or when the Start date will be either


----------



## dr1

Team Stephenson said:


> Okay, I know this question is going to be asked a million times over, but was there any mention as to what this means for people like me. People who have their 2 year probationary spouse settlement visa?.


I'm in the same boat. Don't know why noone asked about this in the house. The Shadow Secretary hinted at it but didn't make her point clear enough. Alot of us waiting to see whether or not it's retrospective.


----------



## Eugenia_C

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Me too, I want one of them to ask 'why do you keep implying these people are a burden when their visas clearly say no recourse to public funds?'


x1000 !!!!!! 

I am currently on a spousal visa (arrived in late April) and started working two weeks later. What I want to know is, does my income here count towards our application for ILR (or FLR if that is what we have to do...), or at that point is it still only the sponsor's income that counts? If my income doesn't count, then we would just barely not make the income requirement.


----------



## uzi

So when normally anything will be published on the UKBA website just to get the idea.....


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

casjoe said:


> Thanks.
> Do spouses necessarily need to apply for a visitor's visa ahead of time? I thought that spouses were able to just come and be granted the visa on arrival.


Especially now, if a foreign spouse shows up at the border and tells the IO he/she is here to visit spouse and family, he/she will probably be turned back on the assumption that they are a potential overstayer. Much better to apply for the visa. 

But here's the thing-if a foreign spouse can afford to travel to the UK on a visit, why can't he/she afford to get a spouse visa? That's the question I can't figure out, but it is my understanding, too, that a foreign spouse who has made a settlement visa application that has been denied tries to apply for a family visit visa, they have will have a very difficult time proving their suitability to be granted a family visit visa.

I have a question-*is this a done deal, or do they have to still vote and approve all of this?*

There was a lot of opposition to the measures Ms May wants to impose-a lot. I was especially interested to hear Mr Vaz come right out and say this is all targeted at Asians.

*ETA-* Ms May did say, very close to the end, that there will be transitional arrangements, she said this whilst speaking about the military people, who will remain on the same rules as are current, but the part about transitional arrangements was in addition, not as part of. Details of the transitional arrangements are to be announced as part of whatever it is that she is laying on 9th July.


----------



## uzi

Well he is right in saying that as asians will be affected by this rule more than anyone.......but having said that looks like i am the only asian reading this thread


----------



## liam85

So alot of us are non the wiser. Will the UKBA only release the actual detail when these changes come into effect on July 9th or will they release them sooner?


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

uzi said:


> Well he is right in saying that as asians will be affected by this rule more than anyone.......but having said that looks like i am the only asian reading this thread


Not really, there are a lot people who haven't signed in who are reading this thread, also not everyone uses profile flags. Hang in there Uzi, I don't think any of this is quite as carved in stone as we thought it was earlier.


----------



## Joppa

liam85 said:


> So alot of us are non the wiser. Will the UKBA only release the actual detail when these changes come into effect on July 9th or will they release them sooner?


They tend to release them just before start date, no more than a week. 3-4 days are mote common.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

Dylan-is-Caths said:


> I think it's a 2farapart said. This will go into affect and then hashed out in the legislative body. Eventually everything will be nailed down. But WE here are interested in the grandfathering, income thresholds, etc. Income thresholds effective in July? 2farapart and I will have no worries with that but nothing answered really on the Overseas Partner Income being counted.Seems this is geared at deportation of criminals? None of this answered any of our questions.


I did hear her mumble something about 'of course both incomes and saving will be factored in' or something to that effect. She seemed a bit surprised at how much opposition she was facing, and was quite nervous, voice trailing off, condescending mannerisms less to the forefront as the discussion went on...


----------



## mehemlynn

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Especially now, if a foreign spouse shows up at the border and tells the IO he/she is here to visit spouse and family, he/she will probably be turned back on the assumption that they are a potential overstayer. Much better to apply for the visa.
> 
> But here's the thing-if a foreign spouse can afford to travel to the UK on a visit, why can't he/she afford to get a spouse visa? That's the question I can't figure out, but it is my understanding, too, that a foreign spouse who has made a settlement visa application that has been denied tries to apply for a family visit visa, they have will have a very difficult time proving their suitability to be granted a family visit visa.


Hi AiS,

For years my husband and I lived in both countries, we weren't unhappy with the arrangement - we both worked and we talked on the phone hours a day. We didn't get a spouse visa, because at that point we hadn't decided 100% which country we would live in - since we had our daughter and my husband has lived here (US), but he HATES it, so we are applying to go home.

It is also alot of money to have in savings (or income) if you are trying to maintain two houses (which we still do), so a spouse visa could be impossible to get even if a visit isn't ($10,000 in savings vs. $1,000 - tickets for a visit).

M


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

mehemlynn said:


> Hi AiS,
> 
> For years my husband and I lived in both countries, we weren't unhappy with the arrangement - we both worked and we talked on the phone hours a day. We didn't get a spouse visa, because at that point we hadn't decided 100% which country we would live in - since we had our daughter and my husband has lived here (US), but he HATES it, so we are applying to go home.
> 
> It is also alot of money to have in savings (or income) if you are trying to maintain two houses (which we still do), so a spouse visa could be impossible to get even if a visit isn't ($10,000 in savings vs. $1,000 - tickets for a visit).
> 
> M


Good point. I was thinking people who want to come in for several months at a time, isn't the family visitor visa good for three months? I'll have to look that up. 

Lol, my husband hates the thought of living in the US too. A lot!


----------



## Team Stephenson

mehemlynn said:


> You all already have the spouse visa, so you have a 2 year waiting game. She won't be turned away, but at some point you will have to apply for her ILR visa, that is the point you could get caught (but the rules could change before then again anyhow).
> 
> We will all learn more as it is announced.


Thank you. I know nobody has all the answers, but your words are reassuring at least.

Like I say, I will be able to meet the financial thresholds, providing I don't lost my job, or providing it doesn't significantly increase, which of course, it could.


----------



## uzi

Yes your are right anamericanincotland about the carved stone thing.... but these past few days especially yesterday was quite a lot hectic..........
@ Joppa last time i remember they announced the changes on 15th march and they were applicable on 6th april......but what about the 9th april thing is it confirmed now that they will definitely be applicable on 9th? me== confused


----------



## Zama

uzi said:


> Well he is right in saying that as asians will be affected by this rule more than anyone.......but having said that looks like i am the only asian reading this thread


My country is located in central Asia so you are not alone


----------



## mehemlynn

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Good point. I was thinking people who want to come in for several months at a time, isn't the family visitor visa good for three months? I'll have to look that up.
> 
> Lol, my husband hates the thought of living in the US too. A lot!


My husband likes to procrastinate, so maybe all of this will help him get the last two documents that we are waiting for. 

He is very unhappy here, but it wouldn't be good for the two of them to move to the UK without me. 

M


----------



## liam85

Uzi the changes come into affect on the 9th April, except for the language and life in uk test which will come into affect some time next year.

I heard her mention in the statement that all the changes will be outlined in a library document or something next week. Will this be publicly available so we can see the detail before the UKBA release it?


----------



## newlight1

> Ms May did say, very close to the end, that there will be transitional arrangements, she said this whilst speaking about the military people, who will remain on the same rules as are current, but the part about transitional arrangements was in addition, not as part of.


What I wonder is if the transitional arrangement be also applied for those who applied under the old rules but the new rules were introduced before appying for FLR or ILR?

What is the date of the new Maintenance requirements that come into force? Did she mention that?

Does someone refused a Spouse or Fiance visa still have the full right of appeal?


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> I did hear her mumble something about 'of course both incomes and saving will be factored in' or something to that effect. She seemed a bit surprised at how much opposition she was facing, and was quite nervous, voice trailing off, condescending mannerisms less to the forefront as the discussion went on...


She mentioned that certain levels of savings would be taken into account in the context of the question the LibDem asked about parents sponsoring their newly wed children. 

She also didn't answer Yvette Cooper's question about this that came early on when she became frazzled.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

newlight1 said:


> What I wonder is if the transitional arrangement be also applied for those who applied under the old rules but the new rules were introduced before appying for FLR or ILR?


I think that's how transitional arrangements work, but I'm not 100% sure. Still, I was glad to hear her say that because so many people I've spoken to, or read comments from on numerous sites have all been hoping for 'transitional arrangements'. 

You know, something else I noticed during the discussion-she never really addressed any of the rebuttal questions regarding how the miniscule numbers reduction in these visas are worth the trouble (as in cost for administering, wowsa, can you imagine how much all this is going to cost paperwork/IT wise? Can the UKBA afford that with all the staffing cuts they've had to make?!).

I thought that was interesting. Every time she was challenged re the teeny numbers this might cut, she reminded people how many student visas had been cut as a result of her work. 

Trouble is, student visas were always statistically (sez the retired bureaucrat statistician) the highest of all the big numbers, whereas our type of family migration route visas are not only the lowest numbers, but have been declining.

That's something I was shouting at the screen-"Don't you read your own stats?!"

ETA-no, no mention of when the income requirements take effect-9 July? I don't know now, because she implied there is to be a vote.

*Is there to be a vote, or is this a done deal???!!!*


----------



## uzi

@Liam 9th april or july? So more wait till next week......i think i should put my application in next week as their wont be any good news in the detailed rules i guess


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle

Team Stephenson said:


> Okay, I know this question is going to be asked a million times over, but was there any mention as to what this means for people like me. People who have their 2 year probationary spouse settlement visa? My wife isn't going to be sent home, is she? I earn over the thresholds, just barely, but she has not arrived in the UK yet. She is due to arrive July 2nd. We have injected ALL of our savings and earnings, I mean all, in to our move here... Flights... transporting her belongings... If she can't come, this could financially ruin us, because she has also quit her job in the US.
> 
> I am a little worried.


The income and housing and how they're dealing with it is strange. Thank God there hasn't been a day since I've been in the UK that I haven't worked since my arrival as a Tier 2 Minister of Religion before switching for FLR (Had I known I could have been instantly settled since we've been married for 8 years, I would've done it and saved a mass of grief!) My wife is sponsoring me, but we both live in a vicarage free of charge (benefit in kind) that is owned by the C of E diocese where I'm a vicar, which also pays much of our utilities + petrol reimbursement. They may wish not to count my stipend (which is over the threshold) since I am being sponsored, but they can't deny that her housing comes from *my* job!

It seems that the government would want all of us being sponsored to remain unemployed for 2 or 5 years, relying on our partner's salary for support. What is the incentive to work if we can be kept--or if the government indirectly tells us we should be kept? Isn't it better when the application for ILR rolls around for the sponsored person to be in a position? 

I think that the government's proposals need much more thought and should not have been presented in the half-baked way they were today.


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

Uzi... I'm an Asian woman as well - ethnically Japanese. My only advantage over you in this maze is that I happen to have Canadian papers and speak a subdialect of Canadian English as opposed to having Japanese citizenship and speaking that language.

I know that I don't fall under the UK definition of "Asian" (i.e. people who are from India/Pakistan/Bangladesh... you are called "South Asian" or "Indo Canadian" or "East Indian" in Canada), but I consider myself to be part of the Asian community. :clap2:


In regards to the question that was posed some pages back in regards to why an MP stands up whenever a comment or rebuttal is made, I do believe that it is part of the historical tradition and protocol of parliament for them to do this. The Speaker acknowledges the MP as having the floor and so the MP stands and says his or her peace then sits down. The Speaker then acknowledges the next MP who then stands up and says his or her own peace. It's tradition, as the Canadian parliamentary system is modelled after England (except that we don't have a House of Lords), and whenever The Speaker of the House gives an MP is given leave to speak, the MP _always_ stands up.
(yes, I'm a bit of a history junkie)


----------



## andrisaacs

hi all, i just want to contribute a lil bit to the discussion

i found this from home office which is more clearer:

from next month : income threshold 18.600 p + New english language requirement

- only allowing non-EEA adult and elderly dependent relatives to settle in the UK where they can demonstrate that, as a result of age, illness or disability, they require long-term personal care that can only be provided in the UK by their relative here, and requiring them to apply from overseas;
- requiring, *from October 2013,* all applicants for settlement to speak better English and pass the Life in the UK Test; and
- introducing a minimum probationary period of five years for settlement to deter sham marriages.


----------



## uzi

@ WCCG....bytheway i knew you were from japanese background as you mentioned in the first pages of this thread about that thing on languages......And you are right about the UK definition of "asians" LOLZ

So the question still stands 9th july or no 9th july? BTW who came up with this date all of sudden? i don know some how i feel like these changes will go till next year...i wish so badly that it be true


----------



## akdh

*Why is the Daily Mail the only one asking these questions?*

When will the other papers catch on and report on this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2157740/Is-EU-love-really-worth-Asian-love.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


----------



## uzi

@ andrisaacs can you please post the link for that info?


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

akdh said:


> When will the other papers catch on and report on this?
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2157740/Is-EU-love-really-worth-Asian-love.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


Corrected link to a wowsa of an article:

Is EU love really worth more than Asian love? | Mail Online

*@WCCG-* we're asking about why a large group of people stand up, is it everyone in that speaker's party?


----------



## newlight1

akdh said:


> When will the other papers catch on and report on this?
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2157740/Is-EU-love-really-worth-Asian-love.html?ito=feeds-newsxml





> And low pay is one thing, but what of the British graduate studying in Syria who falls in love with a disabled man or woman?





> What of the British soldier who falls in love with an Iraqi woman with three orphaned children? What of unplanned pregnancy or other unforeseen circumstances which might suddenly tear a family apart?


An excellent article.


----------



## dr1

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Corrected link to a wowsa of an article:
> 
> Is EU love really worth more than Asian love? | Mail Online
> 
> *@WCCG-* we're asking about why a large group of people stand up, is it everyone in that speaker's party?


The Mail finally produced a immigrant positive article. If the Mail recognises the flaws in these changes certainly any tom dick and harry would. Let's see what the commenters would say.


----------



## JollyCynic

I can't imagine what this thread would have been like if we'd gotten _bad_ news.

I'll be able to live with my wife and son in their home country. I realize that these rules will remove this possibility for some others, but it seems to be a very small fraction of people who would have gotten in under the old rules, but not the new ones. I am extremely sad for those people, and am torn about the thought of it. But it seems very few of us are in that boat.

Whether I get my ILR two weeks after entering, two years, or five years, the important part is that I don't mind doing a little more paperwork and being a little more patient. These reduced numbers are great news compared to what we were all expecting.

Nobody would be able to answer my question, so instead of worrying about it, I'll just turn in my application and let you all know how it goes in a month and a half.


----------



## akdh

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Corrected link to a wowsa of an article:
> 
> Is EU love really worth more than Asian love? | Mail Online
> 
> *@WCCG-* we're asking about why a large group of people stand up, is it everyone in that speaker's party?


Thanks, I don't know what happened to the link I posted. The first part of the article started to make me feel a bit sick. I hate being lumped with murderers and criminals. The last part got meaty.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

uzi said:


> @ andrisaacs can you please post the link for that info?


Radical immigration changes to reform family visas | Home Office

WARNING-hideously slow load, it's like being on dial-up (DSL) again, wow!


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

uzi said:


> @ WCCG....bytheway i knew you were from japanese background as you mentioned in the first pages of this thread about that thing on languages......And you are right about the UK definition of "asians" LOLZ


I have been told by a Brit that when I fill out surveys in the UK in the future, I had better remember _NOT_ to tick "Asian" because I am not considered to be one as far as the UK is concerned... she suggested that I choose "_Other_," seeing as I am not Caucasian, African, Middle Eastern, Hispanic or Chinese.

I am NOT an "OTHER" :boxing:   <3 

I AM a crazy Canadian woman :roll: who happens to have ancestors who came from a country in an area of the world known as Asia lane: and who wants to live a happy, quiet life :welcome: in the UK with her husband. :kiss:


----------



## akdh

I'm a Native American. Whenever I tell people that in the UK they tick "caucasian other" for me. I have to correct them that I'm an "other other" and then I feel bad about few of us there are left.


----------



## mehemlynn

WestCoastCanadianGirl said:


> I have been told by a Brit that when I fill out surveys in the UK in the future, I had better remember _NOT_ to tick "Asian" because I am not considered to be one as far as the UK is concerned... she suggested that I choose "_Other_," seeing as I am not Caucasian, African, Middle Eastern, Hispanic or Chinese.
> 
> I am NOT an "OTHER" :boxing:   <3
> 
> I AM a crazy Canadian woman :roll: who happens to have ancestors who came from a country in an area of the world known as Asia lane: and who wants to live a happy, quiet life :welcome: in the UK with her husband. :kiss:


That's ok on the census forms the Welsh in Wales were told to click "other" too.


----------



## newlight1

> From next month, only those earning at least £18,600 will be able to bring in a spouse or partner from outside Europe.
> 
> Applicants lacking the financial support or language skills they need to play a full part in British life - without becoming a burden on the taxpayer - will be refused entry.


I wonder though, what about those who apply now but an ECO doesn't get around to reviewing the application on his desk until after the new rules come into place?


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> *@WCCG-* we're asking about why a large group of people stand up, is it everyone in that speaker's party?


Not so very sure, but from what I recall seeing in C-PAC (Canadian Parliamentary Access Channel... dull as sh*t, but good for curing insomnia), I know that whenever they have a vote in the Commons, everyone who wants to vote a "Yes" on an issue is required to stand up and then sit down as their name is being recorded. From what I've gathered from reading (I was groggy when I logged in this morning and hit the "first new post" button), a vote hadn't taken place.

From what little I've seen of the televised proceedings in London (Ed's office worked on some policy that was to be discussed one evening and he sent me a link to the archived broadcast of the Minister saying his bit), the one person up at a time rule applies.

Will ask Ed about that.


----------



## nyclon

Posted on the UKBA website:

UK Border Agency | Family migration changes announced

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/news/soi-fam-mig.pdf 

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/news/cons-fam-mig.pdf


----------



## dr1

nyclon said:


> Posted on the UKBA website:
> 
> UK Border Agency | Family migration changes announced


..."Most of these changes will apply to new applicants from 9 July 2012"

Am I right in thinking the changes would not affect those currently on FLR and would only affect new applicants?


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

From the UKBA website:

"Most of these changes will apply to new applicants from 9 July 2012."

"For more information about the changes that are being introduced and details of transitional arrangements, please see the full Statement of Intent in the See also section on the right side of this page."

UK Border Agency | Family migration changes announced


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

newlight1 said:


> I wonder though, what about those who apply now but an ECO doesn't get around to reviewing the application on his desk until after the new rules come into place?


_As we've said many times before in this thread_, as long as you can get your paper work in to the ECO *before* the end of business day on July 8, you're most likely going to be safe from the July 9 rule, as _your application will be held up to *the standard of law that was in place on the day that you applied*_. 

If you apply on July 8, your Fiancé(e) visa application qualifies under the law as it is on any day between today and midnight on July 8. It doesn't matter if the ECO doesn't see your application until October 5, you still got the application in before the rule change, so you only have to show an income of £13700 p.a.

If you apply on July 9, your Fiancé(e) visa application will be judged according to the new laws that the Home Office has starting on July 9, and you will have to show an income of £18700 p.a.


When you apply for your FLR(M) visa, you will be judged by July 9 unless the Home Office makes allowances for people who applied for the Fiancée visa before July 9th. We won't know what the Home Office has planned until they specify later on this month.

_*If*_ we are lucky, they'll grandfather all of the people who applied for Fiancée visas before July 9th and everyone under FLR(M) and SET(M) into the old rules (i.e. £13700 p.a. and 2 years probation).

Most likely, all new FLR(M) SET(M) applicants who apply for FLR/SET after July 9th will have to follow July 9 (i.e. £18700 p.a. and 5 years probation), _regardless of when they applied for their Fiancé(e) or Spousal visas._

We just don't know how the FLR(M)/SET(M) holders will go until specific details are given.


----------



## casjoe

From the UKBA link (bolding mine)
"introducing a new minimum income threshold of £18,600 for sponsoring the settlement in the UK of a spouse or partner, fiancé(e) or proposed civil partner, of non-European Economic Area (EEA) nationality, with a higher threshold for any children *also sponsored*; £22,400 for one child and an additional £2,400 for each further child;"

That makes it sounds like children who are already UK citizens won't be counted as needing extra maintenance. If so, that's good news for me!


----------



## nyclon

dr1 said:


> ..."Most of these changes will apply to new applicants from 9 July 2012"
> 
> Am I right in thinking the changes would not affect those currently on FLR and would only affect new applicants?


I would suggest reading through the 2nd link, the Statement of Intent.


----------



## akdh

I'm so glad the doomsday naysayers were wrong!

"A partner, child or adult dependent relative who has been granted, or who has applied for, leave to enter or remain in the UK on the family route (or a partner of a migrant with leave under the Points Based System) before 9 July 2012 will remain subject to the rules in force prior to that date. They will be able to reach settlement in the UK (including those granted or who have applied for leave as a fiancé(e) or proposed civil partner) if they qualify for it under the rules in force prior to 9 July 2012, subject to the requirement from October 2013 to pass the Life in the UK test and to present an English language speaking and listening qualification at B1 level or above to qualify for settlement."


----------



## lope85

dr1 said:


> ..."Most of these changes will apply to new applicants from 9 July 2012"
> 
> Am I right in thinking the changes would not affect those currently on FLR and would only affect new applicants?


I don't think it will, if you're here already ... my partner could probably apply for fiance visa by 9thJuly (and by the skin of his teeth) but I don't think there's any point


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> From the UKBA website:
> 
> "Most of these changes will apply to new applicants from 9 July 2012."
> 
> "For more information about the changes that are being introduced and details of transitional arrangements, please see the full Statement of Intent in the See also section on the right side of this page."
> 
> UK Border Agency | Family migration changes announced


WOW... 71 page... I'll have to save and take to work to read this evening.

This just in from Ed... 

people standing up en masse: "Doesn't mean much. Could be showing support/opposition or just not enough seats for all the MP's wanting to be there."

vote/debate: "...not necesarily a vote, depends whether legislation is needed Government would win, as wouldn't be a free vote."


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

akdh said:


> i'm so glad the doomsday naysayers were wrong!
> 
> "a partner, child or adult dependent relative who has been granted, or who has applied for, leave to enter or remain in the uk on the family route (or a partner of a migrant with leave under the points based system) before 9 july 2012 will remain subject to the rules in force prior to that date. They will be able to reach settlement in the uk (including those granted or who have applied for leave as a fiancé(e) or proposed civil partner) if they qualify for it under the rules in force prior to 9 july 2012, subject to the requirement from october 2013 to pass the life in the uk test and to present an english language speaking and listening qualification at b1 level or above to qualify for settlement."


YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YIPPEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HUZZAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey, I did those in all caps, I meant to shout!


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

*Sorry to be REALY DENSE, but...*



akdh said:


> I'm so glad the doomsday naysayers were wrong!
> 
> "A partner, child or adult dependent relative who has been granted, or who has applied for, leave to enter or remain in the UK on the family route (or a partner of a migrant with leave under the Points Based System) before 9 July 2012 will remain subject to the rules in force prior to that date. They will be able to reach settlement in the UK (including those granted or who have applied for leave as a fiancé(e) or proposed civil partner) if they qualify for it under the rules in force prior to 9 July 2012, subject to the requirement from October 2013 to pass the Life in the UK test and to present an English language speaking and listening qualification at B1 level or above to qualify for settlement."


would that include me, if I get my poop in a group, apply for a Fiancée Visa and pay WorldBridge _before_ July 9th?

Ed and I more than meet the income threshold, have spent thousands of CAD $ in airfare since Christmas to see each other and have a ton of photos and emails to show that we've seen each other AND proof that the wedding is a "GO" for November.

He's even spent a small fortune for the rock that currently sits on my left hand and the 2 wedding bands that will soon be waiting at the jeweler's shop in Huddersfield.


----------



## Zama

WestCoastCanadianGirl said:


> would that include me, if I get my poop in a group, apply for a Fiancée Visa and pay WorldBridge _before_ July 9th?
> 
> Ed and I more than meet the income threshold, have spent thousands of CAD $ in airfare since Christmas to see each other and have a ton of photos and emails to show that we've seen each other AND proof that the wedding is a "GO" for November.
> 
> He's even spent a small fortune for the rock that currently sits on my left hand and the 2 wedding bands that will soon be waiting at the jeweler's shop in Huddersfield.


Same question here, they say that the old rules would apply to those who was granted settlement visa before 9th July, but they didnt mention anything about those who applied for a settlement visa before 9th of July. :confused2:

We meet every single requirement under old and current rules, although we haven't arranged our wedding yet, it is planned for December 2012 and we stated that we will start arranging a venue once we are given our visa.


----------



## nyclon

Zama said:


> Same question here, they say that the old rules would apply to those who was granted settlement visa before 9th July, but they didnt mention anything about those who applied for a settlement visa before 9th of July. :confused2:



Have you read the Statement of Intent? You really should. Looks like it's mentioned in point 23.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

Zama said:


> Same question here, they say that the old rules would apply to those who was granted settlement visa before 9th July, but they didnt mention anything about those who applied for a settlement visa before 9th of July. :confused2:
> 
> We meet every single requirement under old and current rules, although we haven't arranged our wedding yet, it is planned for December 2012 and we stated that we will start arranging a venue once we are given our visa.


Yes to you both-Zama, you have already 'hit submit' and have your appointment booked. You are 'grandfathered in' under the current rules and will continue to be so through-out your family migration route path.    

*@WCCG-* girlfriend, how fast can you 'get 'er done'? Apply before the 9th, and you are good to go


----------



## Team Stephenson

Okay, so... If I'm reading this right... My wife and dependant child, who received their Visa's in April, will be able to apply for ILR in 2 years, as originally stated on their visa, correct?

If so, that is the best news I've had since our visa's were issued, which was ranked as some of the best news I've ever had, ever


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

nyclon said:


> Have you read the Statement of Intent? You really should. Looks like it's mentioned in point 23.


Nyclon, how do you read (interpret) that point?


----------



## cts27

_"The relevant minimum income level will apply at every application stage: entry clearance/leave to remain, further leave to remain and indefinite leave to remain (settlement)."_

Would this apply to people already on a FLR visa? I'll be applying for ILR in Dec 2013, so my husband will be required to have an income of 18,600?


----------



## nyclon

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Nyclon, how do you read (interpret) that point?


Excerpt, emphasis mine:

23. A partner, child or adult dependent relative who *has been granted*, or *who has applied for*, leave to enter or remain in the UK on the family route (or a partner of a migrant with leave under the Points Based System) *before 9 July 2012 will remain subject to the rules in force prior to that date.*

If you already have a fiance, spouse, civil partner, etc (earlier it says partner is defined as all of those) visa OR you have applied for those visas, you will be governed by the rules in force for those paths prior to to 9 July 2012. With the exception of whatever the English requirement will be after October 2013.


----------



## cts27

_"82.
At each stage, the applicant will be able to meet the financial requirement through one or more of:
•
Income from employment or self-employment of the sponsor (*and/or the applicant if they are in the UK with permission to work*)."_

Does this mean combined incomes from sponsor and applicant? If that's the case, then it'll be a huge relief!


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

RE Transitional Arrangements-SEE SECTION 132 in the Statement of Intent.

Essentially it says all of us here on probationary visas, whether FLR(M) or the 27 month, are grandfathered-*no extension*, *no hiked income*, *no anything different*-we're on the same path as when we were granted our visas. (Thank-you, Lord) ILR and citizenship paths unchanged from the rules we came in on!

All those who *make their application before 9 July* will likewise be subject to the rules we are under now-same everything except the need to take the LiUK AND the English language test if you are from a non-English speaking country.

ETA: thank-you Nyclon


----------



## mehemlynn

cts27 said:


> _"82.
> At each stage, the applicant will be able to meet the financial requirement through one or more of:
> •
> Income from employment or self-employment of the sponsor (*and/or the applicant if they are in the UK with permission to work*)."_
> 
> Does this mean combined incomes from sponsor and applicant? If that's the case, then it'll be a huge relief!


Taking into account what AiS said. If the migrant has permission to work in the UK, then their income would be taken into account, if it is permission for entry (the first visa) it won't.

I imagine most of us are going to try for before July 9.

M


----------



## Zama

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> RE Transitional Arrangements-SEE SECTION 132 in the Statement of Intent.
> 
> Essentially it says all of us here on probationary visas, whether FLR(M) or the 27 month, are grandfathered-*no extension*, *no hiked income*, *no anything different*-we're on the same path as when we were granted our visas. (Thank-you, Lord) ILR and citizenship paths unchanged from the rules we came in on!
> 
> All those who *make their application before 9 July* will likewise be subject to the rules we are under now-same everything except the need to take the LiUK AND the English language test if you are from a non-English speaking country.
> 
> ETA: thank-you Nyclon


Glad for you, American.inScotland. I need to start preparing for life in the UK exam then!


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> *@WCCG-* girlfriend, how fast can you 'get 'er done'? Apply before the 9th, and you are good to go


Am literally crying right now, I'm so happy!

However, Ed's just asked me a very important question... will it matter if it takes me 2½ weeks to get my documents and biometrics into New York? I.e. I apply & pay on 7 July and do biometrics on 23rd and courier off same day?

If it doesn't matter for the delay, then I'm in.

If it does matter for the delay, then I'm f*cked.

I got my full birth certificate from the Province this morning (I orded it last Wednesday night). I'm taking it with me to work so I can make photocopies (eventhough I think the certificate may have an anti-copy feature built in)

I have a paper copy of the application form mostly filled out and waiting to be reviewed with Ed for his information and will be gone over with a micro fine toothed comb. 

Will go out this weekend to buy some photo printer paper (Dad has a special printer that will make 4"x6" photos from jpeg files) for my photos.

We will definitely apply very early morning Vancouver time on July 7th (around 4 or 5a.m. in New York; 9 or 10 a.m. GMT)... I will have Ed on the phone or Skype with me to make sure that I fill in the details correctly as well. 

The _second_ we finish with the application, I will toggle on over to the Worldbridge site to book my biometrics for 10am on the 23rd of July... Ed will be here with his papers and we'll be on the bus to the WorldBridge office no later than half eight on the 23rd (lots of coffee shops around, so we can sit tight until the office opens at 10am).


----------



## chek

An applicant whose sponsor is in receipt of the following disability-related benefits or carer's allowance will be exempt from the financial requirement in respect of that application stage. Am so happy about this as I am currently disabled.
The downfall is my DLA expire in 2014 for renewers with this new 5yrs probationary period not sure If I qualify to sponsor my husband


----------



## newlight1

So does this mean my Fiance who has already applied for the fiance visa last week but does not have the answer yet will be subject to the rules Prior to July 9th when when she applies for her FLR and ILR? And she will be able to apply for her ILR in 2 years not have to wait 5 years?

Will my Fiances Visa also be reviewed under the old rules even if the ECO reviews the application after July 9th even though she submitted the application before July 9th (it was last week she submitted the application)


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

newlight1 said:


> So does this mean my Fiance who has already applied for the fiance visa last week but does not have the answer yet will be subject to the rules Prior to July 9th when when she applies for her FLR and ILR? And she will be able to apply for her ILR in 2 years not have to wait 5 years?
> 
> _Will my Fiances Visa also be reviewed under the old rules even if the ECO reviews the application after July 9th even though she submitted the application before July 9th (it was last week she submitted the application)_


We've already told you several times so far that YOUR APPLICATION WILL BE JUDGED BY THE LAWS THAT ARE IN PLACE ON THE DATE THAT YOU APPLY.

IT IS not JULY 9 YET, so your application will be judged by the PRE JULY 9 RULES, even if the application is seen on July 10. 

If her application was sent by courier, they will use the despatch date as the application date.

If the application was mailed, they will take the post mark as the application date.

Regardless of how she sent it, it will be considered to be BEFORE JULY 9th so the PRE JULY 9 RULES APPLY TO HER, since she sent it before July 9th.


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle

lope85 said:


> I don't think it will, if you're here already ... my partner could probably apply for fiance visa by 9thJuly (and by the skin of his teeth) but I don't think there's any point


I think that you can have your application expedited for a higher fee but you can have the visa the same day. Could you consider this option?


----------



## cts27

Sorry for asking so many questions but, what does this mean? 
Taken from Appendix D

_Spouse/Civil Partner: Indefinite leave to remain
Same requirements as leave to remain as a spouse or civil partner plus:
•
Applicant has adequate knowledge of language and life in the UK. From October 2013: applicant has English speaking and listening skills at B1 level or above, and
has passed the Life in the UK test
•
*Applicant has completed a period of 60 months as a partner*
•
Applicant has no unspent convictions_

60 months = 5 years? I'm so confused.


----------



## newlight1

> We've already told you several times so far that YOUR APPLICATION WILL BE JUDGED BY THE LAWS THAT ARE IN PLACE ON THE DATE THAT YOU APPLY.


1) Sorry my heads all over the place really, so when she applies for the FLR and the ILR they will be considered by the rules that were in place when she applied before July 9th? 

2) Also she would be able to apply for the ILR after two years rather than waiting for 5?


----------



## mehemlynn

cts27 said:


> Sorry for asking so many questions but, what does this mean?
> Taken from Appendix D
> 
> _Spouse/Civil Partner: Indefinite leave to remain
> Same requirements as leave to remain as a spouse or civil partner plus:
> •
> Applicant has adequate knowledge of language and life in the UK. From October 2013: applicant has English speaking and listening skills at B1 level or above, and
> has passed the Life in the UK test
> •
> *Applicant has completed a period of 60 months as a partner*
> •
> Applicant has no unspent convictions_
> 
> 60 months = 5 years? I'm so confused.



This is for applications from July 9 onward, when the probationary period will be extended to 5 years.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

WestCoastCanadianGirl said:


> We've already told you several times so far that YOUR APPLICATION WILL BE JUDGED BY THE LAWS THAT ARE IN PLACE ON THE DATE THAT YOU APPLY.
> 
> IT IS not JULY 9 YET, so your application will be judged by the PRE JULY 9 RULES, even if the application is seen on July 10.
> 
> If her application was sent by courier, they will use the despatch date as the application date.
> 
> If the application was mailed, they will take the post mark as the application date.
> 
> Regardless of how she sent it, it will be considered to be BEFORE JULY 9th so the PRE JULY 9 RULES APPLY TO HER, since she sent it before July 9th.


LOL, you answered your own question when you answered NL1's-date of application is what counts, not when they get your paperwork.

Dang, is that the sun shining and a huge rainbow I see out there? Why yes, it is!


----------



## cts27

Thanks, I've read further more at the Appendix E's scenarios and it's clearer now! Yay at not having to wait 5 years


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

newlight1 said:


> 1) Sorry my heads all over the place really, so when she applies for the FLR and the ILR they will be considered by the rules that were in place when she applied before July 9th?
> 
> 2) Also she would be able to apply for the ILR after two years rather than waiting for 5?


For you and your fiancee's peace of mind:

Fiancee visa-pre 9 July rules apply
FLR(M)-pre 9 July rules apply
SET(M) for ILR-pre 9 July 2012 rules apply

See Section 132 of the Statement of Intent, it's also addressed in Section 23

Deep breath, and hoooooooold...now release sllllllloooooooooooooowwwwwly...

The worst part-the waiting to hear how the new rules are to be applied and to whom-is over. 

Make sure to keep us updated on your fiancee's application! Have you posted it yet on the visa timeline thread?


----------



## 2farapart

Well, here comes one of the resident naysayers!

Point 23 states that current (ie prior to July 2012) rules apply to all those of us with applications in place before that date. The current RULES for settlement are about financial support, about the resident partner being a British citizen etc, and about being age 18 or above. Ergo, the 2-year period is not a 'rule' - it's merely a length of permission to remain in the UK on the current visa.

So point 23 is not necessarily clarifying about the duration at all (in my opinion). It clearly alludes to current financial thresholds applying, but it ALSO states that settlement will be granted _provided that the new rules coming into force from October 2013 for English language are also satisfied_. So it's not a wholesale "old rules and situation", but a mix of both old and new. There is therefore a chance we still need to apply for extensions for a 5 year stay prior to ILR.



> 23.
> A partner, child or adult dependent relative who has been granted, or who has applied for, leave to enter or remain in the UK on the family route (or a partner of a migrant with leave under the Points Based System) before 9 July 2012 will remain subject to the rules in force prior to that date. They will be able to reach settlement in the UK (including those granted or who have applied for leave as a fiancé(e) or proposed civil partner) if they qualify for it under the rules in force prior to 9 July 2012, subject to the requirement from October 2013 to pass the Life in the UK test and to present an English language speaking and listening qualification at B1 level or above to qualify for settlement.



What adds further weight is point 13 which states that the new 5-year period will comprise TWO applications of 30-month duration each, then a third application for ILR, which would be almost identical to current visa holders if they were being asked to apply for an extension...



> 13.
> If an applicant makes an application under the family Immigration Rules, on the correct application form and paying the relevant application fee, and meets all the requirements at every stage – entry (including the rules on switching between migration routes in the UK), further leave to remain and indefinite leave to remain – they will be able to reach settlement in five years (granted in two periods of 30 months, with a third application for indefinite leave to remain).


My hope lies in the Home Secretary stating that the changes apply to "new spouses and partners" in the Commons today. You can kick my naysaying butt now and point and laugh if I'm wrong later.  But I'll celebrate only when I see it in writing that 5 years doesn't apply to us all.


----------



## Joppa

This is my summary of Statement of Intent omitting things like appeal to human rights and refugees. 
1. Those who have been granted a visa or leave prior to 9 July, or those who have applied before that date and subsequently approved, will be subject to old rules right up to settlement or ILR. So it will be 2 years not 5, existing maintenance requirement, external sponsorship allowed, except that prior to ILR you have to pass English test at a higher level for those not from majority English-speaking country. So provided you get your 6-month fiance(e) or proposed civil partner visa under old rules, FLR and ILR will be also under existing rules.
2. Enhanced financial requirement doesn't apply to British (including dual British) or EEA children. 
3. £18600 and higher amounts with children must normally be met from employment or self-employment in UK for at least 6 months leading to application or earned during previous 12 months (e.g. where income fluctuates). 
4. Savings above £16000 can be taken into account if belonging to sponsor or applicant or jointly to meet the missing amount from employment. The way it is worked out is the shortfall is multiplied by 2.5. So if sponsor's income is short by £3000, £7500 is needed from your savings. This is because in future a visa (other than fiance(e) and prop CP) will be issued for 33 months (30 plus 3 months to enable travelling to UK). Then you have to extend for further 30 months and finally apply for ILR. 
5. External financial sponsorship will be banned. The only way family or relatives can help is when they gift you money to boost your savings. Sponsorship as a safety net or to top up when you are short of money won't be allowed. They can still offer you accommodation. 
6. Where sponsor and applicant are moving to UK together, they will allow confirmed job offer for sponsor to meet financial requirement. All other prospective job offers or job prospects are ignored. Or they can meet through savings by having 2.5 x 18600 etc. 
7. There will be announcement about evidence required to prove genuine sustainable relationship.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

2farapart said:


> Well, here comes one of the resident naysayers!
> 
> Point 23 states that current (ie prior to July 2012) rules apply to all those of us with applications in place before that date. The current RULES for settlement are about financial support, about the resident partner being a British citizen etc, and about being age 18 or above. Ergo, the 2-year period is not a 'rule' - it's merely a length of permission to remain in the UK on the current visa.
> 
> So point 23 is not necessarily clarifying about the duration at all (in my opinion). It clearly alludes to current financial thresholds applying, but it ALSO states that settlement will be granted _provided that the new rules coming into force from October 2013 for English language are also satisfied_. So it's not a wholesale "old rules and situation", but a mix of both old and new. There is therefore a chance we still need to apply for extensions for a 5 year stay prior to ILR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What adds further weight is point 13 which states that the new 5-year period will comprise TWO applications of 30-month duration each, then a third application for ILR, which would be almost identical to current visa holders if they were being asked to apply for an extension...
> 
> 
> 
> My hope lies in the Home Secretary stating that the changes apply to "new spouses and partners" in the Commons today. You can kick my naysaying butt now and point and laugh if I'm wrong later.  But I'll celebrate only when I see it in writing that 5 years doesn't apply to us all.


See Section 132. It's a good thing.


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

Ed, bless his heart, is being a hard ass, so can someone please clarify for me (with UKBA references, if possible, so I can tell him) that if we lodge the application and pay by midnight Eastern on July 8th that the application is considered "in," in spite of the fact that he's read in the guidance that one must go to a visa centre to "complete" the application and I won't be able to get my biometrics and paper work in to the New York office until the 23rd of July?

Thanks!


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

WestCoastCanadianGirl said:


> Ed, bless his heart, is being a hard ass, so can someone please clarify for me (with UKBA references, if possible, so I can tell him) that if we lodge the application and pay by midnight Eastern on July 8th that the application is considered "in," in spite of the fact that he's read in the guidance that one must go to a visa centre to "complete" the application and I won't be able to get my biometrics and paper work in to the New York office until the 23rd of July?
> 
> Thanks!


Refer him to the sections 23 and 132 in the Statement of Intent. Good luck, I have one of those at home too


----------



## Joppa

Well yes. But if your application fails and your appeal is also turned down, any new application will be under new rules. If you win your appeal, your visa will be issued under existing rules.


----------



## liam85

I like para .135 in the statement of intent!!


----------



## 2farapart

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> See Section 132. It's a good thing.


THAT teaches me to stop reading at point 30!  NICE ONE! Thanks for being more diligent than me!

Naysayer's butt ceremoniously and deservedly kicked! :roll:


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Refer him to the sections 23 and 132 in the Statement of Intent. Good luck, I have one of those at home too


Thank you aA_i_S, Joppa, 2far, nyc, and everyone else who has helped this crazed and confused expat fiancée along her journey so far. I wish I could buy you all a round of drinks!

To everyone out there (lurkers and posters) who will be able to sneak in through the loophole the Home Office has kindly given to us: 

CONGRATULATIONS AND GOOD LUCK! :cheer2:


It is so very good to have a support system of sorts.


----------



## Mervinia N

Just plowing my way through the UKBA Statement of Intent and came across the following;

* British children are EXEMPT from the increased maintenance requirements 

* Income required is £18600 to sponsor a spouse, £ 22400 spouse & child, £2400 per additional child being sponsored (which we knew)
The required income level must be in place on date of application and either A) HAVE BEEN IN PLACE CONTINUOUSLY FOR THE PREVIOUS 6 MONTHS or B) HAVE BEEN EARNED IN TOTAL OVER THE PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS (my bold emphasis)

* The Gov't will review the financial requirement annually

* If income is between £16000 and required level (ie 18600 or higher with kids), cash savings in the sponsor's, applicant's or both names can be used to cover the shortfall. There are conditions on working out how much savings you need, it's basically 2.5 times the amount you're short of your required level.
Must be held for 6 months prior to application. You need to confirm source of savings. Can be from 3rd party but must not be a loan of any description.


That's what I've picked out so far (as it's most relevant to me - sorry, being selfish a little)

Edit: oops, just checking back over last few pages of thread and Joppa had already posted most of this  nice to know I read it the same way as Joppa though


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

Joppa said:


> Well yes. But if your application fails and your appeal is also turned down, any new application will be under new rules. If you win your appeal, your visa will be issued under existing rules.


Joppa, I want to be clear on this-an applicant (pre-9 July '12) is refused, any appeal of the pre-9 July application refusal will be considered at the pre-9 July rules, is that correct?

I understand that a fresh application dated post 9 July would be considered under the new rules, but I want to be clear on appeals to refusals on *pre-* 9 July '12 applications.


----------



## Joppa

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Joppa, I want to be clear on this-an applicant (pre-9 July '12) is refused, any appeal of the pre-9 July application refusal will be considered at the pre-9 July rules, is that correct?
> 
> I understand that a fresh application dated post 9 July would be considered under the new rules, but I want to be clear on appeals to refusals on pre- 9 July '12 applications.


That's right.


----------



## Joppa

My view of the new rules is they have been considerably toned down from MAC report and 'leaks' and I wonder if they make appreciable difference in reducing immigration. Perhaps the government is targeting Third-World immigration where standard of living and wages are considerably lower and leaving alone most forms of family migration from the relatively affluent West. Also they have decided to make a lot of exceptions and concessions and transitional arrangements, instead of having simple rules that are easy to understand and enforce. Perhaps they are fearful of a string of legal challenges that will scupper the whole exercise.


----------



## Mervinia N

Just wanted to say congrats to all you lovely people who get to remain on the old rules and get to your ILRs etc the old, quick way  I'm so glad it's working out for so many of us on here.

For the newbies like me and my fiancé, who will be under the new rules, it's 5 years to ILR and this has to be renewed after 2.5 years and you have to meet the relevant financial requirements in place at that 2.5 mark and meet relevant financial requirements at the 5 yr application for ILR, whatever they may be at that time (remember, government is reviewing financial requirements annually)


----------



## 2farapart

Joppa said:


> My view of the new rules is they have been considerably toned down from MAC report and 'leaks' and I wonder if they make appreciable difference in reducing immigration. Perhaps the government is targeting Third-World immigration where standard of living and wages are considerably lower and leaving alone most forms of family migration from the relatively affluent West. Also they have decided to make a lot of exceptions and concessions and transitional arrangements, instead of having simple rules that are easy to understand and enforce. Perhaps they are fearful of a string of legal challenges that will scupper the whole exercise.


I agree.

I'm very surprised about the substantial drop in the income thresholds, and about various concessions granted given the political hot-potato immigration has become. But it was interesting watching the Home Secretary on the Andrew Marr show continually reiterating "it's not just about numbers" regarding the family route changes.

It seems that net immigration will indeed be mostly tackled by suffocating student routes and some working tiers, but the family changes feel much more geared towards those she perceives as taking advantage of the system. I didn't want to, but found myself mostly agreeing with what she was outlining (mostly).


----------



## fox2005eng

@Joppa
hi Joppa again  I hope u will.

I'm in the UK right now with my fiance and we are getting married this august 2012.

just to remind you that I'm on fiance visa/marriage at the moment, where it has been 

issued last month from Egypt

anyhow,

as the next step to apply for spouse visa from the country, so when I apply for that 

visa next September do I still eligible to apply under the previous rules or under the 

new one?

Thanks in advance mate.

Bye


----------



## Joppa

fox2005eng said:


> @Joppa
> hi Joppa again  I hope u will.
> 
> I'm in the UK right now with my fiance and we are getting married this august 2012.
> 
> just to remind you that I'm on fiance visa/marriage at the moment, where it has been
> 
> issued last month from Egypt
> 
> anyhow,
> 
> as the next step to apply for spouse visa from the country, so when I apply for that
> 
> visa next September do I still eligible to apply under the previous rules or under the
> 
> new one?


As you have your fiancé(e) visa issued under existing rules, all future applications, FLR and ILR, will be under the present rules.


----------



## fox2005eng

Joppa said:


> As you have your fiancé(e) visa issued under existing rules, all future applications, FLR and ILR, will be under the present rules.


Thanks a lot mate for your quick answer 

good luck for everyone 

Bye


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

Ed's still not convinced that 2½ week delay from time of payment to getting documents in is going to be o.k. with the UKBA to keep us under the old rules. 

He feels that section 23 and 132 of the Statement of Intent are ambiguous as it pertains to our situation and that we'd be taking a risk doing it as we've been talking about. 
(He is, after all, a mid level management UK civil servant and has a tendency to over analyze this sort of thing)

I kid you not, but _he wants me to write to the New York office to ask what we need to get in before end of day on July 8_. I had to keep myself from laughing in his face and ended up telling him that we'd NEVER get a reply from them.

Does anyone have a link to what the UKBA considers to be a "reasonable" amount of time to get supporting documents in to their processing centres?

Help, please?


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

WCCG, I wish I knew the right words for you. With my husband I usually have to say something like "If we don't do this NOW we'll be VERY sorry later" but it doesn't always work. 

Hopefully someone will post in a good suggestion, otherwise I would just tell him "If we don't do this NOW we'll be VERY sorry later!"


----------



## newlight1

What about changes to the Human Rights Law? If there are changes to that and we need to reply on that in maybe an appeal, would the Human rights act still mean the same as when we first applied for the FIance Visa?


----------



## 2farapart

WestCoastCanadianGirl said:


> Ed's still not convinced that 2½ week delay from time of payment to getting documents in is going to be o.k. with the UKBA to keep us under the old rules.
> 
> He feels that section 23 and 132 of the Statement of Intent are ambiguous as it pertains to our situation and that we'd be taking a risk doing it as we've been talking about.
> (He is, after all, a mid level management UK civil servant and has a tendency to over analyze this sort of thing)
> 
> I kid you not, but _he wants me to write to the New York office to ask what we need to get in before end of day on July 8_. I had to keep myself from laughing in his face and ended up telling him that we'd NEVER get a reply from them.
> 
> Does anyone have a link to what the UKBA considers to be a "reasonable" amount of time to get supporting documents in to their processing centres?
> 
> Help, please?


I don't think you can really rely on a 'reasonable' amount of time now. Given that it has now been _publicly announced _that applications accepted under the pre July rules will not be subjected to most changes, I suspect there's going to be one mad rush as people send through their applications as quickly as possible. I'd recommend not prevaricating further unless you have serious doubts about being accepted. Instead, get your documents together, go through them together online, check and double check your application and get it done fast.

And if he's a mid-management level civil servant, he earns way more than the new threshold as your sponsor and so should have no fear of the changes being brought in (if that's where his concerns lie).


----------



## Mervinia N

Just another quickie from me.
New financial requirements... 
You have to have been in that job supplying the required income for 6 months or more. 

If it's a new job that you've been in less than 6 months, you cannot use this 6 month calculation and must provide 12 months of payslips and bank statements, showing you've earnt the required income over the previous 12 months.

Stops people getting a new job to put in an application where they've not earnt enough before  luckily, I'll have been at my new job 6 months exactly when we apply... phew!


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

newlight1 said:


> What about changes to the Human Rights Law? If there are changes to that and we need to reply on that in maybe an appeal, would the Human rights act still mean the same as when we first applied for the FIance Visa?


I think yes, but hopefully this is just not going to be a problem for you and your fiancee anyway. Hang in there!


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

Just iMessaging with him now about having our application in by July 4th, and then getting biometrics done at the first possible appointment after that... that way, we get it out of the way and I can still put down 1 October travel date.


----------



## qman383

Although I understand why they are changing some things, I am confused as to why they would raise the amount needed to support your spouse. I know that jobs are hard to come by to begin with and my wife works full time as a care giver for the elderly and she falls short on the requirement. Those jobs don't pay enough so she has had to claim benefits for her and my daughter. I have just applied for my spousal visa and will be sending all of my documents to NewYork next week. It's hard for me and my family as well as those in a similar situation to meet those requirements. Crazy how the government doesn't consider the current state of the economy as well as the underpaid and the fact that split families like mine have to deal with childcare issues, emotional hardship a family deals with being separated. My wife works plenty as well as attending school full time and doesn't want to be on benefits, but has no choice when her husband isn't there to work and help. My American Dollar is not much when sent to the UK.


----------



## george567

Hi,

Me and my wife have been looking to apply for a spouse visa, but it hasn't been possible as I only just started my new job. Annoyingly these new rules mean that I'm now short of the requirement (as I earn roughly 16K a year). I've had a read of the new rules applied and from reading this thread I believe that this deficit can be overcome using savings? However, my interpretation of this is that you need at least 16k in savings before this can even be considered, is this true?

Thanks in advance


----------



## 2farapart

WestCoastCanadianGirl said:


> Just iMessaging with him now about having our application in by July 4th, and then getting biometrics done at the first possible appointment after that... that way, we get it out of the way and I can still put down 1 October travel date.


I would push it for sooner. The ruling is that applications GRANTED befor July 9th will be governed by the old rules. With postage and your biometrics, you'll probably need two to three weeks - plus the UKBA days to approve so I'd work on getting it done as soon as you can.


----------



## dstone

2farapart said:


> I don't think you can really rely on a 'reasonable' amount of time now. Given that it has now been _publicly announced _that applications accepted under the pre July rules will not be subjected to most changes, I suspect there's going to be one mad rush as people send through their applications as quickly as possible. I'd recommend not prevaricating further unless you have serious doubts about being accepted. Instead, get your documents together, go through them together online, check and double check your application and get it done fast.
> 
> And if he's a mid-management level civil servant, he earns way more than the new threshold as your sponsor and so should have no fear of the changes being brought in (if that's where his concerns lie).


That's what my Fiance' and I have decided to do. I have to drive to the Office to get my appointment for my Biometric data and then rush the paperwork off (hopefully I'll be able to do it before the July 9 dead line. 

From what I understand once the application is received and Paid for it's considered "in process" and will fall under the old rules. 

Once again Just call me "Fido" and I"m jumping thru all the hoops. Gotta luv all the red tape.


----------



## dstone

WestCoastCanadianGirl

Great Point and good luck

People in the US need to Keep in mind July 4th is Independence day in the US. So one will want to make sure that they take that into account as the US processing office is in NY and Washington DC. 

I think I can squeak this one out.. (fingers crossed)


----------



## Mervinia N

george567 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Me and my wife have been looking to apply for a spouse visa, but it hasn't been possible as I only just started my new job. Annoyingly these new rules mean that I'm now short of the requirement (as I earn roughly 16K a year). I've had a read of the new rules applied and from reading this thread I believe that this deficit can be overcome using savings? However, my interpretation of this is that you need at least 16k in savings before this can even be considered, is this true?
> 
> Thanks in advance


You can bump up income by savings between what you earn and what you need. 
I presume you need £18600 to sponsor just your spouse (no kids?) so if you make £16000, you are £2600 short x 2.5 (2.5 years until you have to renew your FLR so you are £2600 short each year for 2.5 years when you can renew and if you make £18600, no more savings are needed) so you'd need £7800 in savings. It's the amount you need to make £18600 a year but you can only do this if you earn £16000 or over. Less than £16000 is a no go I'm afraid.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

2farapart said:


> I would push it for sooner. The ruling is that applications GRANTED befor July 9th will be governed by the old rules. With postage and your biometrics, you'll probably need two to three weeks - plus the UKBA days to approve so I'd work on getting it done as soon as you can.


See section 23 and 132-granted AND applied pre-9 July. So the applicant who can 'hit submit' and pay is good to go, all they need to do is meet the rules current pre-9 July 2012


----------



## Mervinia N

george567 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Me and my wife have been looking to apply for a spouse visa, but it hasn't been possible as I only just started my new job. Annoyingly these new rules mean that I'm now short of the requirement (as I earn roughly 16K a year). I've had a read of the new rules applied and from reading this thread I believe that this deficit can be overcome using savings? However, my interpretation of this is that you need at least 16k in savings before this can even be considered, is this true?
> 
> Thanks in advance





Mervinia N said:


> You can bump up income by savings between what you earn and what you need.
> I presume you need £18600 to sponsor just your spouse (no kids?) so if you make £16000, you are £2600 short x 2.5 (2.5 years until you have to renew your FLR so you are £2600 short each year for 2.5 years when you can renew and if you make £18600, no more savings are needed) so you'd need £7800 in savings. It's the amount you need to make £18600 a year but you can only do this if you earn £16000 or over. Less than £16000 is a no go I'm afraid.


Oops, you said it was a new job... Ok, that's slightly different as you have to show you've earnt the required income over the last 12 months.
So, if over the last 12 months you've earnt £16000, savings remain the same amount. 
If you've earnt less than £16000 over the last 12 months then no, you can't use savings and you'd have to wait until you've been in your job 6 months to use the 6 months calculation with savings.

Hope that makes sense!


----------



## 2farapart

qman383 said:


> Although I understand why they are changing some things, I am confused as to why they would raise the amount needed to support your spouse. I know that jobs are hard to come by to begin with and my wife works full time as a care giver for the elderly and she falls short on the requirement. Those jobs don't pay enough so she has had to claim benefits for her and my daughter. I have just applied for my spousal visa and will be sending all of my documents to NewYork next week. It's hard for me and my family as well as those in a similar situation to meet those requirements. Crazy how the government doesn't consider the current state of the economy as well as the underpaid and the fact that split families like mine have to deal with childcare issues, emotional hardship a family deals with being separated. My wife works plenty as well as attending school full time and doesn't want to be on benefits, but has no choice when her husband isn't there to work and help. My American Dollar is not much when sent to the UK.


As said earlier, I found myself mostly finding the changes reasonable, but where I still think it's not terribly fair is if the onus will be wholly on the sponsor to meet the income threshold, because there are some inequalities. For example: more women than men find themselves in poorly paid occupations (look at your local supermarket store and you'll find mostly women at the checkouts) which can mean it will be much harder for a couple when it is the woman in the UK acting as sponsor. If the income threshold DOES allow both partners' income to be counted, that would be much fairer (bearing in mind the sole reason for the increase is that a COUPLE can support themselves without burdening the British taxpayer). I think the increase _per se _is fair to a point as £18600 for a couple with housing costs really isn't very much to live on. However, this is a little unfair on those who don't have a mortgage or rent to pay, because that £18600 would go a lot further. In that regard, the old measure of how much per week AFTER deducting housing costs was a fairer way to measure.


----------



## dstone

Mervinia N said:


> You can bump up income by savings between what you earn and what you need.
> I presume you need £18600 to sponsor just your spouse (no kids?) so if you make £16000, you are £2600 short x 2.5 (2.5 years until you have to renew your FLR so you are £2600 short each year for 2.5 years when you can renew and if you make £18600, no more savings are needed) so you'd need £7800 in savings. It's the amount you need to make £18600 a year but you can only do this if you earn £16000 or over. Less than £16000 is a no go I'm afraid.


One thing I didn't hear a comment on was Duel incomes. Once I've received my spouse visa I plan on finding a job (even if it's working at ASDA stocking shelves or checking groceries). I'll go batty sitting on my tushy because I've worked since I was 14yrs old. I'm interested to find out of course if this will be considered. I don't recall any comment on this during the televised statement.

Do any of you??


----------



## newlight1

> See section 23 and 132-granted AND applied pre-9 July. So the applicant who can 'hit submit' and pay is good to go, all they need to do is meet the rules current pre-9 July 2012


God be the glory. But I pray for all those in the Future who have difficulty with these rules and pray these rules will be over turned in court at some point. Amen.


----------



## george567

Mervinia N said:


> You can bump up income by savings between what you earn and what you need.
> I presume you need £18600 to sponsor just your spouse (no kids?) so if you make £16000, you are £2600 short x 2.5 (2.5 years until you have to renew your FLR so you are £2600 short each year for 2.5 years when you can renew and if you make £18600, no more savings are needed) so you'd need £7800 in savings. It's the amount you need to make £18600 a year but you can only do this if you earn £16000 or over. Less than £16000 is a no go I'm afraid.


Hi,

Thanks for the reply , yes, it is just my wife that I need to sponsor. So I only need 7800 in savings? I must have read it wrong as I got the impression I needed a minimal of 16000 in savings before it counted! Well that's a relief! Luckily I earn just over 16000 then... So as the new rules state, I need to be earning this 16000 for 6 months AND have 7800 in savings which have been present for 6 months as well? 

One more quick question, these savings, do they have to be purely mine or can my wife's savings contribute towards this figure?

Thanks


----------



## george567

Mervinia N said:


> Oops, you said it was a new job... Ok, that's slightly different as you have to show you've earnt the required income over the last 12 months.
> So, if over the last 12 months you've earnt £16000, savings remain the same amount.
> If you've earnt less than £16000 over the last 12 months then no, you can't use savings and you'd have to wait until you've been in your job 6 months to use the 6 months calculation with savings.
> 
> Hope that makes sense!


Yes, that makes perfect sense, thanks!


----------



## Mervinia N

george567 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the reply , yes, it is just my wife that I need to sponsor. So I only need 7800 in savings? I must have read it wrong as I got the impression I needed a minimal of 16000 in savings before it counted! Well that's a relief! Luckily I earn just over 16000 then... So as the new rules state, I need to be earning this 16000 for 6 months AND have 7800 in savings which have been present for 6 months as well?
> 
> One more quick question, these savings, do they have to be purely mine or can my wife's savings contribute towards this figure?
> 
> Thanks


Savings have to be present for 6 months, can be in your name, your wife's name or joint names and you need to state the source of the savings.
Income needs to be from present employer for 6 months or if new job (less than 6 months) needs to have been earnt in the previous 12 months in previous job(s)

 it's a lot to get your head round I know


----------



## george567

Mervinia N said:


> Savings have to be present for 6 months, can be in your name, your wife's name or joint names and you need to state the source of the savings.
> Income needs to be from present employer for 6 months or if new job (less than 6 months) needs to have been earnt in the previous 12 months in previous job(s)
> 
> it's a lot to get your head round I know


Now I know that I'm just being difficult here but can the savings be a combination of both my savings and her savings?? If not, does the total sum have had to be present for 6 months? I believe I have savings in an account which is just short of what I need so I'd need to bump it up a bit, so we'd be talking roughly 80% needed already in account


Now I know that this isn't completely on topic but I'd just like to say thanks. I've been trying to look around for information about this sort of thing for ages, all sorts of forums and websites yet never really getting any questions answered. Here I've had my questions answered within the hour which has just been a great change, plus I find this forum really informative unlike some others! So yeah, thanks!


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

dstone said:


> One thing I didn't hear a comment on was Duel incomes. Once I've received my spouse visa I plan on finding a job (even if it's working at ASDA stocking shelves or checking groceries). I'll go batty sitting on my tushy because I've worked since I was 14yrs old. I'm interested to find out of course if this will be considered. I don't recall any comment on this during the televised statement.
> 
> Do any of you??


Actually she did, but at that point she was mumbling and it was hard to catch everything. What she said was something along the lines of joint income and savings, but she was mumbling, so I'm not 100% sure of that one-you're better off reading the Statement of Intent line-by-line, and take notes, lol, 'cause there is a lot of info in there!

As for working, I'm sorry for the way I already know this will sound...Good luck with that. 

The UK has very high unemployment, and the incomers who are finding jobs here are people who have skills that are exceptional, and or on the shortage occupation list. Trust me, stocking shelves at ASDA isn't on the shortage list.

Also, 'locals' (that would be people who are 'from here') are really struggling-they will not look kindly on a newcomer who arrives hoping to take a job opening a local could fill.


----------



## Mervinia N

dstone said:


> One thing I didn't hear a comment on was Duel incomes. Once I've received my spouse visa I plan on finding a job (even if it's working at ASDA stocking shelves or checking groceries). I'll go batty sitting on my tushy because I've worked since I was 14yrs old. I'm interested to find out of course if this will be considered. I don't recall any comment on this during the televised statement.
> 
> Do any of you??


If you are on FLR, you're on the old rules and don't need to meet the new financial requirement.

Edit: are you on fiancé visa and not yet spouse's visa or applying straight onto spouse's visa? If you're on a fiancé visa, you're under old rules 

Anyone starting brand new after 9th July can have both incomes taken into account IF the sponsored person has a right to work i.e. not on a fiancé visa and not for initial FLR (as you are on a fiancé visa until FLR is granted) but at FLR 2.5yr renewal and at ILR, yes you can


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

dstone said:


> WestCoastCanadianGirl
> 
> Great Point and good luck
> 
> People in the US need to Keep in mind July 4th is Independence day in the US. So one will want to make sure that they take that into account as the US processing office is in NY and Washington DC.
> 
> I think I can squeak this one out.. (fingers crossed)


Just got off the phone with Ed and he's o.k. with things as they stand, if we apply before the 9th of July.

We're going to put our application around midday on July 4th (ie 3 or 4pm Eastern or after Ed gets home from w*rk) and then I'll take whatever the next available biometric appointment is... Vancouver Office isn't so very busy that I can't get anything for weeks on end and since I know where it is and what to expect, it'll be easy for me to get to. 

I'm hoping to be able to get it all done and sent on or before July 9th, but this all depends on when I can get my biometric appointment. I looked at the WorldBridge site about a week ago, just to see how far ahead they're running, and found that they were offering "first come, first serve" next day appointments at the Vancouver office (the "prime time for an extra fee" appointments were booking for a few days after that... ha ha), and I hope that if I apply on the 4th, I can get in on the 6th and have it sent out that day, and use the dispatch date of the 6th to plead a "I got it out to you before July 9th," if necessary (I know that for postal FLR(M) and SET(M) applications, the UKBA will accept post office post marks and courier dispatch dates for the purposes of establishing an applicant's "application date"). I like that the Vancouver office will not only go over the application but also has all of the shipping materiel on hand to allow for same day dispatch.

Now, we just have to spend the rest of this week getting our documents together and going over everything with a fine tooth comb (must also go and do a proposed travel itinerary and print that off for the application package).


----------



## Joppa

george567 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the reply , yes, it is just my wife that I need to sponsor. So I only need 7800 in savings? I must have read it wrong as I got the impression I needed a minimal of 16000 in savings before it counted! Well that's a relief! Luckily I earn just over 16000 then... So as the new rules state, I need to be earning this 16000 for 6 months AND have 7800 in savings which have been present for 6 months as well?
> 
> One more quick question, these savings, do they have to be purely mine or can my wife's savings contribute towards this figure?


No. Any savings below £16,000 don't count at all because that figure is the maximum amount you can have in savings without affecting your benefits under UK social security rules. So if you need contribution from your savings to meet the minimum income requirement, you must have at least £16,000.
Savings can be in your, your wife's or in joint names. But they must be in instant access account that doesn't require notice period.


----------



## dstone

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Actually she did, but at that point she was mumbling and it was hard to catch everything. What she said was something along the lines of joint income and savings, but she was mumbling, so I'm not 100% sure of that one-you're better off reading the Statement of Intent line-by-line, and take notes, lol, 'cause there is a lot of info in there!
> 
> As for working, I'm sorry for the way I already know this will sound...Good luck with that.
> 
> The UK has very high unemployment, and the incomers who are finding jobs here are people who have skills that are exceptional, and or on the shortage occupation list. Trust me, stocking shelves at ASDA isn't on the shortage list.
> 
> Also, 'locals' (that would be people who are 'from here') are really struggling-they will not look kindly on a newcomer who arrives hoping to take a job opening a local could fill.


That mentality is exactly the same over here in the US. I've got a pretty decent CV though (currently a manager with a college education). I understand that they would probably want a "local" but most companies also look at qualifications especially if they are equal opportunity employers.


----------



## Mervinia N

Joppa said:


> No. Any savings below £16,000 doesn't count at all because that figure is the maximum amount you can have in savings without affecting your benefits under UK social security rules. So if you need contribution from your savings to meet the minimum income requirement, you must have at least £16,000.
> Savings can be in your, your wife's or in joint names. But they must be in instant access account that doesn't require notice period.


Thanks Joppa, I've not read it like that at all but can always count on someone to clear up any errors 
Apologies for sending you up the garden path George


----------



## george567

Joppa said:


> No. Any savings below £16,000 don't count at all because that figure is the maximum amount you can have in savings without affecting your benefits under UK social security rules. So if you need contribution from your savings to meet the minimum income requirement, you must have at least £16,000.
> Savings can be in your, your wife's or in joint names. But they must be in instant access account that doesn't require notice period.


So what you're saying is that even though I'd require only 7800 in savings I'd need to have at least 16000 before it could even be considered? Thanks


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

dstone said:


> That mentality is exactly the same over here in the US. I've got a pretty decent CV though (currently a manager with a college education). I understand that they would probably want a "local" but most companies also look at qualifications especially if they are equal opportunity employers.


Erm, yes. I was thinking more along the lines of good neighbour relations and not encouraging your neighbours to view you as a job-stealing outlander, lol, but you have to live with them for the rest of your natural life, not me 

Too, I think you'll find most companies here in the UK prefer to hire locals as a matter of loyalty if at all possible. I know the local employers here where I live are doing things that way.


----------



## Mervinia N

george567 said:


> So what you're saying is that even though I'd require only 7800 in savings I'd need to have at least 16000 before it could even be considered? Thanks


I've just re-read the section of the Statement of Intent and yes, it's savings over and above £16000 which can be used to make up a shortfall. 
So £16000 savings first then 2.5 x the shortfall on top  not as great as it first looked. This is at FLR & FLR renewal at 2.5 years. 
At ILR, it's flat rate - whatever the shortfall is on top of the £16000 (or whatever the figure may be by then - gov't are renewing financial requirements annually)


----------



## george567

Mervinia N said:


> I've just re-read the section of the Statement of Intent and yes, it's savings over and above £16000 which can be used to make up a shortfall.
> So £16000 savings first then 2.5 x the shortfall on top  not as great as it first looked. This is at FLR & FLR renewal at 2.5 years.
> At ILR, it's flat rate - whatever the shortfall is on top of the £16000 (or whatever the figure may be by then - gov't are renewing financial requirements annually)


Ok thanks, that makes sense, sounds like how I read it too. How lenient are they with the amount of time savings are present? I've been in my job for over a month and was looking to apply by the sixth, however at that time, this savings account of 16000 or so would have only been there for roughly 4 1/2, must it wait the whole 6 months??


----------



## Mervinia N

george567 said:


> Ok thanks, that makes sense, sounds like how I read it too. How lenient are they with the amount of time savings are present? I've been in my job for over a month and was looking to apply by the sixth, however at that time, this savings account of 16000 or so would have only been there for roughly 4 1/2, must it wait the whole 6 months??


The Statement of Intent does say "held for at least 6 months at the point of application and under their control will be counted..." 
That suggested that savings held under 6 months won't be counted 

It's article 83K in the SoI


----------



## george567

Mervinia N said:


> The Statement of Intent does say "held for at least 6 months at the point of application and under their control will be counted..."
> That suggested that savings held under 6 months won't be counted
> 
> It's article 83K in the SoI


I was afraid of that. I was hoping they'd be more lenient but I suppose that won't be the case!


----------



## Mervinia N

george567 said:


> I was afraid of that. I was hoping they'd be more lenient but I suppose that won't be the case!


The SoI is very insistent the income levels are rigid - we either make the level or we don't - so I can only imagine the savings element will be just as stringent 

It's an obvious stop to those who would get a new job just to make the income level but with no stability in the position, probably on some form of probationary period or just leave after the visa was granted or those lucky enough to have someone put £000s into their bank account for a few days and then give it back. Makes sense but sucks for those caught in it.


----------



## newlight1

Out of curiosity does anyone know if they changed the rules about living a UK Citizen living in Europe with his non EU Spouse then coming back to the UK and not being restricted to the UK Visa regulations?


----------



## george567

Mervinia N said:


> The SoI is very insistent the income levels are rigid - we either make the level or we don't - so I can only imagine the savings element will be just as stringent
> 
> It's an obvious stop to those who would get a new job just to make the income level but with no stability in the position, probably on some form of probationary period or just leave after the visa was granted or those lucky enough to have someone put £000s into their bank account for a few days and then give it back. Makes sense but sucks for those caught in it.


Reading that just made me think, we all know how the economy is here at the moment. I can guess what would happen if you were to lose your job before the visa is granted, but what would happen if you lost your job or even had a forceful pay cut after the visa was issued??


----------



## Mervinia N

george567 said:


> Reading that just made me think, we all know how the economy is here at the moment. I can guess what would happen if you were to lose your job before the visa is granted, but what would happen if you lost your job or even had a forceful pay cut after the visa was issued??


My guess would be your visa is granted therefore you have until your next visa, either FLR, FLR renewal at 2.5 yrs (known as further limited leave apparently) or ILR to reach the required income over the 6 or 12 month calculation.

Edit: actually at FLR, as fiancé visa is 6 months, to lose your job would mean you couldn't make it on the 6 month calculation so would have to do the 12 month calculation instead.

I'm pretty sure visas aren't issued on a financial requirements continuation basis but on a 'date of application' snapshot basis (I've not read anything specific about this, just my guesstimate lol)


----------



## qman383

2farapart said:


> As said earlier, I found myself mostly finding the changes reasonable, but where I still think it's not terribly fair is if the onus will be wholly on the sponsor to meet the income threshold, because there are some inequalities. For example: more women than men find themselves in poorly paid occupations (look at your local supermarket store and you'll find mostly women at the checkouts) which can mean it will be much harder for a couple when it is the woman in the UK acting as sponsor. If the income threshold DOES allow both partners' income to be counted, that would be much fairer (bearing in mind the sole reason for the increase is that a COUPLE can support themselves without burdening the British taxpayer). I think the increase per se is fair to a point as £18600 for a couple with housing costs really isn't very much to live on. However, this is a little unfair on those who don't have a mortgage or rent to pay, because that £18600 would go a lot further. In that regard, the old measure of how much per week AFTER deducting housing costs was a fairer way to measure.


I to agree that this is unfair and I also agree that the women do seem to be in lower paying jobs. My wife works very hard as a care provider full time but the rate of pay is horrible and she has had to get help from benefits. We never had to do that when she was here in the U.S. To make matters worse she attends school during the week and she has our 7 year old daughter to care for alone. If I were there I would most certainly be working as we have friends there willing to help me get work, therefore we would have no need for my wife to be on benefits. This is where I believe that they should draw the line as we are clearly making an honest effort. Then again it's the government and we are just a few out of many with similar circumstances.


----------



## JollyCynic

Just a quick comment on the KOL REQ endorsement.

The KOL REQ endorsement is, as Joppa guessed through the current actions of ECOs, being done away with under these new rules. This is explained in section 17 and 110. (I wholeheartedly agree with this decision and the reasoning behind it.)

However, if you do have the KOL REQ endorsement on your visa, it's explicitly spelled out in section 132 and the examples in Appendix E that this is among the "grandfathered" transition rules that will still be recognized if the endorsement is granted prior to 9 July:


> The abolition of immediate settlement for migrant partners where a couple have been living together overseas for at least four years will apply to all applications made on or after 9 July 2012, with the exception of applications from those granted limited leave before 9 July 2012 (because they met all the requirements for immediate settlement apart from knowledge of language and life in the UK). That group will continue to be able to apply for immediate settlement as soon as they are able to meet the existing knowledge of language and life in the UK requirement.


I suppose in theory, if you can still get them to give you the KOL REQ endorsement between now and then, it'd be applicable, but I'm pretty sure we won't see any granted between now and then.


----------



## casjoe

newlight1 said:


> Out of curiosity does anyone know if they changed the rules about living a UK Citizen living in Europe with his non EU Spouse then coming back to the UK and not being restricted to the UK Visa regulations?


You mean EEA family permits? I'm curious about that, too.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

JollyCynic said:


> Just a quick comment on the KOL REQ endorsement.
> 
> The KOL REQ endorsement is, as Joppa guessed through the current actions of ECOs, being done away with under these new rules. This is explained in section 17 and 110. (I wholeheartedly agree with this decision and the reasoning behind it.)
> 
> However, if you do have the KOL REQ endorsement on your visa, it's explicitly spelled out in section 132 and the examples in Appendix E that this is among the "grandfathered" transition rules that will still be recognized if the endorsement is granted prior to 9 July:
> 
> 
> I suppose in theory, if you can still get them to give you the KOL REQ endorsement between now and then, it'd be applicable, but I'm pretty sure we won't see any granted between now and then.


I was thinking about this too. We saw before the announcement that at least two members here had to request a review to get the endorsement added, and I think there were others who mentioned it but let it go and didn't push to get the endorsement-makes it seem as though that particular bit was being quietly let go even before the announcement or implementation.

Reading over the SOI last night (before my eyeballs jumped out and went to bed by themselves, lol) I noticed there is a real tightening in some places and this is one of them. It will be interesting to see if anyone gets it between now and 9 July, and if they have to 'squeak' to get it-or if they'll even try if they qualify under current rules but don't receive the endorsement.


----------



## Eabie

I'm currently in the UK on a spousal visa. I'm sure this has been asked a thousand times already in the thread and you're all sick of it, but, just to be *absolutely clear* -- this means that when I apply for ILR next year, it'll be under the *old rules* that were in place when I first got my visa?

Out of curiosity, can anybody also tell me the *old rules* for income requirements and accommodation for ILR? I didn't think that there were any -- I thought it was just a residency requirement, English language if applicable, and the Life in the UK test. Do correct me if I'm wrong, thanks!


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

Eabie said:


> I'm currently in the UK on a spousal visa. I'm sure this has been asked a thousand times already in the thread and you're all sick of it, but, just to be *absolutely clear* -- this means that when I apply for ILR next year, it'll be under the *old rules* that were in place when I first got my visa?
> 
> Out of curiosity, can anybody also tell me the *old rules* for income requirements and accommodation for ILR? I didn't think that there were any -- I thought it was just a residency requirement, English language if applicable, and the Life in the UK test. Do correct me if I'm wrong, thanks!


See 23 and 132 of the Statement of Intent available as a download on the following link:

UK Border Agency | Family migration changes announced

Reading it should answer your questions as it appears to be written at the very level of English comprehension the UKBA is going to require from all applicants on or after 9 July 2012.

I highly recommend printing this out and putting it into a binder for continued reference, and the use of highlighters and notes on a notepad-not much room in the margins


----------



## Eabie

Well that answers one question. What about the old rules for income and accommodations for ILR? If they're just the same as the rules that were in place for the visa, then we should meet them, but I was under the impression that there weren't any requirements other than not being in breach of the rules of your original visa (obviously), the residency stuff, the relationships being genuine and intact, and the English language & and Life in the UK test.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

Eabie said:


> Well that answers one question. What about the old rules for income and accommodations for ILR? If they're just the same as the rules that were in place for the visa, then we should meet them, but I was under the impression that there weren't any requirements other than not being in breach of the rules of your original visa (obviously), the residency stuff, the relationships being genuine and intact, and the English language & and Life in the UK test.


Seriously, reading the SOI answers all of your questions. I have it printed out and am highlighting things that apply to my particular situation. 

Quick answer, though is: ALL of the rules that are in force at the time your visa was issued are the ones that will remain applicable to you-including income and accommodation.

It really is actually quite a generous plan!

I am glad to see that the new criminality rules apply immediately for the most part, particularly for those who are using Article 8 and it's provisions for private and family life to aid their chances of a visa grant. 

I don't think I'll ever be able to get the image of the grief stricken father's face out of my mind when he learned the man who killed his daughter in a hit and run was able to evade deportation. That case was beyond horrific because the killer created a British family in a particularly cynical way after running down that little girl in an effort to abuse the family life clause of Article 8. Hopefully now people like him will be deported and banned from ever returning.


----------



## Joppa

casjoe said:


> You mean EEA family permits? I'm curious about that, too.


No change has been announced with respect to EEA citizens and British citizens using EU treaty rights, so you are ok. As regard to the Surinder Singh case, as it's based on European case law, it's unlikely to be dropped, as that would bring UK in conflict with EU.


----------



## Joppa

Eabie said:


> Well that answers one question. What about the old rules for income and accommodations for ILR? If they're just the same as the rules that were in place for the visa, then we should meet them, but I was under the impression that there weren't any requirements other than not being in breach of the rules of your original visa (obviously), the residency stuff, the relationships being genuine and intact, and the English language & and Life in the UK test.


Plus not accessing public funds during your probationary period right up to (hopefully) being granted ILR, so you still have to supply your financial information to show you meet it, i.e. £111.45 per week without dependants after housing costs or pre-tax annual income of £13,700.


----------



## deco

dstone said:


> One thing I didn't hear a comment on was Duel incomes. Once I've received my spouse visa I plan on finding a job (even if it's working at ASDA stocking shelves or checking groceries). I'll go batty sitting on my tushy because I've worked since I was 14yrs old. I'm interested to find out of course if this will be considered. I don't recall any comment on this during the televised statement.
> 
> Do any of you??


In the Statement of Intent document, it says that they will not consider the overseas income of the applicant, as they don't believe it is a good indicator that they will be able to obtain a job in the UK. An exception to this is if the applicant is already in the UK with permission to work (I hope my Youth Mobility visa is included in this!). They also said they will not allow co-sponsors.


----------



## george567

Did they mention any changes in the language requirement for spouse visas??


----------



## 2farapart

deco said:


> In the Statement of Intent document, it says that they will not consider the overseas income of the applicant, as they don't believe it is a good indicator that they will be able to obtain a job in the UK. An exception to this is if the applicant is already in the UK with permission to work (I hope my Youth Mobility visa is included in this!). They also said they will not allow co-sponsors.


Specifically, it's stated:


> *We will not take into account the previous, current or prospective employment and earnings, or any job offer, of the migrant applicant at the entry clearance stage.* Employment overseas is no guarantee of finding work in the UK. The family route is not the primary immigration route for a migrant partner coming here with employment: with an appropriate job offer, they can apply under Tier 2 of the Points Based System.* Those using the family route to come to the UK must be capable of being independently supported by their sponsor and/or by their joint cash savings or non-employment income*.


Bold highlights are by me. The exception to this rule is where the sponsoring partner in the UK is in receipt of any of our disability allowances. There is however a degree of scope for UK sponsors who have also been residing overseas with their spouse if they can demonstrate a verifiable job offer that can be taken up within 3 months of moving to the UK and which meets the income requirements.

Once you have gained entry and have passed through the spouse visa period, joint income from you both can be considered when applying for ILR.


----------



## nyclon

george567 said:


> Did they mention any changes in the language requirement for spouse visas??


Have you read the Statement of Intent? That subject is covered.


----------



## 2farapart

george567 said:


> Did they mention any changes in the language requirement for spouse visas??


As of October 2013 onwards, the English Language level must be B1 in order to qualify for settlement. This is being universally applied to ALL visa applicants (whether they applied before of after 9 July for their initial entry into the UK). In other words, if you are here on a spouse visa currently but won't be eligible to apply for ILR until after October 2013, you must reach English level B1 in order to reach a satisfactory level for ILR.


----------



## george567

nyclon said:


> Have you read the Statement of Intent? That subject is covered.


I keep reading that B1 is required but that is for settlement. I might have missed it but I haven't seen the section which highlights what level is needed for the initial spouse visa.


----------



## nyclon

george567 said:


> I keep reading that B1 is required but that is for settlement. I might have missed it but I haven't seen the section which highlights what level is needed for the initial spouse visa.


A spouse visa is a settlement visa.


----------



## george567

2farapart said:


> As of October 2013, the English Language level must be B1. This is being universally applied to ALL applicants (whether they apply before of after 9 July for their entry into the UK). In other words, if you are here on a spouse visa currently but won't be eligible to apply for ILR until after October 2013, you must reach English level B1 in order to reach a satisfactory level for ILR.


So if you were to apply for a spouse visa before October 2013, English level A2 is still acceptable. However from October 2013, everything will be changed to B1, correct?


----------



## Zama

george567 said:


> I keep reading that B1 is required but that is for settlement. I might have missed it but I haven't seen the section which highlights what level is needed for the initial spouse visa.


For initial spouse visa the level of English language requirement will be B1 according to the Statement of Intent. It will be effective from October 2013 for all kind of settlements, incl.spouse visa


----------



## 2farapart

george567 said:


> I keep reading that B1 is required but that is for settlement. I might have missed it but I haven't seen the section which highlights what level is needed for the initial spouse visa.


If you're on spouse visa now, then if your application for ILR will take place during or after October 2013, then you must demonstrate English speaking and listening skills at B1 in order to be able to apply for your ILR (as I posted above). This applies to everyone (not just people who apply for entry into UK after the rules come into force in July).


----------



## 2farapart

george567 said:


> So if you were to apply for a spouse visa before October 2013, English level A2 is still acceptable. However from October 2013, everything will be changed to B1, correct?


Yes, this is how I understand it BUT you will need B1 level or higher when applying for your subsequent ILR 5 years later:



> Until October 2013, applicants for settlement, including partners of British citizens and settled persons, will be required to meet the current knowledge of life and language criteria, by passing the Life in the UK test or an English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) course using Citizenship materials.


----------



## george567

2farapart said:


> Yes, this is how I understand it BUT you will need B1 level or higher when applying for your subsequent ILR 5 years later:


That's what I was hoping for. My spouse currently has A2 level qualifications and whilst B1 wouldn't be much of a problem, it would still a substantial period of time to book in and wait for tests. Therefore if we can worry about B1 after the initial visa then everything works out for the better! Thanks


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

george567 said:


> That's what I was hoping for. My spouse currently has A2 level qualifications and whilst B1 wouldn't be much of a problem, it would still a substantial period of time to book in and wait for tests. Therefore if we can worry about B1 after the initial visa then everything works out for the better! Thanks


I think it'd be a good idea for everyone to get the LiUK test over and done with before October '13, because I wouldn't put it past them to have re-vamped and re-written the test to make it slightly more difficult to pass. I also wouldn't put it past them to also raise the testing fee.... since all we need on this test is a pass and once we have the pass, it's got an indefinite expiry date, doing it sooner rather than later would avoid grief further down the line.


----------



## george567

Sorry for the absolute mass of questions! But regarding the 18,600 income, currently I'm just above 16,000, could I make up the rest of this sum through part time work on top of my job? Thanks


----------



## Zama

Just going thru the Genuineness of relationship part of Statement of Intent and the following parts a bit worries me:

Factors assosiated with non-geniunerelationship: 
-The couple are unable to provide any information about their intended living 
arrangements in the UK or about the practicalities of the applicant moving to the 
UK. 
-The circumstances of the wedding ceremony or reception held or planned, e.g. 
few details, no or few guests, and/or no significant family members present
-There is a lack of appropriate contribution to the responsibilities of the marriage, 
partnership or relationship, e.g. a lack of shared financial or other domestic 
responsibilities. 

I know, these are the guidelines for the changes coming into effect after 9th July, although they still can be taken into account by ECO whilst taking decisions for applications submitted before that date. 

Since me and my fiance are planning our wedding in December-12 - there is a plenty of time and we consider one venue, but haven't made any arrangements yet. We only booked an appointment to give a notice in a registry office. 
And how can we have joint financial responsibilities if we live in separate countries and not married yet?


----------



## garrick

Hi, can somebody help me please on indefinite leave to remain?

I'm a non Brit and married to my British Hubby. We've been married for 10 years and have lived in Aus for those 10 years and now have 3 kids (with British passports).

Under these new rules can I apply for ILTR as we've been married for so long? I read through the UKBA document and on page 57 it says to qualify for ILTR one has to meet "Same requirements as leave to remain as a spouse or civil partner "

which is "Applicant must previously have been granted leave for 6 months"!!

I haven't been granted leave for 6 months before!?!

Would really appreciate some help. Thanks


----------



## 2farapart

george567 said:


> Sorry for the absolute mass of questions! But regarding the 18,600 income, currently I'm just above 16,000, could I make up the rest of this sum through part time work on top of my job? Thanks


Provided you can demonstrate that this is a quaranteed regular income you should be okay.


----------



## nyclon

garrick said:


> Hi, can somebody help me please on indefinite leave to remain?
> 
> I'm a non Brit and married to my British Hubby. We've been married for 10 years and have lived in Aus for those 10 years and now have 3 kids (with British passports).
> 
> Under these new rules can I apply for ILTR as we've been married for so long? I read through the UKBA document and on page 57 it says to qualify for ILTR one has to meet "Same requirements as leave to remain as a spouse or civil partner "
> 
> which is "Applicant must previously have been granted leave for 6 months"!!
> 
> I haven't been granted leave for 6 months before!?!
> 
> Would really appreciate some help. Thanks


No. You can't apply for ILR. See point 110. That path is being abolished and if you apply on or after 9 July 2012 you must meet the same requirements as anyone else which would mean a 5 year probationary period before receiving ILR.

**Edited to add: the pertinent point for you is that on page 56 Indefinite Leave to Enter has been abolished as stated in point 110.


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle

qman383 said:


> I to agree that this is unfair and I also agree that the women do seem to be in lower paying jobs. My wife works very hard as a care provider full time but the rate of pay is horrible and she has had to get help from benefits. We never had to do that when she was here in the U.S. To make matters worse she attends school during the week and she has our 7 year old daughter to care for alone. If I were there I would most certainly be working as we have friends there willing to help me get work, therefore we would have no need for my wife to be on benefits. This is where I believe that they should draw the line as we are clearly making an honest effort. Then again it's the government and we are just a few out of many with similar circumstances.


The onus is on the couple, not only the sponsor--it's household income. You can also inject savings over £16,000 to cover any shortfalls in income.


----------



## andrisaacs

uzi said:


> @ andrisaacs can you please post the link for that info?


Hi Uzi, I cant post a link here as i am quite new but you can find the information from the home office website.


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle

george567 said:


> Sorry for the absolute mass of questions! But regarding the 18,600 income, currently I'm just above 16,000, could I make up the rest of this sum through part time work on top of my job? Thanks


Yes you can supplement it w/part time work or a certain level of savings.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

Zama said:


> Just going thru the Genuineness of relationship part of Statement of Intent and the following parts a bit worries me:
> 
> Factors assosiated with non-geniunerelationship:
> -The couple are unable to provide any information about their intended living
> arrangements in the UK or about the practicalities of the applicant moving to the
> UK.
> -The circumstances of the wedding ceremony or reception held or planned, e.g.
> few details, no or few guests, and/or no significant family members present
> -There is a lack of appropriate contribution to the responsibilities of the marriage,
> partnership or relationship, e.g. a lack of shared financial or other domestic
> responsibilities.
> 
> I know, these are the guidelines for the changes coming into effect after 9th July, although they still can be taken into account by ECO whilst taking decisions for applications submitted before that date.
> 
> Since me and my fiance are planning our wedding in December-12 - there is a plenty of time and we consider one venue, but haven't made any arrangements yet. We only booked an appointment to give a notice in a registry office.
> And how can we have joint financial responsibilities if we live in separate countries and not married yet?


From my first two readings of the entire Statement of Intent, I feel comfortable saying that the section you're concerned about are regarding existing marriages wherein the sponsor (UKC) is returning to the UK with the applicant, not fiance(e) applications. 

Pretty sure, but I'm still on my first pot of tea and haven't gone through the entire SOI for the third time. I'll correct myself if someone doesn't beat me to it, if I have that wrong. I don't think so though, I'm 98.7% sure that is concerning existing marriages.

Also, the one part of that section that might apply to you (details of planned...) you already have covered in your pending application. UKBA understands that detailed planning isn't always possible, and if the applicant meets the other requirements, the ECO has discretion.


----------



## 2farapart

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> From my first two readings of the entire Statement of Intent, I feel comfortable saying that the section you're concerned about are regarding existing marriages wherein the sponsor (UKC) is returning to the UK with the applicant, not fiance(e) applications.
> 
> Pretty sure, but I'm still on my first pot of tea and haven't gone through the entire SOI for the third time. I'll correct myself if someone doesn't beat me to it, if I have that wrong. I don't think so though, I'm 98.7% sure that is concerning existing marriages.
> 
> Also, the one part of that section that might apply to you (details of planned...) you already have covered in your pending application. UKBA understands that detailed planning isn't always possible, and if the applicant meets the other requirements, the ECO has discretion.


Yes - from section 96 onwards it's useful to read the reasons behind the proof required. The government has not been disingenuous in their claims behind some of the changes and really ARE trying to root out sham and forced marriages. People genuinely in a relationship and genuinely in love will have little difficulty in meeting this part of the assessment (which remains largely unchanged). The document does point out that, currently, Entry Clearance Officers have limited formal guidance in what does or does not constitute a relationship, and so some of this is going to be down to the judgement of individual officers who will have experience in what to look for, but always remember that they're looking for signs of unwilling and reluctant partners, marriages where money might have changed hands outside the scope of anything that would ordinarily happen within a given culture, marriages where there is no evidence whatsoever of accommodation planning or any other definite plans for a future, where there are no shared financial liabilities (or plans for them) or where UK sponsors have brought in other partners from overseas in the past. Evidence of sham and forced marriages will be a collective of many of these things conjointly (not necessarily just one entity) and so people who are genuinely in a loving relationship will likely have little cause for concern.


----------



## Mervinia N

BailyBanksBiddle said:


> The onus is on the couple, not only the sponsor--it's household income. You can also inject savings over £16,000 to cover any shortfalls in income.


The income of the couple will only be applicable at a time when the applicant has a right to work i.e. for a fiancé visa, it is just the sponsor's income, which will also apply when that applicant has married and applies for FLR.
Once on FLR and the right to work is in place, then at FLR renewal (required at 2.5 yrs) and at ILR, salaried income of the couple can be used.

If using additional savings above £16000 to increase income, the calculation is £shortfall x 2.5 at FLR and at ILR is £shortfall only


----------



## Zama

2farapart said:


> Yes - from section 96 onwards it's useful to read the reasons behind the proof required. The government has not been disingenuous in their claims behind some of the changes and really ARE trying to root out sham and forced marriages. People genuinely in a relationship and genuinely in love will have little difficulty in meeting this part of the assessment (which remains largely unchanged). The document does point out that, currently, Entry Clearance Officers have limited formal guidance in what does or does not constitute a relationship, and so some of this is going to be down to the judgement of individual officers who will have experience in what to look for, but always remember that they're looking for signs of unwilling and reluctant partners, marriages where money might have changed hands outside the scope of anything that would ordinarily happen within a given culture, marriages where there is no evidence whatsoever of accommodation planning or any other definite plans for a future, where there are no shared financial liabilities (or plans for them) or where UK sponsors have brought in other partners from overseas in the past. Evidence of sham and forced marriages will be a collective of many of these things conjointly (not necessarily just one entity) and so people who are genuinely in a loving relationship will likely have little cause for concern.


Thank you American in Scotland and 2farapart for your responces. 

I am really dreading my visa refusal! Just need to keep my fingers crossed that everything will be fine.


----------



## Kitara

Joppa said:


> Plus not accessing public funds during your probationary period right up to (hopefully) being granted ILR, so you still have to supply your financial information to show you meet it, i.e. £111.45 per week without dependants after housing costs or pre-tax annual income of £13,700.


Joppa.. what do you mean pre tax annual income? 

i am unable to apply mortgage because i am under spouse visa and i am doing a contract job. 

contract job require me to open a ltd company and i am the director for that company. therefore my directory salary is minimum and mostly will go as dividends. 

will this affect my ILR? i am earning at least 4 time more than what the per week status. however, my income work differently as i am running a ltd company.


----------



## Kitara

2farapart said:


> As of October 2013 onwards, the English Language level must be B1 in order to qualify for settlement. This is being universally applied to ALL visa applicants (whether they applied before of after 9 July for their initial entry into the UK). In other words, if you are here on a spouse visa currently but won't be eligible to apply for ILR until after October 2013, you must reach English level B1 in order to reach a satisfactory level for ILR.


Hi 2Faraapart

What if i have a degree is being taught in English and is recognise by the UK govt when i applied for spouse visa, do i still have to do english test?


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

Zama said:


> Thank you American in Scotland and 2farapart for your responces.
> 
> I am really dreading my visa refusal! Just need to keep my fingers crossed that everything will be fine.


I'm not the ECO, but from everything I've read both in your posts and in the rules, I think you have a good application and ample supporting docs-and that 7 on the English test doesn't hurt

Zama, we who have 'been-there/done-that' have complete empathy for what you are feeling right now regarding the wait for the determination. Saying it's nerve-wracking doesn't begin to describe the 24/7 anxiety! 

When I was waiting all I could think of was 'I will feel so much better if/when I get the email that starts '...your UK visa has been issued...' HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, no, actually, I didn't feel all that much better, surprisingly.

Right. So then I thought, hey, I'll feel great when I have the visa in my hot little hand...ok, I did feel a little better...

Next I thought I'd finally relax once I arrived to the UK and was on my way home with my husband, and I did relax a bit-until I started reading about the proposed changes

But you know, I finally, a year into my visa, feel a lot better, more relaxed, and more at ease about settling into Life in the UK!

Hopefully it won't take you as long, but if it does-at least you can remind yourself that you are not alone in the bundle of nerves zone, especially whilst awaiting a determination


----------



## Zama

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> I'm not the ECO, but from everything I've read both in your posts and in the rules, I think you have a good application and ample supporting docs-and that 7 on the English test doesn't hurt
> 
> Zama, we who have 'been-there/done-that' have complete empathy for what you are feeling right now regarding the wait for the determination. Saying it's nerve-wracking doesn't begin to describe the 24/7 anxiety!
> 
> When I was waiting all I could think of was 'I will feel so much better if/when I get the email that starts '...your UK visa has been issued...' HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, no, actually, I didn't feel all that much better, surprisingly.
> 
> Right. So then I thought, hey, I'll feel great when I have the visa in my hot little hand...ok, I did feel a little better...
> 
> Next I thought I'd finally relax once I arrived to the UK and was on my way home with my husband, and I did relax a bit-until I started reading about the proposed changes
> 
> But you know, I finally, a year into my visa, feel a lot better, more relaxed, and more at ease about settling into Life in the UK!
> 
> Hopefully it won't take you as long, but if it does-at least you can remind yourself that you are not alone in the bundle of nerves zone, especially whilst awaiting a determination


Well, since 5 years probation period doesnt apply to any of those who got their settlement visas before 9th of July, you must be soooo much relieved!  I understand your feelings and the way you described them, it feels like you described them on my behalf!  
This nerve anxiety already cause me a nervous exhaustion or possibly it has already been there, God knows  
Thanks for your support. As usual, you're always there with your words of wisdom


----------



## 2farapart

Kitara said:


> Hi 2Faraapart
> 
> What if i have a degree is being taught in English and is recognise by the UK govt when i applied for spouse visa, do i still have to do english test?


The dossier doesn't seem to say anything about what constitutes actual proof of the new B1 level from my reading. I would have thought that a degree being taught wholly in English would still be good enough, but that's my guesswork. If the eligibility of 'equivalents' should change, I expect notice of the changes will appear very soon on the UKBA site because people will need time to prepare for the new levels. The Home Office already recognises that it takes time to reach a new level. Not all people will be ready by October 2013 and the dossier mentions that the Home Office might consider discretionary leave to remain for a further 30 months for some applicants who fail the test initially.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

Zama said:


> Well, since 5 years probation period doesnt apply to any of those who got their settlement visas before 9th of July, you must be soooo much relieved!  I understand your feelings and the way you described them, it feels like you described them on my behalf!
> This nerve anxiety already cause me a nervous exhaustion or possibly it has already been there, God knows
> Thanks for your support. As usual, you're always there with your words of wisdom


 Thank-you

Try to remember that since your application has been effectively submitted already-you too are not going to have the five year probationary period if your application is granted. 

If granted, you'll arrive on your fiancee visa, marry, and then apply for the FLR(M)-under the pre-9 July rules. Then at the end of 24 months in the UK, you will be able to apply for your ILR, again under the pre-9 July rules. 

See points number 23, 132, 133, and Appendix E pages 67-69. Read it carefully in conjunction with the points in 23, 132, and 133 to see that applications submitted (online and paid for, like yours) pending before 9 July (like yours) are under the pre-9 July rules

Rinse and repeat, as we used to say in the US every time you start to worry again.


----------



## Zama

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Thank-you
> 
> Try to remember that since your application has been effectively submitted already-you too are not going to have the five year probationary period if your application is granted.
> 
> If granted, you'll arrive on your fiancee visa, marry, and then apply for the FLR(M)-under the pre-9 July rules. Then at the end of 24 months in the UK, you will be able to apply for your ILR, again under the pre-9 July rules.
> 
> See points number 23, 132, 133, and Appendix E pages 67-69. Read it carefully in conjunction with the points in 23, 132, and 133 to see that applications submitted (online and paid for, like yours) pending before 9 July (like yours) are under the pre-9 July rules
> 
> Rinse and repeat, as we used to say in the US every time you start to worry again.


Yeah I printed out all 70+ pages of this document and will carefully read it during my 7 hours flight to Bangkok  Although as far as I read it so far - changes seem very straightforward related to transitional arrangements. Thank you for highlighting the areas I need to concentrate!


----------



## christinamariep

To be honest, my fiancé and I are going to struggle to meet the annual income minimum, and we're going to be gifted a large amount from family. Now the rules state that if we only earn £15,000 a year, we must have £25,000 in savings to make up for the rest. That's insane to me, to have to cover the entire 2.5 year probationary period, plus the money needs to be in your acct for minimum 6 months? I don't see how it's going to happen for us, as my student visa expires at the end of October. I think we're screwed.


----------



## Peti Luu

how much savings would help this situation?

just an example scenario from ukba...having a similiar situation.

Leroy has been studying in Australia for 4 years and has entered into a civil partnership with an Australian national. He has not been working. At the end of his course he gets a job offer in the UK to start in 6 weeks, paying 25.000 GBP. Leroy has no other income. No employment in Australia 
Leroy will not meet the financial requirement under Option A or B.

thanks.


----------



## mehemlynn

Peti Luu said:


> how much savings would help this situation?
> 
> just an example scenario from ukba...having a similiar situation.
> 
> Leroy has been studying in Australia for 4 years and has entered into a civil partnership with an Australian national. He has not been working. At the end of his course he gets a job offer in the UK to start in 6 weeks, paying 25.000 GBP. Leroy has no other income. No employment in Australia
> Leroy will not meet the financial requirement under Option A or B.
> 
> thanks.


We are as well, because my husband has been looking after our daughter. If I read correctly 64000.

That effectively prohibits Brits who married and went away at all from bringing home a spouse, unless the have made 18600 in the other country AND have a UK job offer to start within three months of arrival. I can hear the conversation "I'd like a job three months from now and will only take it if my spouse gets a visa" -what employer would agree. We always planned on going home; we have our house (almost paid off), we pay our taxes, utilities, and council tax; but if we don't get a visa now, we probably won't ever be able to.

We are going to apply this week or next at the latest.

M


----------



## Peti Luu

mehemlynn said:


> We are as well, because my husband has been looking after our daughter. If I read correctly 64000.
> 
> That effectively prohibits Brits who married and went away at all from bringing home a spouse.
> 
> We are going to apply this week or next at the latest.
> 
> M


I assumed 64.000 GBP savings for no income at all.


----------



## 2farapart

christinamariep said:


> To be honest, my fiancé and I are going to struggle to meet the annual income minimum, and we're going to be gifted a large amount from family. Now the rules state that if we only earn £15,000 a year, we must have £25,000 in savings to make up for the rest. That's insane to me, to have to cover the entire 2.5 year probationary period, plus the money needs to be in your acct for minimum 6 months? I don't see how it's going to happen for us, as my student visa expires at the end of October. I think we're screwed.


One of the material facts the government must consider is that the UK employment situation is pretty awful right now and as such it is not realistic to expect a migrating spouse to walk into the UK and be immediately successful in obtaining a job. That is reasonable in the current climate.

However, I have to admit that I fail to see the logic behind a couple earning £18000 (just £600 short) needing a further £16,600 saved for both probationary visas, whereas a couple earning £19,000 potentially needs no savings whatsoever.


----------



## 2farapart

Peti Luu said:


> I assumed 64.000 GBP savings for no income at all.


For no income at all, it's £62,500 savings required for each of the two probationary visas, and a lesser £34,600 for the ILR.

For someone with no income to not only have these savings, but MAINTAIN these savings, is rather beyond me.


----------



## casjoe

Joppa said:


> No change has been announced with respect to EEA citizens and British citizens using EU treaty rights, so you are ok. As regard to the Surinder Singh case, as it's based on European case law, it's unlikely to be dropped, as that would bring UK in conflict with EU.


Thanks, that's what I figured.
Still going to try for the visa first. Waiting for the last documents to arrive. My husband sent them Airsure and they should have been here ages ago.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

2farapart said:


> For no income at all, it's £62,500 savings required for each of the two probationary visas, and a lesser £34,600 for the ILR.
> 
> For someone with no income to not only have these savings, but MAINTAIN these savings, is rather beyond me.


I'm on Reading Three-not at the highlighter Reading Four yet, lol! But I'm seeing something that I am glad for an opportunity to discuss:

Is the savings of £16000 a requirement-as in the sponsor must have savings of £16000, or is the figure a suggestion, simply a way an applicant's UKC sponsor can boost the chances of an approval?

On page 17 of the SOI in point 82, it says applicants will meet financial requirements through one or more of several sources, the savings amount of over £16000 being cited with some other conditions. Sounds sort of optional at this point. 

However, on following pages it starts to sound less optional, and more like a requirement, and makes me think this is a sort of back-door bond. 

So am I missing something? Is the savings an option or a requirement?


----------



## mehemlynn

2farapart said:


> For no income at all, it's £62,500 savings required for each of the two probationary visas, and a lesser £34,600 for the ILR.
> 
> For someone with no income to not only have these savings, but MAINTAIN these savings, is rather beyond me.


I'm sure the idea is that you have this for the entry visa, then start making the minimum income.

I'd imagine that even most working people only have this much savings in a retirement account (which they haven't counted toward savings in the past).

Either way IF you went to your spouse's country for any amount of time (residence, not visitor) and IF you hated it but weren't making at least £18,600 for the previous year AND had a job offer on the table; you can't take your spouse home with you.

Going from "if you've been married for more than 4 years and living out of the UK you get ILR" to "if you've been married for more than 4 years and living out of the UK; you must be the super rich to come home" is a bit of a jump. I wish we had some middle ground, although I don't mind the basic gist of most of the changes. 

Had our daughter not been just about able to start school, I wouldn't have known these changes were coming and been (somewhat) prepared (we still need to apply). Certainly there will be people who are surprised, and angry, they can't go home with their family, those people will start appearing when the new visa rules go into effect.


----------



## mehemlynn

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> I'm on Reading Three-not at the highlighter Reading Four yet, lol! But I'm seeing something that I am glad for an opportunity to discuss:
> 
> Is the savings of £16000 a requirement-as in the sponsor must have savings of £16000, or is the figure a suggestion, simply a way an applicant's UKC sponsor can boost the chances of an approval?
> 
> On page 17 of the SOI in point 82, it says applicants will meet financial requirements through one or more of several sources, the savings amount of over £16000 being cited with some other conditions. Sounds sort of optional at this point.
> 
> However, on following pages it starts to sound less optional, and more like a requirement, and makes me think this is a sort of back-door bond.
> 
> So am I missing something? Is the savings an option or a requirement?


Savings is an option. You can have made more than 18600 for the past year or if you are short you can have savings over the 16,000. So if you don't officially have income (or have had it for less than a year) you can use the savings as the way of showing you have enough money.

Basically it is a bond, which TM said was not practical. If we tried to move under the new rules, our only option would be cash savings held for more than 6 months and under our control (it would be impossible - I thought 10,000 - 20,000 was difficult).


----------



## Mervinia N

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> I'm on Reading Three-not at the highlighter Reading Four yet, lol! But I'm seeing something that I am glad for an opportunity to discuss:
> 
> Is the savings of £16000 a requirement-as in the sponsor must have savings of £16000, or is the figure a suggestion, simply a way an applicant's UKC sponsor can boost the chances of an approval?
> 
> On page 17 of the SOI in point 82, it says applicants will meet financial requirements through one or more of several sources, the savings amount of over £16000 being cited with some other conditions. Sounds sort of optional at this point.
> 
> However, on following pages it starts to sound less optional, and more like a requirement, and makes me think this is a sort of back-door bond.
> 
> So am I missing something? Is the savings an option or a requirement?


If you have the required income level, you won't need savings.

If you are below the required income level, you can bump income up to the level by having savings, held for at least 6 months prior to application, at the rate of £16000 + 2.5 x £shortfall. It is savings above £16000 which can be used as income, so you need £16000 first before this becomes an option.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

Thank-you ladies I have been wrestling with the income and how many different options (really, there is an option F!) and all the ways to figure it, and all I can think of is poor applicants, and poor ECOs!

To be honest, I think once I absorbed the transitional arrangements my mind went to happy mush land. I'm hoping to revive it soon-on pot of tea number two now:lol:


----------



## 2farapart

Mervinia N said:


> If you have the required income level, you won't need savings.
> 
> If you are below the required income level, you can bump income up to the level by having savings, held for at least 6 months prior to application, at the rate of £16000 + 2.5 x £shortfall. It is savings above £16000 which can be used as income, so you need £16000 first before this becomes an option.


Yes, that's right. Pages 45 and 46 (46 especially) outline how sources of income and savings can be used to qualify. The table on page 46 shows how different amounts of savings paired with income can be used to meet each visa.

£16000 MUST be held before any additional savings will count, even if the sponsor is already earning £15000 or so, which seems a bit inflexible to me.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

2farapart said:


> Yes, that's right. Pages 45 and 46 (46 especially) outline how sources of income and savings can be used to qualify. The table on page 46 shows how different amounts of savings paired with income can be used to meet each visa.
> 
> £16000 MUST be held before any additional savings will count, even if the sponsor is already earning £15000 or so, which seems a bit inflexible to me.


Ah. That's why I started to think the £16000 was a requirement.


----------



## 2farapart

These are the savings examples cited:
________________________________

*1. Initial Leave To Enter/Remain visa*
No income: £62,500 savings required
£15,000 income: £25,000 savings required
£18,000 income: £17,500 savings required

*2. Further Leave To Remain visa*
No income: £62,500 savings required
£15,000 income: £25,000 savings required
£18,000 income: £17,500 savings required

*3. Indefinite Leave To Remain visa*
No income: £34,600 savings required
£15,000 income: £19,600 savings required
£18,000 income: £16,600 savings required


----------



## Mervinia N

AnAmericanInScotland said:



> Thank-you ladies I have been wrestling with the income and how many different options (really, there is an option F!) and all the ways to figure it, and all I can think of is poor applicants, and poor ECOs!
> 
> To be honest, I think once I absorbed the transitional arrangements my mind went to happy mush land. I'm hoping to revive it soon-on pot of tea number two now:lol:


lol I was up until silly o clock this morning getting my head round all the new visa rules as I know my fiancé and I are definitely under them. It's relatively simple and thankfully not as sharp toothed as we were all fearing but it is sad that there will still be those who can't make the move, especially those who miss an income level by maybe just a few £hundred but need £16000+ in savings before they can bump this up yet others may make the income level by £1 and require nothing further  
I guess there has to be a definitive bar so a simple yes or no can be given and without the £16000 base savings, it would be easier to bump income and visa numbers won't reduce but that's scant help to those caught by it.


----------



## Kitara

2farapart said:


> These are the savings examples cited:
> ________________________________
> 
> *1. Initial Leave To Enter/Remain visa*
> No income: £62,500 savings required
> £15,000 income: £25,000 savings required
> £18,000 income: £17,500 savings required
> 
> *2. Further Leave To Remain visa*
> No income: £62,500 savings required
> £15,000 income: £25,000 savings required
> £18,000 income: £17,500 savings required
> 
> *3. Indefinite Leave To Remain visa*
> No income: £34,600 savings required
> £15,000 income: £19,600 savings required
> £18,000 income: £16,600 savings required




Where did you get the Indefinite Leave to Remain visa? 

What is the income with 0 saving because of purchase of house and stuff?


----------



## 2farapart

Kitara said:


> Where did you get the Indefinite Leave to Remain visa?
> 
> What is the income with 0 saving because of purchase of house and stuff?


An income to be supported by no savings whatsoever is £18,600 per year, plus a further £2,400 for each child.

For example:

*1. Initial Leave To Enter/Remain visa*
No income: £62,500 savings required
£15,000 income: £25,000 savings required
£18,000 income: £17,500 savings required
£18,600 income*: £0 savings required

*2. Further Leave To Remain visa*
No income: £62,500 savings required
£15,000 income: £25,000 savings required
£18,000 income: £17,500 savings required
£18,600 income*: £0 savings required

*3. Indefinite Leave To Remain visa*
No income: £34,600 savings required
£15,000 income: £19,600 savings required
£18,000 income: £16,600 savings required
£18,600 income*: £0 savings required

* add £2,400 for each child

In each case, the savings is calculated as the shortfall of income multiplied 2.5 times for the initial and FLR visas + £16K, and for the ILR the savings is calculated purely as the shortfall added to £16K.


The information for the Indefinite Leave To Remain visa is again under the NEW rules which won't apply to anyone already in the UK on a fiancé or settlement visa prior to 9 July 2012.


----------



## 2farapart

Example for a couple earning £15,000 and bringing one child into the UK...

The income they are required to earn in order to qualify is £21,000 (ie: £18,600 + £2,400 for a child). This means they are short by £6,000.

For the first two visas, they can top up their £15,000 income with savings of the shortfall £6,000 x 2.5 (=£15,000) + the required minimum savings pool of £16,000 required in EVERY instance where savings will be relied on. So, on top of their income of £15,000, they would also need to demonstrate a spare £31,000 in the bank for each of the first two visas, and for ILR would need to have their £15,000 income plus their shortfall £6,000 and the £16,000 (ie £22,000).


----------



## Mervinia N

2farapart said:


> Example for a couple earning £15,000 and bringing one child into the UK...
> 
> The income they are required to earn in order to qualify is £21,000 (ie: £18,600 + £2,400 for a child). This means they are short by £6,000.
> 
> For the first two visas, they can top up their £15,000 income with savings of the shortfall £6,000 x 2.5 (=£15,000) + the required minimum savings pool of £16,000 required in EVERY instance where savings will be relied on. So, on top of their income of £15,000, they would also need to demonstrate a spare £31,000 in the bank for each of the first two visas, and for ILR would need to have their £15,000 income plus their shortfall £6,000 and the £16,000 (ie £22,000).


Sorry to correct you but first child is £3800 in addition to £18600 = £22400 (then it is additional £2400 per additional child)

They will require £22400 for spouse and 1 child visas so shortfall of £7400.
Savings calculation is £16000 + £7400 (shortfall) x 2.5 at FLR = £34500 savings required.

It's in section 127 of the SoI


----------



## george567

2farapart said:


> Example for a couple earning £15,000 and bringing one child into the UK...
> 
> The income they are required to earn in order to qualify is £21,000 (ie: £18,600 + £2,400 for a child). This means they are short by £6,000.
> 
> For the first two visas, they can top up their £15,000 income with savings of the shortfall £6,000 x 2.5 (=£15,000) + the required minimum savings pool of £16,000 required in EVERY instance where savings will be relied on. So, on top of their income of £15,000, they would also need to demonstrate a spare £31,000 in the bank for each of the first two visas, and for ILR would need to have their £15,000 income plus their shortfall £6,000 and the £16,000 (ie £22,000).


Wait... so if I'm 2600 short of the income, I need 7800 in savings ON TOP of 16,000 in savings in the first place? So a total of 23,800 in savings to make up for being 2600 short a year?? Seems a bit much if you ask me...


----------



## 2farapart

Mervinia N said:


> Sorry to correct you but first child is £3800 in addition to £18600 = £22400 (then it is additional £2400 per additional child)
> 
> They will require £22400 for spouse and 1 child visas so shortfall of £7400.
> Savings calculation is £16000 + £7400 (shortfall) x 2.5 at FLR = £34500 savings required.
> 
> It's in section 127 of the SoI


Thanks - I missed the higher limit for first child!


----------



## Mervinia N

2farapart said:


> Thanks - I missed the higher limit for first child!


Thank AAIS and her idea to print and highlight lol I did this last night and that section is a lovely bright green for me


----------



## Mervinia N

george567 said:


> Wait... so if I'm 2600 short of the income, I need 7800 in savings ON TOP of 16,000 in savings in the first place? So a total of 23,800 in savings to make up for being 2600 short a year?? Seems a bit much if you ask me...


To use the savings bump up on income, you do need a base savings of £16000 then additional savings cover the shortfall x 2.5 (FLR) or flat rate at ILR. Savings to be held for 6 months, under your control, prior to application. Therefore, at income of £16000, it is £23800 savings to sponsor your spouse


----------



## JollyCynic

george567 said:


> Wait... so if I'm 2600 short of the income, I need 7800 in savings ON TOP of 16,000 in savings in the first place? So a total of 23,800 in savings to make up for being 2600 short a year?? Seems a bit much if you ask me...


Right idea, wrong math.

2600 x 2.5 (not 3) = 6500.

So you need £16,000 savings plus £6,500, or £22,500 in savings to make up for being 2600 short a year.

The 2.5 is because a spouse visa and each FLR period are for 2.5 years.


----------



## casjoe

Am I correct in thinking that under *current *rules a higher income is required for couples with children, even if the children are UK citizens?


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

casjoe said:


> Am I correct in thinking that under *current *rules a higher income is required for couples with children, even if the children are UK citizens?


The way it currently works, a couple needs £112 (rounded up) per week left over, a child adds around £65 (rounded up) to that for £177 per week for a couple and one child. But I don't know much more than that, if that counts a UKC child or a sponsored one.

It adjusts, too, according to Income Support amounts. I know when my application was determined the amount was £106 (rounded up), we don't have children at home so I don't know what the amount was then. 

Income Support - how to claim and how much you can get : Directgov - Money, tax and benefits


----------



## Kuya

Given the announcement.. My basic salary is £17,700 a year before tax. Though for the last 2 years I have cleared the £18,600 threshold due to quarterly bonuses and overtime. In fact over the last year I earned about £19,600 before tax and that was after taking a month off (unpaid) earlier this year to get married overseas.

With my P60, and clear evidence I earn over the threshold... Would I pass to bring my wife (we have no kids) to the UK as I plan to this year?


----------



## 2farapart

Kuya said:


> Given the announcement.. My basic salary is £17,700 a year before tax. Though for the last 2 years I have cleared the £18,600 threshold due to quarterly bonuses and overtime. In fact over the last year I earned about £19,600 before tax and that was after taking a month off (unpaid) earlier this year to get married overseas.
> 
> With my P60, and clear evidence I earn over the threshold... Would I pass to bring my wife (we have no kids) to the UK as I plan to this year?


You could try (overtime is counted), but I think you need to prove that you have consistently reached the required amount over the last six months (possibly longer if there is variance). 

There are three options I can think of for a 'safe' application:

1. Apply now - immediately. If you apply before July 9th, then you'll avoid the new rules. It might seem a rush, but when in context of you being able to live with your wife, this is critically important, especially as you are planning 'this year' anyway. There will be no ambiguity that way, and you easily meet the pre July 9th amount required. Someone might be able to clarify more definitely, but I believe your wife will have up to 3 months to enter on her visa, so applying now would still mean potentially not having to move until towards September.

2. If you really can't apply now, if possible work that overtime and accrue 6 months' worth of evidence to show you can earn £1550 or more per month (£18,600 / 12) if you don't have that already.

3. If you can't work the overtime and cannot apply now either, the only other option is to have savings available. The required amount you'll need is £16,000 plus a further £2250 before you are eligible - an insane amount when weighed up against the first option.


----------



## Mervinia N

Just thought I'd do a step by step for the new income requirement. This is applicable to the UK sponsor. It is also applicable to the applicant if they are entitled to work in the UK (such as on FLR) and household income can then be combined to meet the income level required.

Step 1
Calculate the income level required for sponsorship; £18600 for spouse, £22400 for spouse and 1 child and an additional £2400 for every child after that.

Step 2
Calculate the salaried income received from your employer.

Overtime, bonuses & commission are all allowed in the 'earnings from salaried employment' calculation.

Step 3 
If salaried income in Step 1 is below the required level (or there is no salaried income), it can be bumped up by non-employment income (e.g. income from property or shares), state or private pension income or the savings boost, which requires £16000 + (2.5 x £shortfall) at initial entry clearance & FLR and £16000 + £shortfall at ILR

Once the required income level is reached...

Step 4A) 
If you have been with the same employer for over 6 months, provide proof that you make the required income at the time of application. As it is salaried income and most people are on a gross annual salary, by being with your employer for 6 months, you will have been consistently receiving that income over the previous 6 months. 
You'll need to prove anything you include in your salaried income such as overtime, bonuses or commission over the previous 6 months too.

Savings have to have been held for the previous 6 months at your control, non-employment income needs to be proved for the previous 12 months. Pension income is proved as gross annual income.

The SoI states that UKBA have very specific documents they want to receive in respect of proving you meet financial requirements. I'm sure this list will be in the application guidance notes or take a look in the SoI but it's things like 6 months of bank statements, 6 months of payslips, P60, work contract etc.

Step 4B)
If you've been with your employer for less than 6 months
Do Steps 1, 2 & 3 as above
Get all your proof of income as Step 4A 
but IN ADDITION, you MUST show that you've earnt the required income amount over the previous 12 months. 

This is just a very basic guide but hopefully will make sense. It is all in Appendix B in the SoI if anyone wants to read more.


----------



## 2farapart

> Step 3
> If salaried income in Step 1 is below the required level (or there is no salaried income), it can be bumped up by non-employment income (e.g. income from property or shares), state or private pension income or the savings boost, which requires £16000 + (2.5 x £shortfall) at initial entry clearance & FLR and £16000 + £shortfall at ILR


Just to add - there are some benefits etc that *will not* be counted towards income. These include:

_- Income-related benefits: Income Support, income-related Employment and Support Allowance, Pension Credit, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance.

- Contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance, contribution-based Employment and Support Allowance and Incapacity Benefit.

- Child Benefit.

- Working Tax Credit.

- Child Tax Credit._​


----------



## qman383

I'm still confused as I have my biometrics appointment today and will be sending my documents next week. If I am denied as my spouse is borderline on our finances, if I have to file an appeal, will it be retroactive to the pre July 9 th rules?


----------



## JollyCynic

qman383 said:


> I'm still confused as I have my biometrics appointment today and will be sending my documents next week. If I am denied as my spouse is borderline on our finances, if I have to file an appeal, will it be retroactive to the pre July 9 th rules?


Three paragraphs under point 133 of the SoI deal with transition rules following an appeal:


> • Those granted leave following an appeal allowed on or after 9 July 2012 against a refusal under the rules in force prior to that date will get leave under those rules. They will continue to be dealt with under those rules through to indefinite leave to remain if they qualify for it, subject to the requirement from October 2013 to pass the Life in the UK test and present an English language speaking and listening qualification at B1 level or above to qualify for settlement. The new criminality thresholds will also apply to such cases.
> 
> • Those granted leave following an appeal allowed on or after 9 July 2012 on Article 8 grounds against a refusal under other rules (not family) in force prior to that date will not be granted leave under the Discretionary Leave policy, but will instead be granted 30 months’ leave on the new 10 year family route.
> 
> • Those who withdraw an appeal against a refusal under the family rules in force prior to 9 July 2012 and reapply will be considered under the new rules.


We can safely ignore the second one here.

The first one says that it doesn't matter if you win your appeal before or after 9 July. If you are granted leave because of an appeal, and the appeal was made based on the old rules (the assumption being that the application was under the old rules), you'll continue to work under the old rules. (Basically, it's just reiterating that if you apply before 9 July, you will always be under the old rules, so long as you don't have to start over again with a new application.) This, as all things, is subject to the October 2013 Language exception.

The third one says that if you drop your appeal and apply again after 9 July, then you'll be under the new rules. So if you're rejected, appeal, and don't drop the appeal. Wait for an answer. If you're short on time, so you drop the appeal and re-apply to speed up an answer, it will be made under the new rules.


----------



## qman383

Thanks JollyCynic again, now I can rest a bit easier.


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

One word of suggestion for all of us "Gotta get it in before July 9th" type Fiancée Visa applicants....

Get yourself a USB drive and go to the UKBA site and _*SAVE YOURSELF A COPY OF* EVERYTHING *RELATED TO YOUR JOURNEY TO BRITISH CITIZENSHIP FOR FUTURE REFERENCE*_. This would mean application forms and guidance notes for the specific application forms.... everything.

i.e. take a copy of the FLR(M) application form and guidance notes and the SET(M) application form and guidance notes and the general information page for each visa type, and make sure that they're the _April 2012_ version of the application/guidance notes. I'd also recommend taking a copy of the S.o.I. as well, for future reference.

This way, if the UKBA decides to remove this information from the site when the July 9 takes place, you have a copy of "_the old rules_" to refer back to and you;ll be able to make unlimited numbers of copies of the application forms as needed, and if you should one night wake up in a cold sweat at 3:36a.m. because you just remembered that you might have forgotten a detail in your application, you can always go back to the USB drive and pull up the specific guidance notes and reassure yourself that it was all a horrible dream.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

To expand a bit on WCCG's outstanding suggestion, I'd like to add that it would be a very good idea to print out at least one hard copy of everything rules and guidance wise that applies to the visa you hold. 

Take a highlighter and highlight the important and applicable sections. Index tab the sections that apply to your particular visa for quicker reference.

Put the print-out in a binder, and keep the binder with everything you have collected regarding your visa. I keep every thing in a big-band elastic contained bundle but will be moving the lot to a dedicated file box in the next few days.

The bundle includes all the photocopies and originals of supporting documents, air-fare and other travel booking receipts and boarding passes, notes I've made whilst in process, and all the other things accumulated so far.

Most important, for those of us mid-path between probationary and ILR, download and print-out a copy of the Guidance Notes. The supporting documents information there IS DIFFERENT in a couple of places than for the probationary and can make/break the successful application.

Use that as a guide towards accumulating the paperwork you will need to make the ILR application-and to make your life a bit less stressful, keep those accumulating documents in the same area that you are keeping everything else.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

*UPDATE ALERT!!:*

UK Border Agency | Family migration changes announced - updated

Includes links to more documents, as well, including Statements of Changes:

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/statementsofchanges/


----------



## Kitara

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> *UPDATE ALERT!!:*
> 
> UK Border Agency | Family migration changes announced - updated
> 
> Includes links to more documents, as well, including Statements of Changes:
> 
> UK Border Agency | Statements of changes in Immigration Rules


English language requirement
E-ECP.4.1. The applicant must provide specified evidence that they-
(a) are a national of a majority English speaking country listed in paragraph
GEN.1.5.;
(b) have passed an English language test in speaking and listening at a
minimum of level A1 of the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages with a provider approved by the UK Border Agency;
(c) have an academic qualification recognised by NARIC UK to be equivalent
to the standard of a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree or PhD in the UK, which
was taught in English; or
(d) are exempt from the English language requirement under paragraph EECP.
4.2.
25
E-ECP.4.2. The applicant is exempt from the English language requirement if at the
date of application-
(a) the applicant is aged 65 or over;
(b) the applicant has a disability (physical or mental condition) which prevents
the applicant from meeting the requirement; or
(c) there are exceptional circumstances which prevent the applicant from being
able to meet the requirement prior to entry to the UK

page 26


----------



## JollyCynic

Kitara said:


> English language requirement
> E-ECP.4.1. The applicant must provide specified evidence that they-
> (a) are a national of a majority English speaking country listed in paragraph
> GEN.1.5.;
> (b) have passed an English language test in speaking and listening at a
> minimum of level A1 of the Common European Framework of Reference for
> Languages with a provider approved by the UK Border Agency;
> (c) have an academic qualification recognised by NARIC UK to be equivalent
> to the standard of a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree or PhD in the UK, which
> was taught in English; or
> (d) are exempt from the English language requirement under paragraph EECP.
> 4.2.
> 25
> E-ECP.4.2. The applicant is exempt from the English language requirement if at the
> date of application-
> (a) the applicant is aged 65 or over;
> (b) the applicant has a disability (physical or mental condition) which prevents
> the applicant from meeting the requirement; or
> (c) there are exceptional circumstances which prevent the applicant from being
> able to meet the requirement prior to entry to the UK
> 
> page 26


These changes only extend through October 2012. They do not include the October 2013 changes.

Yesterday's news article, which links to this document, confirm that B1 will still be required by October 2013:
UK Border Agency | Family migration changes announced - updated


----------



## Sam2012

Are the transitional arrangements outlined in the statement of intent still valid? That is, if we apply for a fiancee visa before 9/7/2012, the current rules will still apply?


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

According to the Statement of Changes (SOC), the only changes to paragraph 282 (which includes the language requirement criteria) do not include changes to the section of the paragraph regarding determining who must take the English testing except to state the level required is higher as of October 2012.

I'm reading that from the pdf, though, and really need to read the hard copy-printing now under my husband's glare. He's not happy about all of the paper use, but he'd be a lot less happy if we miss something!

Re the transitional arrangements, (re everything really, the SOC is looking like an editing clarification and annotations, etc, to make small but important changes to existing copy) those remain as detailed in the SOI according to the SOC.


----------



## nyclon

Sam2012 said:


> Are the transitional arrangements outlined in the statement of intent still valid? That is, if we apply for a fiancee visa before 9/7/2012, the current rules will still apply?


If you read the Statement of Intent then you know the answer to your question.


----------



## JollyCynic

Sam2012 said:


> Are the transitional arrangements outlined in the statement of intent still valid? That is, if we apply for a fiancee visa before 9/7/2012, the current rules will still apply?


There are parts which transitional applications will follow the old rules, and parts which will follow the new rules. These are (confusingly) covered starting at point 91 on page 13. The new paragraph A280(c) details which rules you follow if you applied prior to 9/7/2012 but didn't have a decision by 9/7/2012, or were _granted_ Entry Clearance or Limited Leave to Enter or Remain on or before 8/7/2012. And A280(e) details which rules you follow if you were _admitted_ before 9/7/2012, but had not yet applied for ILR.

Now I'm going to have to track down which each of those paragraphs say. Suffice it to say, it'll be confusing until guidelines show up, but there appears to be substantial transitional arrangements in the actual changes.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

JollyCynic said:


> There are parts which transitional applications will follow the old rules, and parts which will follow the new rules. These are (confusingly) covered starting at point 91 on page 13. The new paragraph A280(c) details which rules you follow if you applied prior to 9/7/2012 but didn't have a decision by 9/7/2012, or were _granted_ Entry Clearance or Limited Leave to Enter or Remain on or before 8/7/2012. And A280(e) details which rules you follow if you were _admitted_ before 9/7/2012, but had not yet applied for ILR.
> 
> Now I'm going to have to track down which each of those paragraphs say. Suffice it to say, it'll be confusing until guidelines show up, but there appears to be substantial transitional arrangements in the actual changes.


Is it just me, or does it look as though the SOC is saying the changes we thought would be applicable beginning in Oct 2013 are actually going to be in effect Oct 2012?

(Actually that would make more sense, really)


----------



## JollyCynic

I've scanned past the specified paragraphs, and it certainly _looks_ like everything's the same as the SoI. (Except for that darned October 2013 Language thing, which I can't find anything about.)


----------



## JollyCynic

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Is it just me, or does it look as though the SOC is saying the changes we thought would be applicable beginning in Oct 2013 are actually going to be in effect Oct 2012?
> 
> (Actually that would make more sense, really)


It could be, but the changes I'm seeing aren't actually changes. The language requirements look to be exactly the same.

New rules: _E-ECP.4.1. The applicant must provide specified evidence that they- 
(a) are a national of a majority English speaking country listed in paragraph 
GEN.1.5.; 
(b) have passed an English language test in speaking and listening at a 
minimum of level A1 of the Common European Framework of Reference for 
Languages with a provider approved by the UK Border Agency; 
(c) have an academic qualification recognised by NARIC UK to be equivalent 
to the standard of a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree or PhD in the UK, which 
was taught in English; or 
(d) are exempt from the English language requirement under paragraph E-
ECP.4.2. _

Old rules: _the applicant provides an original English language test certificate in speaking and listening from an English language test provider approved by the Secretary of State for these purposes, which clearly shows the applicant's name and the qualification obtained (which must meet or exceed level A1 of the Common European Framework of Reference) unless:

(a) the applicant is aged 65 or over at the time he makes his application; or

(b) the applicant has a physical or mental condition that would prevent him from meeting the requirement; or;

(c) there are exceptional compassionate circumstances that would prevent the applicant from meeting the requirement; or

__ __(iii) the applicant is a national of one of the following countries: Antigua and Barbuda; Australia; the Bahamas; Barbados; Belize; Canada; Dominica; Grenada; Guyana; Jamaica; New Zealand; St Kitts and Nevis; St Lucia; St Vincent and the Grenadines; Trinidad and Tobago; United States of America; or

__ __(iv) the applicant has obtained an academic qualification(not a professional or vocational qualification), which is deemed by UK NARIC to meet the recognised standard of a Bachelor's or Master's degree or PhD in the UK, from an educational establishment in one of the following countries: Antigua and Barbuda; Australia; The Bahamas; Barbados; Belize; Dominica; Grenada; Guyana; Ireland; Jamaica; New Zealand; St Kitts and Nevis; St Lucia; St Vincent and The Grenadines; Trinidad and Tobago; the UK; the USA; and provides the specified documents; or

__ __(v) the applicant has obtained an academic qualification (not a professional or vocational qualification) which is deemed by UK NARIC to meet the recognised standard of a Bachelor's or Master's degree or PhD in the UK, and

(1) provides the specified evidence to show he has the qualification, and

(2) UK NARIC has confirmed that the qualification was taught or researched in English, or

__ __(vi) has obtained an academic qualification (not a professional or vocational qualification) which is deemed by UK NARIC to meet the recognised standard of a Bachelor's or Master's degree or PhD in the UK, and provides the specified evidence to show:

(1) he has the qualification, and

(2) that the qualification was taught or researched in English._

Verbosity notwithstanding, there doesn't appear to be much difference. A1, English speaking country, or acceptable degree which was taught in English.

It could be, though. I would have thought it would be easier to make all the changes at once, and just specify "From October 2013" in everything. So ... Maybe. If so, that's good news for a lot of people.


----------



## 2farapart

JollyCynic said:


> These changes only extend through October 2012. They do not include the October 2013 changes.
> 
> Yesterday's news article, which links to this document, confirm that B1 will still be required by October 2013:
> UK Border Agency | Family migration changes announced - updated


Yes, that's the way I'm reading it too. Their bolding especially in the SoI is worthy of note:


> 114. From October 2013, *all applicants for settlement *will be required to demonstrate a knowledge of language and life in the UK by passing the Life in the UK test and by presenting a speaking and listening qualification at intermediate level (Common European Framework of Reference level B1) or above. This language requirement, together with a knowledge of the values that underlie British society, will help ensure that those who settle here are able to participate in British life and are better able to gain employment.


They bolded 'all applicants' rather than bolding the new B1 level, which to me is placing emphasis that ALL applicants must now apply. The trouble is, there's no longer an overt mention of majority-English speaking countries. Paragraph 117 is the only place I see any exemptions mentioned (beyond applicable B1-level qualifications in 115):



> 117. As now, an applicant for settlement will be exempt from the knowledge of language and life in the UK requirement if they are aged 65 or over, or have a physical or mental condition that prevents them from meeting the requirement. Refugees, those with humanitarian protection, bereaved partners, and victims of domestic violence will continue to be exempt from the knowledge of language and life requirement at the settlement stage.


No mention of majority-English speaking countries any longer, and this is the one rule that IS being backdated to everybody not already on their ILR by October 2013. It would have been _most_ helpful had they expanded 117 to mention whether majority-English country nationals were still or exempt or not.

Until there is any definite mention of majority-English speaking countries being exmpt, I think we can only conclude from the SoI that everyone (including US, AUS etc) must obtain a certificate or show a B1 level qualification. At first I thought this to be a shocking waste of resources, but at the same time, an non-English applicant has a wide open back door if they happen to have a US or AUS passport for example. So it's feasible that this exemption has now gone.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

2farapart said:


> Yes, that's the way I'm reading it too. Their bolding especially in the SoI is worthy of note:
> 
> 
> They bolded 'all applicants' rather than bolding the new B1 level, which to me is placing emphasis that ALL applicants must now apply. The trouble is, there's no longer an overt mention of majority-English speaking countries. Paragraph 117 is the only place I see any exemptions mentioned (beyond applicable B1-level qualifications in 115):
> 
> 
> 
> No mention of majority-English speaking countries any longer, and this is the one rule that IS being backdated to everybody not already on their ILR by October 2013. It would have been _most_ helpful had they expanded 117 to mention whether majority-English country nationals were still or exempt or not.
> 
> Until there is any definite mention of majority-English speaking countries being exmpt, I think we can only conclude from the SoI that everyone (including US, AUS etc) must obtain a certificate or show a B1 level qualification. At first I thought this to be a shocking waste of resources, but at the same time, an non-English applicant has a wide open back door if they happen to have a US or AUS passport for example. So it's feasible that this exemption has now gone.


I found this in the Policy Equality Statement on page 44:



> Under the immigration rules, 16 countries are classified as majority English-speaking countries. Nationals of these countries are deemed to automatically meet pre-entry language requirements. We would also expect them to be able to meet the proposed English language requirement for settlement without difficulty.


I go back and forth-are they saying the '...automatically meet...' part counts, or the '...would also expect...' means we would have to take the English test? I think they're going to need to come right out and say one way or the other.

I'm sorry, it really does just crack me up:lol: It means everything to me, so of course I would be able to keep a straight face taking that test, right? Right?

I hate to say this, but I'll be applying for the ILR in May 2013-I won't be taking the test should it be established as required for nationals from majority English-speaking countries. I feel for those who are and may have to, really, but it does seem a bit odd. 

Kinda off the current discussion, has anyone come across this Appendix FM they keep referring to? Link?


----------



## JollyCynic

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Kinda off the current discussion, has anyone come across this Appendix FM they keep referring to? Link?


Yes. Appendix FM is exclusively in HC-194, the Statement of Changes. It is a new appendix that will be placed after Appendix F in the new rules, and largely take the place of Part 8 of the immigration rules, with (of course) many specific exceptions.

At the very bottom of page 18, it says, "After Appendix F insert:" and what appears on page 19 through 44 is the new Appendix FX.


----------



## mehemlynn

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> I found this in the Policy Equality Statement on page 44:
> 
> 
> 
> I go back and forth-are they saying the '...automatically meet...' part counts, or the '...would also expect...' means we would have to take the English test? I think they're going to need to come right out and say one way or the other.
> 
> I'm sorry, it really does just crack me up:lol: It means everything to me, so of course I would be able to keep a straight face taking that test, right? Right?
> 
> I hate to say this, but I'll be applying for the ILR in May 2013-I won't be taking the test should it be established as required for nationals from majority English-speaking countries. I feel for those who are and may have to, really, but it does seem a bit odd.
> 
> Kinda off the current discussion, has anyone come across this Appendix FM they keep referring to? Link?


Under the immigration rules, 16 countries are classified as majority English-speaking countries. Nationals of these countries are deemed to automatically meet pre-entry language requirements. We would also expect them to be able to meet the proposed English language requirement for settlement without difficulty. 

Reading contracts all day, this is how I read this

Current - Under the immigration rules, 16 countries are classified as majority English-speaking countries. Nationals of these countries are deemed to automatically meet pre-entry language requirements.

Future - We would also expect them to be able to meet the proposed English language requirement for settlement without difficulty

I read this as - since they already speak English as a first language, they shouldn't have any problem passing the test.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

JollyCynic said:


> Yes. Appendix FM is exclusively in HC-194, the Statement of Changes. It is a new appendix that will be placed after Appendix F in the new rules, and largely take the place of Part 8 of the immigration rules, with (of course) many specific exceptions.
> 
> At the very bottom of page 18, it says, "After Appendix F insert:" and what appears on page 19 through 44 is the new Appendix FX.


Thank-you. My husband and I were distracted by Life and didn't finish printing that lot. (AAIS toddles off to the study to hit 'resume'...)


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

mehemlynn said:


> Under the immigration rules, 16 countries are classified as majority English-speaking countries. Nationals of these countries are deemed to automatically meet pre-entry language requirements. We would also expect them to be able to meet the proposed English language requirement for settlement without difficulty.
> 
> Reading contracts all day, this is how I read this
> 
> Current - Under the immigration rules, 16 countries are classified as majority English-speaking countries. Nationals of these countries are deemed to automatically meet pre-entry language requirements.
> 
> Future - We would also expect them to be able to meet the proposed English language requirement for settlement without difficulty
> 
> I read this as - since they already speak English as a first language, they shouldn't have any problem passing the test.


Yup, that's how I'm reading it too. I really think they're going to have to make it clear and plain, maybe say something along the lines of 'nationals of English-speaking countries will also now need to take the test'.


----------



## mehemlynn

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Yup, that's how I'm reading it too. I really think they're going to have to make it clear and plain, maybe say something along the lines of 'nationals of English-speaking countries will also now need to take the test'.


But you never actually tell people when they are going to have to do something they didn't have to do before (or that you are loosing something you like). It makes people grumble.


----------



## 2farapart

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> I really think they're going to have to make it clear and plain


Would be nice!!!


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

2farapart said:


> Would be nice!!!


LOL at you both, 2FarApart and Mehemlynn! It would be nice, though (said in a wistful tone).

I was going to make a little joke about people already grumbling so what's a few more, but knowing how this is going to hurt so many people-young couples and families who have been living overseas and have no hope of having that huge an amount of savings+a great job awaiting the returning sponsor especially. It's hard to make jokes, actually, in the face of that. 

I'm reading all these documents, making notes, and wincing at the financials. Wow. Just, wow. I keep seeing that phrase 'economic well-being of the UK' and I know why they are doing what they feel is unavoidable. 

I read the Impact Assessment, and the Equality Statement, and see things saying in essence 'yes, this will make things harder for XXX, however to meet objectives...' 

I feel for everyone at the UKBA, too. I wonder what an ECOs daily caseload is. Was, will be with the expected mad flood of apps before 9 July.


----------



## mehemlynn

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> LOL at you both, 2FarApart and Mehemlynn! It would be nice, though (said in a wistful tone).
> 
> I was going to make a little joke about people already grumbling so what's a few more, but knowing how this is going to hurt so many people-young couples and families who have been living overseas and have no hope of having that huge an amount of savings+a great job awaiting the returning sponsor especially. It's hard to make jokes, actually, in the face of that.
> 
> I'm reading all these documents, making notes, and wincing at the financials. Wow. Just, wow. I keep seeing that phrase 'economic well-being of the UK' and I know why they are doing what they feel is unavoidable.
> 
> I read the Impact Assessment, and the Equality Statement, and see things saying in essence 'yes, this will make things harder for XXX, however to meet objectives...'
> 
> I feel for everyone at the UKBA, too. I wonder what an ECOs daily caseload is. Was, will be with the expected mad flood of apps before 9 July.


I maybe the only one who thinks there probably won't be a flood of apps before July 9. You would have had to be mad (or have a procrastinator in the family) to have waited knowing these rules were coming. I imagine most people who know of the rules changes have already applied or are almost ready to (I'm only waiting for 2 docs), which hopefully will be in the mail today. I imagine most people are going to come to do the visa when they need it and find out that they can't get it.

My husband is most upset that EEA nationals will be able to bring a non-EEA spouse to the UK, but Brits won't be able to with the same docs.

M


----------



## JollyCynic

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> I was going to make a little joke about people already grumbling so what's a few more, but knowing how this is going to hurt so many people-young couples and families who have been living overseas and have no hope of having that huge an amount of savings+a great job awaiting the returning sponsor especially. It's hard to make jokes, actually, in the face of that.


My wife grew up with a friend who has had a bizarrely similar life to her. She and my wife both fell in love with Americans from the same region. Both emigrated to marry. My wife got a dog named Millie, her friend got a cat named Millie. Both moved to different states within a year of getting married. Both gave birth to sons after being married for four years.

My wife has done _all_ of these things slightly ahead of her friend. We got married first, moved first, had our pet and son first, etc. Now, we're moving back to England first.

Her friend has always planned to move back, too, but wasn't ready yet. Now she'll never be able to. She's a stay at home mom, won't ever have a hard job offer waiting for her in the UK, and won't likely be able to save up $103,000 before her children leave home. She's always been in a better financial situation than my wife (both as children and now) but she'll never be able to go home the way she'd planned.

She feels like what her government has told her is, "If you've made a life for yourself in another country and have good jobs, please stay there. We're in the middle of a serious economic crisis, and can't bring you home." It's understandable, but it's also exceedingly sad.


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

mehemlynn said:


> I maybe the only one who thinks there probably won't be a flood of apps before July 9. You would have had to be mad (or have a procrastinator in the family) to have waited knowing these rules were coming. I imagine most people who know of the rules changes have already applied or are almost ready to (I'm only waiting for 2 docs), which hopefully will be in the mail today. I imagine most people are going to come to do the visa when they need it and find out that they can't get it.
> 
> My husband is most upset that EEA nationals will be able to bring a non-EEA spouse to the UK, but Brits won't be able to with the same docs.
> 
> M


July 4th is Judgement Day for myself and Ed... we'll be able to "hit the send button" and keep our fingers crossed that we get an approval. We've got most of our stuff in order (I've spent hours at w*rk printing and photocopying stuff for my part of the application... I still need to print a half dozen 4x6 photos), now we're just needing him to get his bank statements stamped at the bank, and all of his documentation in order (he's got his P60, Pay Stubs, Mortgage Statement, Council Tax bill, Birth Certificate etc) and sent off to me via UPS, so I can make more copies (I'm making 4 copies of EVERYTHING... a little overboard, but I don't care... I _really really want this_ and I don't want to eff it up) and take the originals and 1 set of copies with me to my Biometrics appointment.

As much as I'm getting excited (because it's down to crunch time), I'm also very, very frightened (because it's down to crunch time). Ed doesn't seem to be too worried, but until I get the visa back in my hands, I'm going to be a bundle of nerves.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

JollyCynic said:


> My wife grew up with a friend who has had a bizarrely similar life to her. She and my wife both fell in love with Americans from the same region. Both emigrated to marry. My wife got a dog named Millie, her friend got a cat named Millie. Both moved to different states within a year of getting married. Both gave birth to sons after being married for four years.
> 
> My wife has done _all_ of these things slightly ahead of her friend. We got married first, moved first, had our pet and son first, etc. Now, we're moving back to England first.
> 
> Her friend has always planned to move back, too, but wasn't ready yet. Now she'll never be able to. She's a stay at home mom, won't ever have a hard job offer waiting for her in the UK, and won't likely be able to save up $103,000 before her children leave home. She's always been in a better financial situation than my wife (both as children and now) but she'll never be able to go home the way she'd planned.
> 
> She feels like what her government has told her is, "If you've made a life for yourself in another country and have good jobs, please stay there. We're in the middle of a serious economic crisis, and can't bring you home." It's understandable, but it's also exceedingly sad.


That is life-changing, JollyCynic, I hope something works out for her! 

The Impact Assessment and the Policy Equality Statement both say that women will be the biggest sufferers under this, primarily due to the financial requirements. 

Figures on paper. Numbers. Statistics.

And now trapped in a country they never intended to spend the rest of their life in.


----------



## mehemlynn

WestCoastCanadianGirl said:


> July 4th is Judgement Day for myself and Ed... we'll be able to "hit the send button" and keep our fingers crossed that we get an approval. We've got most of our stuff in order (I've spent hours at w*rk printing and photocopying stuff for my part of the application... I still need to print a half dozen 4x6 photos), now we're just needing him to get his bank statements stamped at the bank, and all of his documentation in order (he's got his P60, Pay Stubs, Mortgage Statement, Council Tax bill, Birth Certificate etc) and sent off to me via UPS, so I can make more copies (I'm making 4 copies of EVERYTHING... a little overboard, but I don't care... I _really really want this_ and I don't want to eff it up) and take the originals and 1 set of copies with me to my Biometrics appointment.
> 
> As much as I'm getting excited (because it's down to crunch time), I'm also very, very frightened (because it's down to crunch time). Ed doesn't seem to be too worried, but until I get the visa back in my hands, I'm going to be a bundle of nerves.


Hi WCCG,

It looks like we are going to be submitting the application around June 30 (earlier if all the docs are in my MIL's hands before that). It takes 5 days to get post from my MIL, so that should be about right for getting the Biometrics. We will be moving Aug 31, no matter where we are going, so the closer it gets the more nervous I get. Since we will be letting my husband's American Green Card expire, we probably won't be able to live in the US again, ever.

I know this is what we want, but since we will be moving without either of us having work (probably) it is a bit terrifying (I worry we won't get the visa and also how we will get everything done if we do).

M


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

OK, on the English test thing. See Statement of Changes (SOC) page 21 point 'GEN.1.6, then go to page 38 and read E-ECPT.4.1 to see that what I found last night is correct (dang, still got the bureaucrat in me and can read a document quickly to find the applicable  That's scary-I'M RETIRED!!).

Careful reading of E-ECPT.4.1 clearly shows that these are the exceptions to the need to take and pass the English test, and GEN.1.6 is the insert for that-the countries that are majority English-speaking countries. 

Whose citizens looking to jump ship to the UK are excused from the need to take the test per E-ECPT.4.1, WHEW!

(Takes deep breath, quick break, and dives back into the hard copy of SOC)


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle

WestCoastCanadianGirl said:


> July 4th is Judgement Day for myself and Ed... we'll be able to "hit the send button" and keep our fingers crossed that we get an approval. We've got most of our stuff in order (I've spent hours at w*rk printing and photocopying stuff for my part of the application... I still need to print a half dozen 4x6 photos), now we're just needing him to get his bank statements stamped at the bank, and all of his documentation in order (he's got his P60, Pay Stubs, Mortgage Statement, Council Tax bill, Birth Certificate etc) and sent off to me via UPS, so I can make more copies (I'm making 4 copies of EVERYTHING... a little overboard, but I don't care... I _really really want this_ and I don't want to eff it up) and take the originals and 1 set of copies with me to my Biometrics appointment.
> 
> As much as I'm getting excited (because it's down to crunch time), I'm also very, very frightened (because it's down to crunch time). Ed doesn't seem to be too worried, but until I get the visa back in my hands, I'm going to be a bundle of nerves.


Best of luck getting all of your things in order. It'll be worth it, it won't be long now.


----------



## newlight1

Just caught a little on the changes to the Statement of Intent on this thread, so has anything changed at all? 

Is everything still the same that anyone applying for a Fiance/Spouse Visa before July 9th will be subject to the OLD RULES all the way until the ILR and the two year only wait for the ILR?


----------



## 2farapart

The English Language standard for ILR is increased to B1 as of October 2013. Everything else is the same provided your application is in by 9th July.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

newlight1 said:


> Just caught a little on the changes to the Statement of Intent on this thread, so has anything changed at all?
> 
> Is everything still the same that anyone applying for a Fiance/Spouse Visa before July 9th will be subject to the OLD RULES all the way until the ILR and the two year only wait for the ILR?


Yes, with the only exception to the old rules being the higher level on the English test if the next-stage application is made from Oct 2013 on.

Your fiancee's application is still pending, and is still going to be determined under the 'old' rules


----------



## newlight1

2farapart, 



> The English Language standard for ILR is increased to B1 as of October 2013.


So that is the only change, nothing changed about anything else in the transitional arrangements etc?


----------



## newlight1

> Your fiancee's application is still pending, and is still going to be determined under the 'old' rules


Sorry AIS I didnt see your reply before I posted that. Yes, cos she is going to apply for the FLR in Septmeber (providing she gets the Fiance Visa). Then the IRL I guess in the two years from September, she got 7.0 in the IELTS English test.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

newlight1 said:


> 2farapart,
> 
> 
> 
> So that is the only change, nothing changed about anything else in the transitional arrangements etc?


That's it, and everything is the same about the transitional arrangements

(ALthough, to be technically correct, that's not a change, per se, from what we already knew, I was just reminding you about the higher English level requirement in case you didn't see that part. Posts were flying in and out, and it would have been easy to miss)


----------



## newlight1

good thanks, I hope they don't change anything with the transitional arrangements :O


----------



## Joppa

newlight1 said:


> good thanks, I hope they don't change anything with the transitional arrangements :O


Except that if your current application fails, and your appeal is set aside, any future applications will be under the new rules, including waiting 5 years for ILR. If your application is rejected but the judgement is reversed through appeal (either review by ECM or tribunal), your visa will be issued under the existing rules even after 9th July.

How do you meet the requirement that a couple intending to get married must have met? If I remember correctly, you have only been in touch remotely by mail, skype, texts etc but you haven't actually met in person? 

_Immigration Rule: 290. The requirements to be met by a person seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom as a fiance(e) or proposed civil partner are that:
(ii) the parties to the proposed marriage or civil partnership have met; _
UK Border Agency | Fiance(e)s and proposed civil partners

Your application has 99% chance of failure if you don't meet this requirement, even if you satisfy all the other rules. If you have actually met before application, then that's fine.


----------



## newlight1

Thank you Joppa, yes sorry I dont always post everything about my relationship with my Fiance on here and at one point we had not met in person as we met online but have since spent time together in person hence all of the photos we have together (Which are in the Bundle) etc and with members of family etc, thanks for your clarification we also have Christ with us which helps as we know God brought us together and our God is the one who controls and made all things.



> Except that if your current application fails, and your appeal is set aside, any future applications will be under the new rules


Yes I understand that and if our application fails we would appeal and we would not set it aside.


----------



## JollyCynic

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> OK, on the English test thing. See Statement of Changes (SOC) page 21 point 'GEN.1.6, then go to page 38 and read E-ECPT.4.1 to see that what I found last night is correct (dang, still got the bureaucrat in me and can read a document quickly to find the applicable  That's scary-I'M RETIRED!!).
> 
> Careful reading of E-ECPT.4.1 clearly shows that these are the exceptions to the need to take and pass the English test, and GEN.1.6 is the insert for that-the countries that are majority English-speaking countries.
> 
> Whose citizens looking to jump ship to the UK are excused from the need to take the test per E-ECPT.4.1, WHEW!
> 
> (Takes deep breath, quick break, and dives back into the hard copy of SOC)


Respectfully, this is not correct.

E-ECPT.4.1 is not a list of "exceptions" as you have commented. The word "exceptions" isn't the important word, anyway. The important word is "exempt" or "exemptions".

E-ECPT.4.1 is a list of those who currently meet the requirement. E-ECPT.4.2, on the other hand, is a list of those who are exempt from meeting the requirement, as specified in E-ECPT.4.1(d.

If you are from one of the countries listed in GEN.1.6, you MEET the requirements as set forth in E-ECPT.4.1(a). You are only EXEMPT from meeting the requirements (again, as specified in E-ECPT.4.1(d)) if you fall into one of the categories listed in E-ECPT.4.2.

Let me try by using an analogy.

Say you're trying to get into a club. The rules state that you can get into the club by getting a current member to sponsor you, or by paying a fee. There may separately be an exemption to this rule if you're from out of state. (This was actually a Utah liquor law proposal at one point to get into a bar.)

The only way you're EXEMPT from the membership scheme is by being from out of state. Getting a sponsor doesn't make you exempt, it is rather one of the two ways to fulfill membership.

At the end of the day, someone who finds a sponsor or pays a fee will be a member, whereas someone who is from out of state will be in the club, but will not be a member of the club.

In this analogy, finding a sponsor is being from one of the English speaking nations in GEN.1.6. Paying for membership is getting your A1 (or B1 in the future) English certification. Becoming a member is fulfilling the English requirement. Being from out of state is being over 65. Being exempt from membership is being exempt from the English requirement.

I really don't understand how I can explain it more clearly. If you fall into the category of E-ECPT4.1(a), E-ECPT4.1(b), or E-ECPT4.1(c), _you are not exempt from the English requirement, you are meeting it instead_. If you fall into the category of E-ECPT4.1(d), as it states in E-ECPT4.1(d), and therefore E-ECPT4.2 (whether (a), (b), or (c)), then and ONLY THEN are you exempt from the English Requirement.

E-ECPT4.1(a) does not say that people from the countries listed in GEN1.6 are exempt.

E-ECPT4.1(d) DOES say that people from E-ECPT4.2 are exempt.

CURRENTLY, it doesn't make a difference. Whether you're exempt or you meet, it's really the same.

But, in the analogy, if someone says, "Come October 2013, all members will have to wear a silly hat on their head, unless exempt from the membership scheme," then both sponsored people and fee-payers will have to wear silly hats. Only exempt people from out of state won't.

*If* the government comes out later and states that everybody not exempt from the Language Requirement has to certify at B1, then people who currently meet the requirement, regardless of whether they meet through E-ECPT4.1(a), E-ECPT4.1(b), or E-ECPT4.1(c), they will ALL have to certify at B1.


----------



## JollyCynic

I think what is confusing is this:
People think that the word "exemption" refers to being "exempt" from taking the test.

IT DOES NOT.

It refers to being exempt from MEETING THE LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT. Taking the test/being certified at A1/B1, is ONE OF THREE WAYS that the Language Requirement can be met. Another of the three ways is being from a predominantly accepted English speaking country.

If you are exempt from the language requirement, then you don't need to meet any of the three ways that you currently may meet the language requirement.


----------



## Joppa

JollyCynic said:


> I think what is confusing is this:
> People think that the word "exemption" refers to being "exempt" from taking the test.
> 
> IT DOES NOT.
> 
> It refers to being exempt from MEETING THE LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT. Taking the test/being certified at A1/B1, is ONE OF THREE WAYS that the Language Requirement can be met. Another of the three ways is being from a predominantly accepted English speaking country.
> 
> If you are exempt from the language requirement, then you don't need to meet any of the three ways that you currently may meet the language requirement.


With all due respect, you are splitting hairs, aren't you? Everyone has to satisfy 'the English requirement', which doesn't necessary mean you must be competent in English. You can meet the requirement in one of four ways: Being from majority English-speaking country, passing an approved test at A1/B1 level, having a degree taught in English or you are exempt from the requirement on account of age, disability or other exceptional circumstances. With regard to the fourth way, you aren't actually meeting English requirement as such or have to show evidence for it, instead you aren't subject to the requirement, but for the sake of official rules, Home Office must have considered it's best to phrase it as such.

Another analogy is diplomatic immunity and traffic rules/fines.


----------



## JollyCynic

Joppa said:


> With all due respect, you are splitting hairs, aren't you?


I am, and I apologize for hammering the point. This is all in relation to the SoI's statement on the October 2013 increased language requirement.

The debate is whether or not people from the accepted predominantly English speaking countries will have to achieve the EB1 certification. (And a smaller debate on the exact same merits for those completing an accepted degree taught in English.)

The biggest problem is that these changes from the SoI are absent from the Statement of Changes, so they're still forthcoming and nothing is definitive.

The secondary problem is the specific phrasing used, which says, "_From October 2013, all applicants for settlement will be required to pass the Life in the UK test and present an English language speaking and listening qualification at B1 level or above, unless they are exempt from the requirement to do so._"

The words "all applicants for settlement" and "unless they are exempt" are the two phrases that are providing the sticking point. (Frankly, since nobody currently has a requirement to present a B1 qualification, we really have no idea who is exempt from it.)

For the record, I believe that there will be an exception for nationals of the accepted English speaking countries still. I'm just reiterating that someone else's point that the question still remains is still valid. It is the more logical reading from the viewpoint of the text itself, but the less logical reading from trying to interpret a human being's intent in writing those words.

I promise not to hammer it any more, though. At least until the October 2013 Statement of Changes comes down.


----------



## Joppa

JollyCynic said:


> I am, and I apologize for hammering the point. This is all in relation to the SoI's statement on the October 2013 increased language requirement.
> 
> The debate is whether or not people from the accepted predominantly English speaking countries will have to achieve the EB1 certification. (And a smaller debate on the exact same merits for those completing an accepted degree taught in English.)
> 
> The biggest problem is that these changes from the SoI are absent from the Statement of Changes, so they're still forthcoming and nothing is definitive.
> 
> The secondary problem is the specific phrasing used, which says, "_From October 2013, all applicants for settlement will be required to pass the Life in the UK test and present an English language speaking and listening qualification at B1 level or above, unless they are exempt from the requirement to do so._"
> 
> The words "all applicants for settlement" and "unless they are exempt" are the two phrases that are providing the sticking point. (Frankly, since nobody currently has a requirement to present a B1 qualification, we really have no idea who is exempt from it.)
> 
> For the record, I believe that there will be an exception for nationals of the accepted English speaking countries still. I'm just reiterating that someone else's point that the question still remains is still valid. It is the more logical reading from the viewpoint of the text itself, but the less logical reading from trying to interpret a human being's intent in writing those words.
> 
> I promise not to hammer it any more, though. At least until the October 2013 Statement of Changes comes down.


I know what you are saying. What I'd say is the word 'exemption' used in Statement of Intent and Statement of Change (which formally alters immigration rules) doesn't have exactly the same meaning or application. What will probably happen, when October 2013 proposal is formally introduced in a future Statement of Change, is that it will be further clarified, so that 'exemptions' in SoI will include being from majority English-speaking country (in the form of birth certificate and passport) or some such phraseology.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that those from a majority Anglophone country won't have to pass a language test, though some people think it's a jolly good idea, given the level of English illiteracy among so-called English speakers!


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

Joppa said:


> I know what you are saying. What I'd say is the word 'exemption' used in Statement of Intent and Statement of Change (which formally alters immigration rules) doesn't have exactly the same meaning or application. What will probably happen, when October 2013 proposal is formally introduced in a future Statement of Change, is that it will be further clarified, so that 'exemptions' in SoI will include being from majority English-speaking country (in the form of birth certificate and passport) or some such phraseology.
> Be that as it may, the fact remains that those from a majority Anglophone country won't have to pass a language test, though some people think it's a jolly good idea, _*given the level of English illiteracy among so-called English speakers!*_


You don't know the half of it, Joppa! 

In another life, I worked in a call centre for a major corporation here in Canada. Part of my duties was to read the customer mail when our regular mail guy was away or if I had nothing else to do. 

You could tell the difference between the native English speakers and those who learned it as a second languge... the handwriting of the Learners tended to be tidier than the Native Speakers, and the diction and spelling tended to be better with the Learners as well. My colleagues and I would shake our heads in wonderment at some of the errors that native English speaking people would write.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

Joppa said:


> I know what you are saying. What I'd say is the word 'exemption' used in Statement of Intent and Statement of Change (which formally alters immigration rules) doesn't have exactly the same meaning or application. What will probably happen, when October 2013 proposal is formally introduced in a future Statement of Change, is that it will be further clarified, so that 'exemptions' in SoI will include being from majority English-speaking country (in the form of birth certificate and passport) or some such phraseology.
> Be that as it may, the fact remains that those from a majority Anglophone country won't have to pass a language test, though some people think it's a jolly good idea, given the level of English illiteracy among so-called English speakers!


Not to prolong this, but the way I was reading it was that (to paraphrase) all applicants at and after Oct 2013 have to take the test except the applicants in the E-ECPT.4.1, who meet the requirements in those ways listed. 

Which brings me to what you and WCCG were saying-might not be a bad idea to have ALL (with only the exemptions of age and capacity) take the test. Even though I was half raised in the UK, I speak American in a lot of ways and am finding some significant differences between American and Queen's English. 

The phrasing/wording/language that JollyCynic sees can be taken different ways according to the way a person speaks and thinks, one way if American, and another possibly if British. To Americans, used to a highly litigious culture (lol but not really funny if you're on the wrong end of a frivolous lawsuit), phrasing/word/language is all important.

So to really integrate quickly into British life, culture, and society, we probably all should have to pass that test


----------



## 2farapart

I admit I would be wholly surprised if ALL were required to take it (ie majority English-speaking countries) given the extra resource it would demand, but at the same time there's a nice little back door for non-English-speaking migrants to walk right in without understanding a word of English, so if the rule was now being applied to everyone, it would have reasoning.

I'm assuming nationals from majority-English speaking countries will be deemed to meet the standard without taking the test, but will wait to see what unfolds.


----------



## mehemlynn

2farapart said:


> I admit I would be wholly surprised if ALL were required to take it (ie majority English-speaking countries) given the extra resource it would demand, but at the same time there's a nice little back door for non-English-speaking migrants to walk right in without understanding a word of English, so if the rule was now being applied to everyone, it would have reasoning.
> 
> I'm assuming nationals from majority-English speaking countries will be deemed to meet the standard without taking the test, but will wait to see what unfolds.


But the move in immigration, has been to have the applicant pay the costs. If priced correctly, it could make a few quid per person.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

mehemlynn said:


> But the move in immigration, has been to have the applicant pay the costs. If priced correctly, it could make a few quid per person.


Not sure the extra money brought in from charging applicants would outweigh the administrative costs to the UKBA, but hey, 'Every little helps!' :rofl:


----------



## Joppa

Wouldn't it be strange if Americans are deported for speaking funny English!
Naughty I know!


----------



## Joppa

Well, there was an American actress appearing on a British daytime chat show some time ago. In a phone-in, a viewer with very strong Scottish accent said something and she looked completely lost, and the presenter had to 'translate' for her!


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

Joppa said:


> Well, there was an American actress appearing on a British daytime chat show some time ago. In a phone-in, a viewer with very strong Scottish accent said something and she looked completely lost, and the presenter had to 'translate' for her!


LOL, in the US we used to see subtitles for some of the stronger British accented actors. What really cracked me up was the use of subtitles on the Movie _The Full Monty_, and the people I watched it with the first time still didn't understand a lot of the jokes.


----------



## mehemlynn

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> LOL, in the US we used to see subtitles for some of the stronger British accented actors. What really cracked me up was the use of subtitles on the Movie _The Full Monty_, and the people I watched it with the first time still didn't understand a lot of the jokes.


When my husband and I started seeing each other, every once in a while I had to ask if he was speaking English, my brother even hung up on him because he was speaking "a forgein language" (English with a strong Welsh accent).

Many Americans think all Brits sound like DVD in Mary Poppins or like the folks in Keeping Up Appearances.


----------



## dr1

Joppa said:


> Well, there was an American actress appearing on a British daytime chat show some time ago. In a phone-in, a viewer with very strong Scottish accent said something and she looked completely lost, and the presenter had to 'translate' for her!


Same thing was done for that Scottish girl on the recent season of America's next top model. They had to use subtitles when she spoke. I myself have difficulty understanding some Scottish and south east English. The accents are so heavy.

I fell under the countries exempted from taking the english test, watching to see how it turns out hopefully the same list of countries exempted previously would be exempted again.


----------



## Talon

Hi I am a south african citizen but my husband and both our children are british citizens. Will the new changes take the children into account even if they are british citizens?

We are planning to move next year and have been married for 12 years, I am wondering whether I should get my application in quickly even if we only go next year.

Any advice will be appreciated.

Thanks


----------



## mehemlynn

Talon said:


> Hi I am a south african citizen but my husband and both our children are british citizens. Will the new changes take the children into account even if they are british citizens?
> 
> We are planning to move next year and have been married for 12 years, I am wondering whether I should get my application in quickly even if we only go next year.
> 
> Any advice will be appreciated.
> 
> Thanks


The British citizens will not be taken into account for the amount of money you need. But your husband will need to make the income minimum (or you have to have the savings) under the new rules. There are not exactly exemptions for families that have been out of the UK (there are a few ways to show that you have the funds). 

You cannot apply more than 3 months before your expected travel date, so getting in the application very early will just get it refused. You would also want to arrive within 3 months of the start of the visa (closer to the visa start date is better) or you won't have the time at the other end to apply for ILR.

M


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

Talon said:


> Hi I am a south african citizen but my husband and both our children are british citizens. Will the new changes take the children into account even if they are british citizens?
> 
> We are planning to move next year and have been married for 12 years, I am wondering whether I should get my application in quickly even if we only go next year.
> 
> Any advice will be appreciated.
> 
> Thanks


You write that you are planning to relocate to the UK next year. You can move your plans up to make it possible for you to apply now-before the new rules take effect on 9 July-if that is possible. That way your husband only has to prove that he has £112 (aprx) PLUS £65 (aprx) per child, per week after housing and council tax is deducted from your funds. 

If circumstances are such that you have to apply on or after 9 July, your UKC children won't be counted in the financial requirement. However, to apply on or after, your husband must have earned at least £18600 (the amount required for one sponsored person) in the last six months or year (can't find that part right now, sorry, but it's one or the other), and be arriving to a new job (firm offer and/or signed contract). 

The best thing to do is download and read the publications on the following linked page, and read it through carefully to see what applies to your particular circumstances:

UK Border Agency | Family migration changes announced - updated

As in Mehemlynn's post above, you cannot apply for the visa with a travel date that is farther out than three months from date of the application, under both old and new rules.


----------



## helpfinder

*help*

according to the new rules if i have had a job for 2 months with salary that would be 18600 a year before tax then according to the new rule that states that if i am working at a job for 2 months i will have to show income for before the job that adds upto 18600 for a year. its easier for me to work here for 6 months to apply after that so i have to show an income of 9300 before tax for 6 months right. can their be a gap of a month because i am going abroad for a month between the 6 months? 
also under the new regulations the period is extended from 2 to 5 years so the 16000 times 2.5 only makes it 2 and a half years and not 5. isnt it supposed to be 16000 times 5 plus 2600 times 5 which is equal to 93000 for someone who doesnt work? i mean 18600 times 5 years. but how will that work out because for someone who does work 18600 is before tax


----------



## mehemlynn

helpfinder said:


> according to the new rules if i have had a job for 2 months with salary that would be 18600 a year before tax then according to the new rule that states that if i am working at a job for 2 months i will have to show income for before the job that adds upto 18600 for a year. its easier for me to work here for 6 months to apply after that so i have to show an income of 9300 before tax for 6 months right. can their be a gap of a month because i am going abroad for a month between the 6 months?
> also under the new regulations the period is extended from 2 to 5 years so the 16000 times 2.5 only makes it 2 and a half years and not 5. isnt it supposed to be 16000 times 5 plus 2600 times 5 which is equal to 93000 for someone who doesnt work? i mean 18600 times 5 years. but how will that work out because for someone who does work 18600 is before tax


Under the new rules, there are 3 (spouse) or 4 visas (fiancee)

Spouse
Entry visa - 2.5 years (only the sponsor's income counts)
FLR (Further Leave to Remain) - 2.5 years (both spouses income counts)
ILR (Indefinite Leave to Remain) - no length (both spouses income counts)

Fiancee (this is a little more sketchy for me as I wasn't looking into it)
Entry visa - 6 months (only the sponsor's income counts)
FLR (Further Leave to Remain) - 2.5 years 
FLR (Further Leave to Remain) - 2.5 years (both spouses income counts)
ILR (Indefinite Leave to Remain) - no length (both spouses income counts).

There are several ways to make the money up - but they must be proven with each visa step, one is employment (more than $18600 pa); the other you mention is savings to "fill the gap" so if you work in the UK and make 17,600 (for ease of math) you would have to fill a 1,000 gap, to do that it has to be above 16,000 - so the calculation is 16,000 + 1,000 times 2.5 =18,500 (in savings).

I imagine that if you are not making the income for a month, if you are earning just enough (18,600) and are not paid for a month, then you would not be earning 18,600 in the year, so would not have enough income.

There is still much to learn about the new rules.

M


----------



## helpfinder

in statement of intent it states the following:


in para 141 it states 

Category A: salaried employment for the last six months 
141. 
Where the sponsor and/or the applicant (if they are in the UK with permission to work) is in salaried employment at the point of application and has been with the same employer for at least the last six months, the applicant can count the gross annual salary (at its lowest level in those six months) towards the financial requirement. 
what does this mean?
so i just have to show the 6 months ie.9300?


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

One of the things to be clear on is that the amount of savings has to be £16000 or more to be considered for making up shortfalls.

 Going through all of that gave me a huge headache. The options go from A-G! 

ETA-remember too, that at every stage (Mehemlynn listed the stages), the sponsor (and applicant if in UK and working) has to meet the financial requirement-not just at the initial application stage.


----------



## helpfinder

what if i have no savings but my current job if i work for a year has an annual gross income of 20000 then i wont need the savings because i dont shortfall of 18600. my question is that if i have been working there for 6 months only i have to show 9300?


----------



## mehemlynn

helpfinder said:


> in statement of intent it states the following:
> 
> 
> in para 141 it states
> 
> Category A: salaried employment for the last six months
> 141.
> Where the sponsor and/or the applicant (if they are in the UK with permission to work) is in salaried employment at the point of application and has been with the same employer for at least the last six months, the applicant can count the gross annual salary (at its lowest level in those six months) towards the financial requirement.
> what does this mean?
> so i just have to show the 6 months ie.9300?


This is my reading of it, but people might correct me.

1. you have to be salaried (no hourly pay work)
2. you have to have been with that employeer 6 months
3. they will use they LOWEST pay check from that time to show how much you make a month (so if you earn a salary and get commission) - if there is one month where you don't get the commission - and it is less than equivalent to 18,600 pa you don't qualify (so one month off would definitely discount you - unless it was paid time)

example - does not qualify (even though the total amount is over 9,300
month 1 - 1,850
month 2 - 1,500 - this month disqualifies you 
month 3 - 1,850
month 4 - 1850
month 5 - 2,000
month 6 - 2,000

calculation will be 6 times 1,500 (not do you have the total number), since 1,500 is the amount that UKBA can count on for your income each month.


----------



## helpfinder

ok. why is the 16000 multiply 2.5 thing. 2.5 is only 2 and a half years. isnt the length of visa extended to 5 years. shouldnt it be multiplied by 5 and not 2.5


----------



## mehemlynn

helpfinder said:


> ok. why is the 16000 multiply 2.5 thing. 2.5 is only 2 and a half years. isnt the length of visa extended to 5 years. shouldnt it be multiplied by 5 and not 2.5


I answered this one previously, there is a different visa after 2.5 years (you need to apply for FLR) - see above.

So 16,000 base savings.
1,000 short (of income)
2.5 years (length of visa)

If you are married, after 2.5 years, you will need to get FLR visa for another 2.5 years (showing the the income needed at the time - or whatever the rules at the time are - since they will review annually). Then after the second 2.5 years (so 5 years from coming to the UK) you apply for ILR.

M


----------



## helpfinder

so u mean i have to work and make 18600 a year for the whole period of 5 years alltogether to get the permanent stay for my spouse


----------



## helpfinder

also if someone earns 17600 then he is 1000 less the required income therefore savings would be 1000 times 2.5 which is 2500 plus 16000 18500. so savings of 18500 should be in the bank and a gross salary should show 17600 right. This makes much more than the threashold. if it is 10000 less the threashold a year shouldnt it be 2500 in the savings for the bank. why is the 16000 added on top


----------



## mehemlynn

helpfinder said:


> also if someone earns 17600 then he is 1000 less the required income therefore savings would be 1000 times 2.5 which is 2500 plus 16000 18500. so savings of 18500 should be in the bank and a gross salary should show 17600 right. This makes much more than the threashold. if it is 10000 less the threashold a year shouldnt it be 2500 in the savings for the bank. why is the 16000 added on top


I hate to say this, I don't have a clue, other than that's what the new rules say.

Maggie


----------



## mehemlynn

helpfinder said:


> so u mean i have to work and make 18600 a year for the whole period of 5 years alltogether to get the permanent stay for my spouse


Yes, it will be a process of 3 visas (right now it is 2 visas and 2 years), and they will check income at each stage. 

I want to note these are for the rules starting if you apply after July 9.

M


----------



## helpfinder

will they check the income for the 2.5 years in the flr or just the previous year


----------



## mehemlynn

helpfinder said:


> will they check the income for the 2.5 years in the flr or just the previous year



I don't know. They will at least check what the rules say, so you will have to pass them the same as you do now (although your spouse's income will count as well).

I would think it was a big risk to *plan* on not making the amount you need in the off years, which is what your question implies.

M


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

The new requirement is the level of income at which point a couple/family (if children are being sponsored) generally ceases to be a potential burden to the State by accessing income-related benefits. 

The sponsor MUST make that amount during the entire migration path-from application for fiance(e) or spouse visa to enter and be in the UK, all the way through to the ILR application. Every year. (page 16 of the Statement of Intent)

The £16000 in savings is the amount at which point a sponsor would generally be disqualified for income related benefits *however*, for savings to be considered in application against shortfalls, the amount of savings that can be applied must be above the £16000-these are their rules, and there is no explanation for why the £16000 can't be used, I'm thinking it's money to be held in reserve in case you fall into a really bad place before your next-stage, to keep you and the applicant off Public Funds. (page 17 of the Statement of Intent) 

They check at the 'next-stage' application process. Every 2.5 years, they will check.


----------



## mehemlynn

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> The new requirement is the level of income at which point a couple/family (if children are being sponsored) generally ceases to be a potential burden to the State by accessing income-related benefits.
> 
> The sponsor MUST make that amount during the entire migration path-from application for fiance(e) or spouse visa to enter and be in the UK, all the way through to the ILR application. Every year. (page 16 of the Statement of Intent)
> 
> The £16000 in savings is the amount at which point a sponsor would generally be disqualified for income related benefits *however*, for savings to be considered in application against shortfalls, the amount of savings that can be applied must be above the £16000-these are their rules, and there is no explanation for why the £16000 can't be used, I'm thinking it's money to be held in reserve in case you fall into a really bad place before your next-stage, to keep you and the applicant off Public Funds. (page 17 of the Statement of Intent)
> 
> They check at the 'next-stage' application process. Every 2.5 years, they will check.


I've read that so many times and it still comes across as "the sponsor must ..." the reasons are ---. I suppose my brain works with - this is the rule, it doesn't matter how they came up with it, as long as I understand what I need to do.

M


----------



## helpfinder

ok if my mum and me live together and only she receives housing benefit but i have to pay a share of rent because i am working does this disqualify me for applying for my spouse?


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

helpfinder said:


> ok if my mum and me live together and only she receives housing benefit but i have to pay a share of rent because i am working does this disqualify me for applying for my spouse?


Is the rent you pay reported in a way that affects her amount of benefits received?

Let me ask another question-have you read the Statement of Intent line-by-line, making notes as it applies to you? No offense intended, but a lot of the questions you are asking can be answered by a very careful reading of the paper.


----------



## helpfinder

yes i have read it. before the housing benefits were higher but when i told them i work they reduced my mums housing benefits


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

helpfinder said:


> yes i have read it. before the housing benefits were higher but when i told them i work they reduced my mums housing benefits


OK, so when your spouse arrives, will you be staying with your Mum, or finding your own place?


----------



## helpfinder

staying with my mum


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

helpfinder said:


> staying with my mum


See page 20 of the Statement of Intent, point 'm', tenth line, about half way into the line. 

All it says about accommodation is that it's ok to stay with a relative as long as the relative's home meets the adequacy requirement by overcrowding. You're probably OK.

Even though she is receiving the housing benefit, your contribution mitigates the amount. You might need to supply a letter from the Housing Authority or Council stating that it's ok for you and your spouse to stay in the house, and that your financial contribution means your Mum's benefit amount drawn is lower.

Now, being a mum myself, I think that's wonderful But I'm not the ECO, so hopefully if someone else here has read something in the Statement that you and I both have missed, they will post in so that you have better information.


----------



## newlight1

I was just thinking and was wondering, CAN the British Government Scrap the Human Rights act as Teresa May said she wanted too do?


----------



## helpfinder

when i apply for flr do they look at one years job of 18600 or 2.5 years. i mean from the time of entry visa until flr?


----------



## helpfinder

in the statement of intent it statesthe following:

Category A: salaried employment for the last six months
141.
Where the sponsor and/or the applicant (if they are in the UK with permission to work) is in salaried employment at the point of application and has been with the same employer for at least the last six months, the applicant can count the gross annual salary (at its lowest level in those six months) towards the financial requirement.
142.
If necessary to meet the level of the financial requirement applicable to the application, the applicant can add to this:
•
The gross amount of any specified non-employment income received by the sponsor, the applicant or both jointly in the 12 months prior to the application, provided they continue to own the relevant asset (e.g. property, shares) at the point of application;
•
An amount based on the cash savings above £16,000 held by the sponsor, the applicant or both jointly for at least the six months prior to the application and under their control. At the entry clearance/initial leave to remain stage and the further leave stage, the amount above £16,000 must be divided by 2.5 (to reflect the 2.5 year or 30 month period of limited leave sought) to give the amount which
39
can be added to income. At the indefinite leave to remain stage, the whole of the amount above £16,000 can be added to income; and/or
•
The gross annual income received by the sponsor or the applicant from any State (UK or foreign) or private pension.
Where the sponsor is returning with the applicant to the UK to work
143.
In addition, where the sponsor is returning with the applicant to the UK to work, the sponsor must have confirmed salaried employment to return to in the UK (starting within three months of their return). This must have an annual starting salary sufficient to meet the financial requirement applicable to the application, alone or in combination with any or all of the items in the last paragraph.


143 doesnt state that if your going back with your partner if you need six months employment before the application. if i have worked in a job for 2 months then i just need a letter from them stating that i still work there?


----------



## mehemlynn

helpfinder said:


> 143.
> In addition, where the sponsor is returning with the applicant to the UK to work, the sponsor must have confirmed salaried employment to return to in the UK (starting within three months of their return). This must have an annual starting salary sufficient to meet the financial requirement applicable to the application, alone or in combination with any or all of the items in the last paragraph.
> 
> 
> 143 doesnt state that if your going back with your partner if you need six months employment before the application. if i have worked in a job for 2 months then i just need a letter from them stating that i still work there?


In this case you would have had to be with your wife in her country for the previous 12 months making the minimum amount (18600) AND have a confirmed job offer in the UK making the minimum amount (that you start within 3 months of entering the UK).

There are examples of each case in the appendix.


----------



## helpfinder

no i mean i am working in the uk at the moment for 2 months already and i want to go abroad and bring my pathner with me. before the 2 months of employement i wasnt working but now i am working and my income from wages will be 20000 for a year which is more than the financial requirement


----------



## george567

mehemlynn said:


> This is my reading of it, but people might correct me.
> 
> 1. you have to be salaried (no hourly pay work)
> 2. you have to have been with that employeer 6 months
> 3. they will use they LOWEST pay check from that time to show how much you make a month (so if you earn a salary and get commission) - if there is one month where you don't get the commission - and it is less than equivalent to 18,600 pa you don't qualify (so one month off would definitely discount you - unless it was paid time)
> 
> example - does not qualify (even though the total amount is over 9,300
> month 1 - 1,850
> month 2 - 1,500 - this month disqualifies you
> month 3 - 1,850
> month 4 - 1850
> month 5 - 2,000
> month 6 - 2,000
> 
> calculation will be 6 times 1,500 (not do you have the total number), since 1,500 is the amount that UKBA can count on for your income each month.


Is this definite?? With my part time job as well as my actual job I earn over 18,600, but I believe when I worked it out that there is a month which leaves me maybe 100 short of the target. But since I do earn over the amount needed that surely shouldn't matter, right?


----------



## helpfinder

if your wage slips are monthly and you get paid monthly and are working in two jobs they will combine the lowest wage from one job and the lowest from the other they will add them up and use that as the monthly income multiplied by six and it has to be above 9300


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

helpfinder said:


> no i mean i am working in the uk at the moment for 2 months already and i want to go abroad and bring my pathner with me. before the 2 months of employement i wasnt working but now i am working and my income from wages will be 20000 for a year which is more than the financial requirement


The difficulty is that you hadn't worked the previous ten months earning at least the minimum required, but I'm not 100% on that because there are so many options to work through that. Do you have savings in excess of £16000 that could be used to cover the shortfall?

On your other question about the FLR, the way I'm reading the Statement of Intent (SOI) is that each time your spouse makes another 'next-stage' application (at 2.5 year intervals), the entire period of 2.5 years must meet the requirement either through earned income, or through a combination of savings and earned income.

And negotiating that labyrinth maze of the way the savings and earned income can be figured is really something, I keep expecting a dragon to jump out and eat me. (Mythological reference, an especially apt, I think!). To be extremely frank, I am beyond grateful that I don't fall under it. 

There is one thing-if your spouse is going to work at a paying job, her income will be applicable at that first FLR application stage. Once she is in the UK and permitted to work, her income counts.


----------



## aqua3000

Looking for advice

I am working - earning £9000 per year. I have savings of £25,000 - I will be applying for a visa for my partner to join me in the UK. I have my own home with no mortgage..

How are the changes going to affect me - Do I have enough money to satisfy the new requirements???


----------



## Joppa

aqua3000 said:


> Looking for advice
> 
> I am working - earning £9000 per year. I have savings of £25,000 - I will be applying for a visa for my partner to join me in the UK. I have my own home with no mortgage..
> 
> How are the changes going to affect me - Do I have enough money to satisfy the new requirements???


As things stand with you, you don't have enough money.
Your income is short by £7800. Multiply by 2.5 and you get £19500. Add it to the minimum savings of £16000, you require £35500, meaning you are £10500 short in savings. So get another job or change job to increase your salary, or make up the shortfall in savings by cash gifts from relatives. Or your partner can make up the difference from their savings.


----------



## aqua3000

Joppa said:


> As things stand with you, you don't have enough money.
> Your income is short by £7800. Multiply by 2.5 and you get £19500. Add it to the minimum savings of £16000, you require £35500, meaning you are £10500 short in savings. So get another job or change job to increase your salary, or make up the shortfall in savings by cash gifts from relatives. Or your partner can make up the difference from their savings.



Thank you for the reply.

I forgot to add that I own shares - my portfolio is worth around £10,000 - with the stock market volatility this value goes up and down - How do I add my share portfolio when the value keeps changing???


----------



## samdavids

Hi, what do people make of this section in the statement of intent?

167.
Income from the following sources will not be counted towards the financial requirement:

Income from those who live in the same household (except any child of the applicant who has turned 18 and continues to be counted towards the higher income threshold the applicant has to meet until they qualify for settlement on the five year family route).

Salary from a family owned business would not count then?


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

samdavids said:


> Hi, what do people make of this section in the statement of intent?
> 
> 167.
> Income from the following sources will not be counted towards the financial requirement:
> 
> Income from those who live in the same household (except any child of the applicant who has turned 18 and continues to be counted towards the higher income threshold the applicant has to meet until they qualify for settlement on the five year family route).
> 
> Salary from a family owned business would not count then?


Salary-yes IF being paid to the sponsor (or applicant once in the UK with permission to work), because it's earned income for the sponsor (or applicant, but only when the applicant is in the UK with permission to work). That salary would have to be earned, as compensation for actual work performed. 

The way the UKBA has it worded, it's clear they are going to be investigating financial arrangements very closely, so the earned income has to be able to be proved as real earned income for real work performed, and probably consistent with the job description.

However, other income, for example 'contributions' to the sponsor, won't be counted as that would in essence be considered as 'third-party sponsorship', something the UKBA is doing away with.

That's my reading of it anyway. Hopefully others will post in with their 'read'.

I'm just in from church, where the changes to the immigration were a big topic after services. Apparently this is a big topic to people outside of the 'interested parties' category, it was even discussed on _Question Time_ Thursday night. Where ever I go I'm hearing people discussing it, and their 'read' on the new rules. I must say support for Theresa May is higher than ever due to the Article 8 sections.


----------



## samdavids

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Salary-yes IF being paid to the sponsor (or applicant once in the UK with permission to work), because it's earned income for the sponsor (or applicant, but only when the applicant is in the UK with permission to work). That salary would have to be earned, as compensation for actual work performed.
> 
> The way the UKBA has it worded, it's clear they are going to be investigating financial arrangements very closely, so the earned income has to be able to be proved as real earned income for real work performed, and probably consistent with the job description.
> 
> However, other income, for example 'contributions' to the sponsor, won't be counted as that would in essence be considered as 'third-party sponsorship', something the UKBA is doing away with.
> 
> That's my reading of it anyway. Hopefully others will post in with their 'read'.
> 
> I'm just in from church, where the changes to the immigration were a big topic after services. Apparently this is a big topic to people outside of the 'interested parties' category, it was even discussed on _Question Time_ Thursday night. Where ever I go I'm hearing people discussing it, and their 'read' on the new rules. I must say support for Theresa May is higher than ever due to the Article 8 sections.


Phew, if that's true then that's a relief, I work as a chef in the family owned restaurant so that would have been awkward! Bit worrying really!


----------



## 2farapart

aqua3000 said:


> Thank you for the reply.
> 
> I forgot to add that I own shares - my portfolio is worth around £10,000 - with the stock market volatility this value goes up and down - How do I add my share portfolio when the value keeps changing???


This is unclear in the guidance but it appears only income from such sources is counted (rental income from a property portfolio, interest from savings, and dividends from shares - see point 165 of the Statement Of Intent). The value of property in a property portfolio or shares in a shares portfolio is not "immediately available" income (and one of the rules for income to be counted is that it must be immediately available).


----------



## Mervinia N

helpfinder said:


> if your wage slips are monthly and you get paid monthly and are working in two jobs they will combine the lowest wage from one job and the lowest from the other they will add them up and use that as the monthly income multiplied by six and it has to be above 9300


Please confirm where you got this information from or is this a question?

You have to be earning £18600 at the time of application, it is not halved to proving £9300.

If you don't earn gross annual salary of £18600 then you can boost it with non salaried income, pension income or savings boost at £16000 + (£ shortfall x 2.5)

Once you have the required level of salaried income...

* If you have worked for your employer more than 6 months, proving your gross annual salary with your work contract and employer letter and supplying 6 months of bank statements and payslips shows that you're receiving the correct amount per month to be on salaried income over £18600.

* If you have worked for your employer less than 6 months, even if you are making the £18600 as gross annual salary, you must, in addition, prove you have earnt the required level of salary over the previous 12 months through salaried income, non employment income or the savings boost.

It is make sure that sponsors genuinely do earn enough to support their spouse and/or family and to reduce the possibility of people faking sudden jobs that have the required income when sponsoring a visa app. Not only does the salaried income need to be proven by sight of work contract and letter from employer (which are able to be faked I guess) but people must show that the income is actually being paid via bank statements and payslips. That's an awful lot of stuff to counterfeit if someone is faking 12 months 'proof' (and why UKBA are so stringent with bank statements having to be officially printed and stamped by the banks) so I suppose it'll do its job of stopping fakers but it's rough on those who genuinely do now have the income but just haven't had it for long.

As you have only been with your employer 2 months and cannot meet the additional 'you must have earnt the required salary in the previous 12 months' requirement, the application would fail on inability to prove required income level for sponsorship. You need to work for four more months before applying or have previous non-employment income or have enough saved to use the savings boost to cover the 10 months without work


----------



## Gladbear

Having decided only a couple of weeks ago that my Aussie wife and I , plus the kids (brits by descent and have uk passports) were going to be moving back. These changes have now lit a fire under me to get her application for settlement visa in before 9th July. 

I'm curious as to whether someone can answer this, I do not have a job to go back to yet, I hope to get one as soon as possible on returning and live on savings in the meantime. What kind of financial aspects do the dept take into account when applying for the visa from outside the UK? I don't want my wives application to be rejected on the account that I am not working in the UK thus will not be able to support her. As I don't plan on living off the state! essentially, what i'm asking is, are we going to be rejected for her settlement visa (under the pre 9th july rules) due to me not having a job to go back to yet? or will they take into account my good job/wage here and hope I get similar back in the UK?

As I say, we will do all we can to apply pre 9th July. However, In the event that we miss that deadline and fall under the new rules, is it then the case that the only way of bringing my family over would be on savings alone? As I could still get a job that pays over the threshold before moving back, but as I understand it , wouldnt meet the 6 month requirement.

There are going to be a lot of disappointed ex-pats after 9th July if they ever want to bring their Aussie spouses home. : (


----------



## 2farapart

Gladbear said:


> Having decided only a couple of weeks ago that my Aussie wife and I , plus the kids (brits by descent and have uk passports) were going to be moving back. These changes have now lit a fire under me to get her application for settlement visa in before 9th July.
> 
> I'm curious as to whether someone can answer this, I do not have a job to go back to yet, I hope to get one as soon as possible on returning and live on savings in the meantime. What kind of financial aspects do the dept take into account when applying for the visa from outside the UK? I don't want my wives application to be rejected on the account that I am not working in the UK thus will not be able to support her. As I don't plan on living off the state! essentially, what i'm asking is, are we going to be rejected for her settlement visa (under the pre 9th july rules) due to me not having a job to go back to yet? or will they take into account my good job/wage here and hope I get similar back in the UK?
> 
> As I say, we will do all we can to apply pre 9th July. However, In the event that we miss that deadline and fall under the new rules, is it then the case that the only way of bringing my family over would be on savings alone? As I could still get a job that pays over the threshold before moving back, but as I understand it , wouldnt meet the 6 month requirement.
> (


I don't know whether, under existing rules, there is a definitive formula by which to calculate savings, but you probably need enough that, if divided month by month over the course of a spouse visa (currently 2 years), there would still be approx £112 per week left for your wife. If you have the savings for this and can show that your earnings for the past six months clearly meet this too, then you might be okay - especially if you can pinpoint some serious job prospects in the UK (your CV together with typical jobs you would be qualified to apply for). Additionally, if you have the documentary proof that you have been living together in excess of four years, you might be lucky enough to receive a spouse visa endorsed with KOL (meaning that as soon as your wife passes the Life In The UK test, she is entitled to apply for Indefinite Leave To Remain) - but this is a discretionary entitlement and not everyone meeting the requirements seem to be given this endorsement of late.

Under the new rules 'potential' (ie job prospects) is no longer a qualifier and the KOL endorsement is also being abolished so you would need to demonstrate across two probationary visas that you can meet the income (or equivalent savings) required. With no income, you will need to calculate savings of £16,000 (required savings for a person deemed not to be reliant on benefits if there's no income), plus the shortfall of the required income threshold multiplied by 2.5 for the probationary visas (and same again with no multiplying for the ILR visa). Because your children hold British passports they're not subject to the additional financial requirements, so you would just need to show that you have continuously held savings for the past 6 months of £62,500 for your wife for each probationary visa, and at the point of applying for ILR, £34,600. A better option than these horrible amounts would be (if possible) to secure yourself a definite job offer that meets or exceeds £18,600 a year and which you could start immediately on moving to the UK. This, together with a past six months of earning in excess of the income threshold the past six months, would then be fine.


----------



## 2farapart

2farapart said:


> I don't know whether, under existing rules, there is a definitive formula by which to calculate savings, but you probably need enough that, if divided month by month over the course of a spouse visa (currently 2 years), there would still be approx £112 per week left for your wife.


Forgot to add: "AFTER mortgage or rent plus council tax has been deducted" to this figure.


----------



## qman383

I found an interesting take on the new immigration rules. Its worth a read I think this raises some valid points as to how unfair some of the new rules are. 

http://www.uk-yankee.com/sites/default/files/familyconsultationresponse.pdf.


----------



## natpryce

Gladbear said:


> Having decided only a couple of weeks ago that my Aussie wife and I , plus the kids (brits by descent and have uk passports) were going to be moving back. These changes have now lit a fire under me to get her application for settlement visa in before 9th July.
> 
> I'm curious as to whether someone can answer this, I do not have a job to go back to yet, I hope to get one as soon as possible on returning and live on savings in the meantime. What kind of financial aspects do the dept take into account when applying for the visa from outside the UK? I don't want my wives application to be rejected on the account that I am not working in the UK thus will not be able to support her. As I don't plan on living off the state! essentially, what i'm asking is, are we going to be rejected for her settlement visa (under the pre 9th july rules) due to me not having a job to go back to yet? or will they take into account my good job/wage here and hope I get similar back in the UK?
> 
> As I say, we will do all we can to apply pre 9th July. However, In the event that we miss that deadline and fall under the new rules, is it then the case that the only way of bringing my family over would be on savings alone? As I could still get a job that pays over the threshold before moving back, but as I understand it , wouldnt meet the 6 month requirement.
> 
> There are going to be a lot of disappointed ex-pats after 9th July if they ever want to bring their Aussie spouses home. : (


Hi gladbear,
Sorry not been on here for a while but we just successfully processed our visa from Perth. We got our approval in 2.5 weeks from Manilla. My hubby has a good job here & Im a stay at home mum so it was all processed based on his Aussie wages. He earns good money here & we have pretty good savings. But yes no jobs lined up in UK at all & just his CV to prove he is not useless. So it is possible on the Pre july rules.
If you want further details just in box me.
Thanks,
Natalie


----------



## Rocadownunder

Hi natpryce
Interesting post. We are also applying for a spouse visa from Perth. I wasn't going to attach my CV to our application as a supporting document but on reading your post I have asked my wife to add it as well as my current employment contract. 
I too don't have a job lined up in the UK but we have sold our house and will have in my opinion more than enough savings. I don't believe either that getting a job in the UK will be difficult (hopefully) as the oil and gas engineering industry is very buoyant over there at the moment.
It was interesting to hear that it only took 2.5 weeks for your visas.

Cheers


----------



## nyclon

Gladbear said:


> Having decided only a couple of weeks ago that my Aussie wife and I , plus the kids (brits by descent and have uk passports) were going to be moving back. These changes have now lit a fire under me to get her application for settlement visa in before 9th July.
> 
> I'm curious as to whether someone can answer this, I do not have a job to go back to yet, I hope to get one as soon as possible on returning and live on savings in the meantime. What kind of financial aspects do the dept take into account when applying for the visa from outside the UK? I don't want my wives application to be rejected on the account that I am not working in the UK thus will not be able to support her. As I don't plan on living off the state! essentially, what i'm asking is, are we going to be rejected for her settlement visa (under the pre 9th july rules) due to me not having a job to go back to yet? or will they take into account my good job/wage here and hope I get similar back in the UK?
> 
> As I say, we will do all we can to apply pre 9th July. However, In the event that we miss that deadline and fall under the new rules, is it then the case that the only way of bringing my family over would be on savings alone? As I could still get a job that pays over the threshold before moving back, but as I understand it , wouldnt meet the 6 month requirement.
> 
> There are going to be a lot of disappointed ex-pats after 9th July if they ever want to bring their Aussie spouses home. : (


If you apply before 9 July 2012, you will have to show that you have £111.45/week for your wife and £64.99/week for each child--left over after paying rent and council tax for the duration of the 27 month probationary period. You can achieve this through a combination of income from a job, savings or a firm job offer (it has to be a firm job offer, job prospects don't count). So, if you have 1 child, that would mean you need about £20,000 in savings if you don't have a job. If you apply before 9 July 2012 you can also have a 3rd party sponsor.

UK Border Agency | Maintenance (funds)


----------



## mehemlynn

nyclon said:


> If you apply before 9 July 2012, you will have to show that you have £111.45/week for your wife and £64.99/week for each child--left over after paying rent and council tax for the duration of the 27 month probationary period. You can achieve this through a combination of income from a job, savings or a firm job offer (it has to be a firm job offer, job prospects don't count). So, if you have 1 child, that would mean you need about £20,000 in savings if you don't have a job. If you apply before 9 July 2012 you can also have a 3rd party sponsor.
> 
> UK Border Agency | Maintenance (funds)


If you apply before July 9, job prospects DO count for the applicant (and the spouse if you are moving together) - see the link pasted above. This is why to include a resume and posts of jobs you would apply for.

Holy cow, Nyclon, you just scared the hell out of me (we have just under the 20,000). At least you gave us the link.

"The Immigration Rules require that an applicant and their sponsor must provide evidence that they are able to maintain themselves and any dependants without recourse to public funds.

To meet the maintenance requirement evidence must be provided that demonstrates:

Sufficient independent means,
Employment for one or both of the parties,
Sufficient prospects of employment for one or both parties."


----------



## nyclon

mehemlynn said:


> If you apply before July 9, job prospects DO count for the applicant (and the spouse if you are moving together) - see the link pasted above. This is why to include a resume and posts of jobs you would apply for.
> 
> Holy cow, Nyclon, you just scared the hell out of me (we have just under the 20,000). At least you gave us the link.
> 
> "The Immigration Rules require that an applicant and their sponsor must provide evidence that they are able to maintain themselves and any dependants without recourse to public funds.
> 
> To meet the maintenance requirement evidence must be provided that demonstrates:
> 
> Sufficient independent means,
> Employment for one or both of the parties,
> Sufficient prospects of employment for one or both parties."


And the following line:

You must provide evidence that maintenance is available in the form of cash funds

I don't believe prospects can actually be translated into cash funds.


----------



## mehemlynn

nyclon said:


> And the following line:
> 
> You must provide evidence that maintenance is available in the form of cash funds
> 
> I don't believe prospects can actually be translated into cash funds.


But UKBA wouldn't list prospective employment as an option, if it wasn't.

I believe that line is in relation to the "Independent means", since the rest of that section is about which types of "financial instruments" are available for use (for example pensions, even when available are not).

The new rules as of July 9 do take away the right to use prospective employment.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

Pre-9 July, job prospects are considered; from everything I've read it can tip the scales in borderline cases. The prospects need to be very good that the applicant and/or sponsor will be able to find work that will bring the income up higher, enough to preclude the need to access public funds. 

Very interesting, I'm watching BBC Parliament channel 81. The discussion is becoming more about forcing a debate on the new rules than it is about Article 8 parts 1&2.


----------



## Gladbear

natpryce said:


> Hi gladbear,
> Sorry not been on here for a while but we just successfully processed our visa from Perth. We got our approval in 2.5 weeks from Manilla. My hubby has a good job here & Im a stay at home mum so it was all processed based on his Aussie wages. He earns good money here & we have pretty good savings. But yes no jobs lined up in UK at all & just his CV to prove he is not useless. So it is possible on the Pre july rules.
> If you want further details just in box me.
> Thanks,
> Natalie


Thank you Nat, I may just inbox you with some queries if that is ok with you?


----------



## Gladbear

nyclon said:


> If you apply before 9 July 2012 you can also have a 3rd party sponsor.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware of the 3rd party sponsor thing. Can this be as well as myself sponsoring my spouse? E.g with my parents also being a sponsor too, or does it have to be one or the other?
> 
> Does it have to be in an official capacity (noted on application form) or can it just be letters of intent to support us financially from each of my parents? We are planning to live rent free in my mothers house when we get there until we can find employment. My parents will also assist financially if necessary until that happens too.
Click to expand...


----------



## natpryce

Rocadownunder said:


> Hi natpryce
> Interesting post. We are also applying for a spouse visa from Perth. I wasn't going to attach my CV to our application as a supporting document but on reading your post I have asked my wife to add it as well as my current employment contract.
> I too don't have a job lined up in the UK but we have sold our house and will have in my opinion more than enough savings. I don't believe either that getting a job in the UK will be difficult (hopefully) as the oil and gas engineering industry is very buoyant over there at the moment.
> It was interesting to hear that it only took 2.5 weeks for your visas.
> 
> Cheers


Yes ours was super quick, we did bombard them with over 300 pages of evidence though. I've been through the immigration process for Aussie & NZ & they require heaps so provided the UK office with the same. I also included 2 examples of jobs my husband could apply which we found on job sites. Yes definitely include your current contract here in Perth & payslips. Sadly I don't think they even looked at half our evidence. Good luck with the process, oh & by the way don't listen to the people at your biometrics in Perth. My husband freaked as they told him it would be at least 8-12 weeks for settlement visas due to Jubilee & Olympics. Im also not sure if it helped but I rang the hotline (yes costs a fortune) but worth it to ask if they had received my package in Manila. I was super sweet to the lady & she said she'll send an email to them & will then text me a freephone number to call with a unique ID number. It took about 3 days but then I rang them back & they confirmed actually date it arrived I swear all things progressed super quick after that. 
Oh by the way we can't do the fast track service its not available from here.
Cheers,

Natalie


----------



## bookman0105

*Salary ..*

Hi 
One question .. 
The lovely 70 page document said "salaried" income.. I assume this means we cannot use a part time job unless its on an annual salary?
I am £1000 short of the required £18600 and i doubt my current employer will provide me with a pay rise.. 
so .. any ideas on where to "find" another £1000 ?


----------



## bookman0105

I have been in my current job 4 years my salary is £17100
I get about £1200 a year in overtime (Mainly november to march ). 
The question is what do I have to do to qualify ?
Will a part time salary make up the shortfall ?
or do i need a completely new job on more than the £18600?

now i am totally confused ..


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

bookman0105 said:


> I have been in my current job 4 years my salary is £17100
> I get about £1200 a year in overtime (Mainly november to march ).
> The question is what do I have to do to qualify ?
> Will a part time salary make up the shortfall ?
> or do i need a completely new job on more than the £18600?
> 
> now i am totally confused ..


Salary=annual earnings, gross. 

Do you have savings over £16000? The amount over the £16000 can be applied towards the shortfall.

As for the part-time job, I'm not sure. I read a couple of posts on other threads that the lowest paid wage is the one they look at, but that surely can't be right if you are working a part-time in combination with a full-time job to achieve the full amount. Hopefully someone will post in soon on that.


----------



## 2farapart

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Salary=annual earnings, gross.
> 
> Do you have savings over £16000? The amount over the £16000 can be applied towards the shortfall.
> 
> As for the part-time job, I'm not sure. I read a couple of posts on other threads that the lowest paid wage is the one they look at, but that surely can't be right if you are working a part-time in combination with a full-time job to achieve the full amount. Hopefully someone will post in soon on that.


I believe it's the *lowest income *you receive per month (which can include income from a property portfolio, share dividends etc on top of salaried income, so adding a part-time job to make up the shortfall will help, but there's a likelihood that you'll need to work this additional job a full six months before applying to prove that the income is dependable (and in all likelihood you'll need to keep your salary averaging around and above that amount for the next visa too.

Overtime is also counted, but again you might need to prove some consistency and regularity in order to satisfy the UKBA that you meet the minimum threshold.


----------



## bookman0105

*savings Har*



AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Salary=annual earnings, gross.
> 
> Do you have savings over £16000? The amount over the £16000 can be applied towards the shortfall.
> 
> As for the part-time job, I'm not sure. I read a couple of posts on other threads that the lowest paid wage is the one they look at, but that surely can't be right if you are working a part-time in combination with a full-time job to achieve the full amount. Hopefully someone will post in soon on that.


No savings .. just the gross of 17100.. Only option i think is to demand more money from my employer ( ha .. not much chance there) or move to a job in london commute and earn 26000 ..


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

2FarApart, that part about the lowest is a problem-won't the part-time salary be the lowest, which would then knock the hard working sponsor out of the running? :confused2:

I know the six months thing is an important factor too. I have to be honest here-those are the most convoluted 'options' I've ever tried to wrap my mind around. Just convoluted, I really feel sorry for the ECOs!

@Bookman0105-hang in there, there has to be a solution. You are SO close!


----------



## 2farapart

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> 2FarApart, that part about the lowest is a problem-won't the part-time salary be the lowest, which would then knock the hard working sponsor out of the running? :confused2:
> 
> I know the six months thing is an important factor too. I have to be honest here-those are the most convoluted 'options' I've ever tried to wrap my mind around. Just convoluted, I really feel sorry for the ECOs!
> 
> @Bookman0105-hang in there, there has to be a solution. You are SO close!


No, the 'lowest income' is the lowest of the total combined income, not salary from one job pr main job (so it can be both jobs, a pension, share dividends and rental income from a property - *provided all are regular payments sustained over the last x-number of months* (differs according to income type - non-employment income seems to require 12 months of prior evidence rather than 6). The income can include other things besides salaried income, but it appears they WILL look at the lowest sum total received over the six-twelve months and apply THAT as the achievable income.

Editied to add bolded bit!


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

2farapart said:


> No, the 'lowest income' is the lowest of the total combined income, not salary from one job pr main job (so it can be both jobs, a pension, share dividends and rental income from a property - provided all are regular payments sustained over the last six months). The income can include other things besides salaried income, but it appears they WILL look at the lowest sum total received over the six months and apply THAT as the achievable income


Thank-you (Note to self: do not try to figure out the new financial rules after 9pm!)

So, Bookman0105 can use a part time job to make up the small amount he's missing, he just needs to be at that job for six months?


----------



## 2farapart

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Thank-you (Note to self: do not try to figure out the new financial rules after 9pm!)
> 
> So, Bookman0105 can use a part time job to make up the small amount he's missing, he just needs to be at that job for six months?


Bottom of Appendix C there is a horribly blurred footnote stating (bolding by me) - quoted from sponsor overseas, but similar is stated for sponsor already in the UK: 


> Firstly, the sponsor must be in employment at the point of application and the annual salary, together with any of the other options being relied upon, must be £18,600. Secondly, the sponsor’s total income from salaried employment over the last 12 months must, *together with any of the other options being relied upon*, must also be £18,600. Cash savings (Option D) can be used to meet the threshold at POA; they cannot be used to meet the threshold over the previous 12 months.


Appendix C is a bit of a minefield in what must be proved over what period of time and will need close examination by anyone intending combining their sources of income to meet the requirement.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

2farapart said:


> Bottom of Appendix C there is a horribly blurred footnote stating:


OK, so he gets a part-time job that combined with his full-time brings his annual gross to the new minimum. 

He does not need to be at the new job for six months, and can be the sponsor?

(I love this if it works)


----------



## 2farapart

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> OK, so he gets a part-time job that combined with his full-time brings his annual gross to the new minimum.
> 
> He does not need to be at the new job for six months, and can be the sponsor?
> 
> (I love this if it works)


I believe so because BOTH would be income from employment, so six prior months will be needed provided poth salaries combined meet or exceed the £18,600. It only starts to become treacle when throwing in a pension, gift or non-employment income source.


----------



## mehemlynn

2farapart said:


> I believe so because BOTH would be income from employment, so six prior months will be needed provided poth salaries combined meet or exceed the £18,600. It only starts to become treacle when throwing in a pension, gift or non-employment income source.


I know I'm the one who wrote about the lowest income, which was in response to a specific quote and question (it was to helpfinder). I haven't red enough of the different scenarios to know if that was for the all of the scenarios or just the one specifically being asked about at that time.

Unfortunately, the single minimum income is probably going to mean people moving to London for several years to meet the requirement. If anything, I would think that will make integration harder for th non-UK spouse. After all who wants to settle into a place they don't plan to stay.

My husband and I never planned to stay in Wisconsin as long as we have and therefore haven't tried to. Become part of the society.


----------



## 2farapart

mehemlynn said:


> Unfortunately, the single minimum income is probably going to mean people moving to London for several years to meet the requirement. If anything, I would think that will make integration harder for th non-UK spouse. After all who wants to settle into a place they don't plan to stay.


I imagine the big problem in the majority of the UK (England especially) is cost of housing - especially for any places on a commutable route to a large town or city, meaning £18,600 isn't particularly high for anyone who is buying or has bought a property in the last few years, or is paying steadily increasing rent. In fact it's likely a big struggle to get by and the UKBA seems to think this a threshold that is just above the safety net of needing assistance from the state. For anyone without a home yet, people paying today's high rents or anyone who has bought only in recent years, I tend to agree.

As an example, my US partner's lovely 4-bedroom home with pool in Florida actually cost slightly less than my 1-bedroom tiny home in East Anglia (her house would have cost 3 times as much here) yet salaries seem on a par - meaning a much bigger gap between salary and the housing people can hope to afford in many parts of the UK. With mortgage, council tax around £850, a work commute of £700 - plus petrol £150, utilities £200, budget for car insurance, tax, groceries etc, we see no change out of £2000 a month - for a tiny 1-bed house and 11 year old car. My partner had a much better lifestyle back in the US earning around the same salary as me, but of course same-sex couples are not recognised so she had no choice but to move over here.

Of course, people DO get by - and on much less. People who have been paying their mortgage for years on property bought when prices weren't so stupid-insane for example are not paying the inflated mortgage payments of today, and people who have paid off their mortgages - well, £18,600 is excessive in these cases. But that £18,600 is likely going to be based on people trying to afford housing at today's prices, which isn't terribly fair on those who don't have the same kind of costs to meet. The old guide of "you must show you have £111.45 spare per week after deducting any housing costs" seemed more fair in comparison, but I guess it's not as workable for overburdened and under-staffed UKBA personnel.


----------



## mehemlynn

2farapart said:


> I imagine the big problem in the majority of the UK (England especially) is cost of housing - especially for any places on a commutable route to a large town or city, meaning £18,600 isn't particularly high for anyone who is buying or has bought a property in the last few years, or is paying steadily increasing rent. In fact it's likely a big struggle to get by and the UKBA seems to think this a threshold that is just above the safety net of needing assistance from the state. For anyone without a home yet, people paying today's high rents or anyone who has bought only in recent years, I tend to agree.
> 
> As an example, my US partner's lovely 4-bedroom home with pool in Florida actually cost slightly less than my 1-bedroom tiny home in East Anglia (her house would have cost 3 times as much here) yet salaries seem on a par - meaning a much bigger gap between salary and the housing people can hope to afford in many parts of the UK. With mortgage, council tax around £850, a work commute of £700 - plus petrol £150, utilities £200, budget for car insurance, tax, groceries etc, we see no change out of £2000 a month - for a tiny 1-bed house and 11 year old car. My partner had a much better lifestyle back in the US earning around the same salary as me, but of course same-sex couples are not recognised so she had no choice but to move over here.
> 
> Of course, people DO get by - and on much less. People who have been paying their mortgage for years on property bought when prices weren't so stupid-insane for example are not paying the inflated mortgage payments of today, and people who have paid off their mortgages - well, £18,600 is excessive in these cases. But that £18,600 is likely going to be based on people trying to afford housing at today's prices, which isn't terribly fair on those who don't have the same kind of costs to meet. The old guide of "you must show you have £111.45 spare per week after deducting any housing costs" seemed more fair in comparison, but I guess it's not as workable for overburdened and under-staffed UKBA personnel.


I understand the reasoning behind the new rules, basically ease of use. But in parts of the country the proposed amount is so low (like in London), but in the areas further out it is a huge amount.

But doesn't that encourage people to move the more expensive area, live as lean as possible for a few years (until ILR) but then moving back home and starting over. If that's what people do then neither the sponsor or the applicant start to settle until ILR is granted. So they take care of one problem and create a different one.

M


----------



## qman383

The biggest problem I have with the new rules is that these changes don't consider compassionate circumstances such as lower pay for women, childcare issues, economy in different areas. Oh and what about the fact that it's only non European spouses that are dealing with the new rules. Why not change benefits rules for immigrants if that is what they are so concerned with, it is never right to separate a family because they may not make enough money. My wife and I have both worked very hard, unfortunately my wife had to take a caregiving job due to there being no Nanny jobs, which is her profession. She has had several opportunities in London but due to my daughter needing care she is unable to travel that far. Having both parents fixes that situation and cuts the childcare expense. Both my wife and daughter are British and have rights there, why is it, because I'm from America for example is it harder for my wife to have her entire family there and another British citizen who lets say married someone from France have it easy. I find it hard to believe that someone from the Europe never claims benefits and is never a burden on the benefits system. The more I read about it the more it seems politically motivated and discriminatory. I pity anyone that could tell my little girl, sorry your mom does not make enough so you won't have your dad living with you.


----------



## bookman0105

Interesting stuff.. 
I have an annual income from my main job of £17100 plus overtime of about £1800 per year .. BUT the overtime is paid in the month after its earnt .. ( October through to about march ) I had some this month (June) but again it will come in in July. 
So I can earn £50000 a year but if its in overtime then they still say i earn only £17100 .. 
I am still trying to get some sort of part time job.. but there seems to be a bit of a shortage of part time jobs .. ( Every cleaning company every pub every shop all say no !!.. )


----------



## bookman0105

*income ..*

Interesting stuff.. 
I have an annual income from my main job of £17100 plus overtime of about £1800 per year .. BUT the overtime is paid in the month after its earnt .. ( October through to about march ) I had some this month (June) but again it will come in in July. 
So I can earn £50000 a year but if its in overtime then they still say i earn only £17100 .. 
I am still trying to get some sort of part time job.. but there seems to be a bit of a shortage of part time jobs .. ( Every cleaning company every pub every shop all say no !!.. )


----------



## aqua3000

If I apply before 9 July then according to the old rules I would be eligible for a spouse visa - however my spouse is waiting to sit the english test on the 14 july, she is a university student and the test is just a formality - the new rules mean that after 9 July I will be refused a spouse visa. 

Is it possible to submit a visa application without the english test, can I submit the results of the test a couple of weeks later??


----------



## Tshayne

2farapart said:


> No, the 'lowest income' is the lowest of the total combined income, not salary from one job pr main job (so it can be both jobs, a pension, share dividends and rental income from a property - *provided all are regular payments sustained over the last x-number of months* (differs according to income type - non-employment income seems to require 12 months of prior evidence rather than 6). The income can include other things besides salaried income, but it appears they WILL look at the lowest sum total received over the six-twelve months and apply THAT as the achievable income.
> 
> Editied to add bolded bit!


Which part of the new details did you find that information? I guess my main concern is that over the last 12 months, there is one month that would put my husband under the required income, even though his annual gross income, and his contracted salary now is above the requirement. Would it be better to stay on the safe side and just use the six months prior to the application as the evidence of the income? I guess my only worry would be in providing bank statements for longer than that (which I'm assuming they would want) they would look at the deposits made from his employer, and the one month would should the deposit being lower.

This is all making me think I should just submit our stuff next week before the deadline, but then again I can imagine them being extra harsh on those applications as well. 

Sigh.


----------



## 2farapart

Tshayne said:


> Which part of the new details did you find that information? I guess my main concern is that over the last 12 months, there is one month that would put my husband under the required income, even though his annual gross income, and his contracted salary now is above the requirement. Would it be better to stay on the safe side and just use the six months prior to the application as the evidence of the income? I guess my only worry would be in providing bank statements for longer than that (which I'm assuming they would want) they would look at the deposits made from his employer, and the one month would should the deposit being lower.
> 
> This is all making me think I should just submit our stuff next week before the deadline, but then again I can imagine them being extra harsh on those applications as well.
> 
> Sigh.


On page 39 of the Statement of Intent, para 141:



> 141.
> Where the sponsor and/or the applicant (if they are in the UK with permission to work) is in salaried employment at the point of application and has been with the same employer for at least the last six months, the applicant can count the gross annual salary (at its lowest level in those six months) towards the financial requirement.


This would apply where the sponsoring partner already lives in the UK. Where the sponsoring partner is actually returning from living abroad with their partner, they're not expected to have a job immediately and so need to demonstrate their financial potential with past earnings and a confirmed job offer in the UK starting within three months of the sponsor's arrival into the UK (and meeting the same minimum income threshold or with a savings top-up). 

To be honest, if you have the choice of applying before 9th July, it would likely be better because you'll avoid the longer probationary periods as well as the new income requirements. There's nothing to indicate they'll be extra harsh (they've stated that all applications pad for prior to 9th July will be considered under the old rules).


----------



## bookman0105

*Reaching the 18600 or not ?*

I have a question I wondered if anyone has an answer for .. 
The statement of intent etc says 
"Overtime, commission-based pay and bonuses will be counted as earnings from 
salaried employment."
it also says 
"Where the sponsor and/or the applicant (if they are in the UK with permission to 
work) is in salaried employment at the point of application and has been with the same 
employer for at least the last six months, the applicant can count the gross annual salary 
(at its lowest level in those six months) towards the financial requirement."

Now , my thought is if overtime is counted as income as stated then if it is ignored when counting the 6 months income then its not being counted. 
If I earn (in 6 months before applying ) £1800 a month (£2100 a year) in 5 out of the 6 months before BUT only get £1425 in 1 of the months does this mean I fail the requirement ?
Is this fair ? 
I earnt £18600 or more in 1 year and on average £18600 or over taking the 6 months before but if i miss one single months wages through sickness, holiday (say .. going to get married abroad!)or any other reason then it stuffs my application.


----------



## 2farapart

Unfortunately, if you have no other means to pull in (like the eye-wateringly high savings), then it comes down to income. Both of your incomes over the past six months can be counted if you've both been working. 

Some people close to the line have talked about taking on a part time job just to cover that last little bit, but you need to demonstrate at the next visa the same amount again.

The other option is, if where you're applying from offers a pay-online service, then paying for your visa prior to 9th July would place you under the existing and less harsh rules. But time is running out on that now.


----------



## fasibad

Hi advice needed!!

I want to apply to bring my wife over from Canada

I am currently studying at university to become a primary school teacher and will be finished at the end of the year. The minimum i will earn as a teacher is 21600 which is over the required amount, but i only have a £1000 in savings. I live at home with parents(rent free)
How long will i have to wait before i can apply and is it a problem that i have just come out of education?

Thanks you so much guys!!


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

fasibad said:


> Hi advice needed!!
> 
> I want to apply to bring my wife over from Canada
> 
> I am currently studying at university to become a primary school teacher and will be finished at the end of the year. The minimum i will earn as a teacher is 21600 which is over the required amount, but i only have a £1000 in savings. I live at home with parents(rent free)
> How long will i have to wait before i can apply and is it a problem that i have just come out of education?
> 
> Thanks you so much guys!!


Best thing to do is read the Statement of Intent (SOI), which has some very nifty tables for figuring out your financial requirements, and if/how you meet them:

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/s...tatementsofchanges/2012/hc194.pdf?view=Binary

I could try to answer your question, but there may be things about your unique situation that only you can/should know-so you'll really need to do the research. 

The quick answer is that you would be making the amount of money they want to see so you don't need savings anyway-BUT you aren't earning that yet. As I wrote above, YOUR situation may have aspects you won't recognise until you read the rules completely and apply the different options to your unique circumstances. 

Have fun, I strongly recommend printing the SOI out and going over it line-by-line, with a highlighter to make notes on the sections that apply to you.


----------



## fasibad

Thank you so much for your response, i appreciate it. 

Last question sorry. hopefully when i get a job i will have to be employed for 6 months before i can apply but does it matter that i have not been earning before that as i have been in education?

Thank you again


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

fasibad said:


> Thank you so much for your response, i appreciate it.
> 
> Last question sorry. hopefully when i get a job i will have to be employed for 6 months before i can apply but does it matter that i have not been earning before that as i have been in education?
> 
> Thank you again


You'll see in your reading that there are no exceptions for students, sorry about that. When you get a job, you will need either a HUGE lot of savings, or to have been earning at or above the required amount for the past six months with one employer.

It's very complex-you really need to print off that SOI and start reading. You may find something that completely changes everything I answered so far.

Lol, and you thought having finished uni that you were all done studying I've learned that once in the 'I am/love an expat' category, the study never stops


----------



## fasibad

LOL, I thought i was done reading articles and highlighting , but i guess not!!

Thank you!!!! I m sure i will be back with more questions in the future!


----------



## MacUK

_4. The applicant must provide specified evidence that there will be adequate 
accommodation, without recourse to public funds, for the family, including other 
family members who are not included in the application but who live in the same 
household, which the family own or occupy exclusively: accommodation will not be 
regarded as adequate if- 
(a) it is, or will be, overcrowded; or 
(b) it contravenes public health regulations.

Then insert “‘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.”
_

What does this mean...that they will deduct the rent for the house from the gross annual salary, and it still has to be 18 600 after they have taken out the rent??? Sorry, i had to ask!!

I got this here http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/s...tatementsofchanges/2012/hc194.pdf?view=Binary


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

MacUK said:


> _4. The applicant must provide specified evidence that there will be adequate
> accommodation, without recourse to public funds, for the family, including other
> family members who are not included in the application but who live in the same
> household, which the family own or occupy exclusively: accommodation will not be
> regarded as adequate if-
> (a) it is, or will be, overcrowded; or
> (b) it contravenes public health regulations.
> 
> Then insert “‘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.”
> _
> 
> What does this mean...that they will deduct the rent for the house from the gross annual salary, and it still has to be 18 600 after they have taken out the rent??? Sorry, i had to ask!!


That reads like something from the pre-9 July rules. Are you seeing that in the Statement of Intent or the Statement of Changes for post-9 July?


----------



## MacUK

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/s...tatementsofchanges/2012/hc194.pdf?view=Binary

I saw that here


----------



## nyclon

MacUK said:


> http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/s...tatementsofchanges/2012/hc194.pdf?view=Binary
> 
> I saw that here


A page number would be helpful.


----------



## MacUK

Then insert “‘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.”

Page 3


4. The applicant must provide specified evidence that there will be adequate 
accommodation, without recourse to public funds, for the family, including other 
family members who are not included in the application but who live in the same 
household, which the family own or occupy exclusively: accommodation will not be 
regarded as adequate if- 
(a) it is, or will be, overcrowded; or 
(b) it contravenes public health regulations.

Page 24


----------



## nyclon

MacUK said:


> Then insert “‘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.”
> 
> Page 3
> 
> 
> 4. The applicant must provide specified evidence that there will be adequate
> accommodation, without recourse to public funds, for the family, including other
> family members who are not included in the application but who live in the same
> household, which the family own or occupy exclusively: accommodation will not be
> regarded as adequate if-
> (a) it is, or will be, overcrowded; or
> (b) it contravenes public health regulations.
> 
> Page 24


The link you provided is only 7 pages.


----------



## MacUK

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/s...tatementsofchanges/2012/hc194.pdf?view=Binary

When I click it it shows more pages, i don't know what's the problem


----------



## 2farapart

I can see all pages from the link but that's not how I'm reading it. 

What it seems to be implying is that, by taking up residence with a family and using their accommodation, you are not causing enough hardship that, after housing costs etc are deducted, their remaining gross income usually available to them falls under the current minimum income level (ie when benefit support would be needed).

In other words, you moving in with a family must not put them in a position where they would qualify for public funds. I can't think of any real-world examples, but say a tenancy includes a surcharge per adult resident, then the family rent could increase beyond their means. Another example is where a householder (example: single parent) would lose their single-occupancy council tax discount by allowing you to move in, placing them in a position of greater hardship. **My interpretation only - it's like trying to wade through glue reading all that.** It will be nice once the actual rules are in place complete with amendments so we can follow them through properly.


----------



## MacUK

Ok that seems a bit clearer now  
However, I will be moving in with my husband, so his gross annual income meets the requirement, so this does not apply to us, right? Because if you deduct the annual rent from his annual income, then it does not meet the requirement...


----------



## 2farapart

MacUK said:


> Ok that seems a bit clearer now
> However, I will be moving in with my husband, so his gross annual income meets the requirement, so this does not apply to us, right? Because if you deduct the annual rent from his income, then it does not meet the requirement...


I don't believe it applies to you. It seems that this rule merely applies when you are both moving in with someone else.


----------



## rwestie37

So, I applied for my UK spouse visa online July 1st, have my biometrics this Thursday, then will send my documents into the NY border agency. Since my application won't be in their hands until after the 9th, will my application fall under the new or old rules?


----------



## 2farapart

rwestie37 said:


> So, I applied for my UK spouse visa online July 1st, have my biometrics this Thursday, then will send my documents into the NY border agency. Since my application won't be in their hands until after the 9th, will my application fall under the new or old rules?


The key point is when you PAY. If you pay before 9th July and your application is successful, you'll be fine. This ultimately depends on which country you're applying from as they differ in processes.


----------



## rwestie37

Ok. I paid July 9th. Talk about stressful!! I am so ready for all this visa stuff to be over


----------



## rwestie37

Oops I paid July 1st


----------



## aqua3000

What about family sponsorship after 9 July?? 

Can my parents and siblings give me a cash gift to make the shortfall???


----------



## 2farapart

rwestie37 said:


> Oops I paid July 1st


 Good! Much better than 9th July!!!!!


----------



## 2farapart

aqua3000 said:


> What about family sponsorship after 9 July??
> 
> Can my parents and siblings give me a cash gift to make the shortfall???


It has to be a very substantial gift.

Under the new rules, you must either have an income of £18,600 per annum OR cash savings of £16,000 plus 2.5 times the amount you are short. And the money has to have been made available to you (it cannot be a promised gift).


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

aqua3000 said:


> What about family sponsorship after 9 July??
> 
> Can my parents and siblings give me a cash gift to make the shortfall???


Third-party sponsorship is forbidden under the new rules. However, post-9 July, your family can give you a lump sum, but they need to make it clear it is a gift, and no repayment is expected.

*@MacUK*, lol, I have this mental picture of people paging through the SOI and the SOC trying to find that section-I know I was between online reading and offline chores. The SOC is a pain in the neck to read, the SOI is somewhat easier.


----------



## MacUK

Yes they can, but as I understand it, it must be a gift, and it must be in your possession 6 months prior to the point of application.


----------



## MacUK

Well, as you can imagine i have read and read, and again i am confused by all of this. Mostly because there are so many ways you can interpret it. 
So I was thinking....isn't there some way, any way that we can apply without having to wait 6 months, mostly for the benefit of our daughter (British citizen) ? Like I mentioned it on a different thread, she needs her father, and a mother as well! Isn't there some rule that says that the family must be united, instead of counting payslips? We are talking about a child here, a baby! This child must and already has a healthy family, so why do they have to take that away from her for 6 months?? There is no way that you can earn 18 600£ annually in my country unless you are the Prime Minister!


----------



## MacUK

I'm going through the 5 stages of grief here....so there goes the bargaining


----------



## 2farapart

This depends on your circumstances. Is your wife in the UK and therefore your sponsor, or are you both currently abroad and applying for a spouse visa to settle in the UK?

If your wife is already in the UK, then unfortunately there is no route around this. Between you, there must be an income of £18,600. Even if you both work and earn less than that separately, your past income will be considered together (at its lowest per-month point) over the last 6 months and, if it meets £18,600 when calculated over a year, then you will be okay. The only other option is for savings.

If you are both overseas and are arriving in the UK to settle together, the UKBA will additionally consider a confirmed job offer meeting the requirement in the UK (but you must be able to take up the offer within three months of arriving in the UK).


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

MacUK said:


> Well, as you can imagine i have read and read, and again i am confused by all of this. Mostly because there are so many ways you can interpret it.
> So I was thinking....isn't there some way, any way that we can apply without having to wait 6 months, mostly for the benefit of our daughter (British citizen) ? Like I mentioned it on a different thread, she needs her father, and a mother as well! Isn't there some rule that says that the family must be united, instead of counting payslips? We are talking about a child here, a baby! This child must and already has a healthy family, so why do they have to take that away from her for 6 months?? There is no way that you can earn 18 600£ annually in my country unless you are the Prime Minister!


Hang in there, you and your husband and your daughter are a family, and there is a way through this.

Starting with-from everything I've read of the new rules, the requirement is going to be £18600 gross. Housing costs not considered UNLESS you would be living with friends or relatives-which you and your husband will not be.

Deep breaths, you're going to get through this


----------



## MacUK

Oh thanks for the reply 2farapart. My husband is currently in the UK, with a permanent job (already has it), and with accommodation. We lived together in FYR Macedonia for 1 year and 4 months, and we have a baby. I am still in Macedonia, with our baby, who got the British passport through her father a few months back. 
We had no idea (mistake on our part) that the law was changing, i was lucky that AAIS pointed that out to me. We tried to get our application in before the 9th july, but the problem was that my university degree was not recognised by the UKBA, so i have to pass the ELT, which in my country is scheduled for the 14th September. So that was that on beating the deadline.
Considering his gross annual salary, we qualify, and we meet the requirement of 18 600£ minimum annual salary. But still, in baby time, that is a lot of time....mostly i am concerned about my child, as you can see. 
Sadly, he has no other choice than to work in the UK, since he is a British citizen, and here, like i said only the Prime Minister makes 18 600 £ or more annually.


----------



## MacUK

AnAmericanInScotland said:


> Hang in there, you and your husband and your daughter are a family, and there is a way through this.
> 
> Starting with-from everything I've read of the new rules, the requirement is going to be £18600 gross. Housing costs not considered UNLESS you would be living with friends or relatives-which you and your husband will not be.
> 
> Deep breaths, you're going to get through this


Thank you so much!!! I am so grateful i found all of you, to guide me and the other members through the most difficult time!!! Bravo to you AAIS!!!:clap2::clap2:


----------



## mehemlynn

2farapart said:


> This depends on your circumstances. Is your wife in the UK and therefore your sponsor, or are you both currently abroad and applying for a spouse visa to settle in the UK?
> 
> If your wife is already in the UK, then unfortunately there is no route around this. Between you, there must be an income of £18,600. Even if you both work and earn less than that separately, your past income will be considered together (at its lowest per-month point) over the last 6 months and, if it meets £18,600 when calculated over a year, then you will be okay. The only other option is for savings.
> 
> If you are both overseas and are arriving in the UK to settle together, the UKBA will additionally consider a confirmed job offer meeting the requirement in the UK (but you must be able to take up the offer within three months of arriving in the UK).


2farapart, the rules are worse than that if you are traveling together. The sponsor must have been earning the min in the abroad country (in the US, my husband would have to have been earning $30000), and have the confirmed job offer. That little and is really very difficult.

The example in the rules is the University student in Australia who gets married, but doesn't make the requirement because he hasn't been working during his time outside the UK. 

M


----------



## 2farapart

mehemlynn said:


> 2farapart, the rules are worse than that if you are traveling together. The sponsor must have been earning the min in the abroad country (in the US, my husband would have to have been earning $30000), and have the confirmed job offer. That little and is really very difficult.
> 
> The example in the rules is the University student in Australia who gets married, but doesn't make the requirement because he hasn't been working during his time outside the UK.
> 
> M


Yes, I know. The difference is merely that there IS an allowance for a confirmed job offer if both spouses are arriving in the UK together - an option seemingly not available if one of the spouses is already in the UK.


----------



## mehemlynn

2farapart said:


> Yes, I know. The difference is merely that there IS an allowance for a confirmed job offer if both spouses are arriving in the UK together - an option seemingly not available if one of the spouses is already in the UK.


But that allowance is written up with having had a job for more than a year in the other country. In many cases having a job were you make more than the minimum in a forgein country, is much less likely than it is with the douse in the UK.

As the previous poster said, you'd have to be the prime minister to make that much. If the couple lives in Europe (then wouldn't need a spouse visa) or US (which is very nativist right now) it might be possible; otherwise a confirmed job offer is only enough to split the family apart for at least 6 month (assuming they can get their visa quickly).

Our case is a good example, even if my husband had a job offer, he has been a stay stay at home dad for two years, we would not qualify under the new rules unless our family was split up for a minimum of 6 months.

M


----------



## MacUK

My husband did work here for 9 months, but the amount of the annual salary is light years away from what he could make in the UK. What would put you on welfare in the UK, would make you a rich man here, ironically 

So without knowing about the intended changes in the law, my husband, thinking that our family could have a better life in the UK, found a job, got a place to stay and went there. We thought that we would have to spend a month or 2 apart, but now it is clear that it will be 6 months or more. 

It is not in our best interest for him to return to Macedonia, but neither is being split up for that long.


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

MacUK said:


> My husband did work here for 9 months, but the amount of the annual salary is light years away from what he could make in the UK. What would put you on welfare in the UK, would make you a rich man here, ironically
> 
> So without knowing about the intended changes in the law, my husband, thinking that our family could have a better life in the UK, found a job, got a place to stay and went there. We thought that we would have to spend a month or 2 apart, but now it is clear that it will be 6 months or more.
> 
> It is not in our best interest for him to return to Macedonia, but neither is being split up for that long.


Can you use Skype for communicating-it might help if the baby at least hears and sees her dad on the monitor. 

When my children were small their dad worked for the US government and was away sometimes for several weeks at a time. We didn't have Skype back in the 70s and 80s, but we did have telephone, and he would ring up to talk with the children-I would put him on speaker phone and we'd spend an expensive half hour as a family via telephone.

Both are adults now (daughter 34, son 30) and both actually remember the phone calls with their dad. My son says it did make things feel more 'family-like' because we'd have a meal or watch a television programme; with Dad on speaker phone it was almost as though he was there with us.

Also, is travel between the two countries expensive and difficult? Maybe he could 'red-eye' to Macedonia on a Friday after work, returning on Sunday night to the UK to be ready for work the next morning (or whatever his schedule is that gives him two consecutive days off from work).

It's not perfect but it is something.


----------



## MacUK

We do use Skype, each day for 2 hours. Most of the time when he is at home, we use it to talk, and the baby always looks at him in the monitor, and hears his voice.

There is a direct flight from London to Macedonia, it is 3 hours, and not that expensive, if you book the flight in time it might even cost 150 £ (round trip). But, there are flights 3 times per week, Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, so he would have to take days off work, which he is not allowed to do so at this time. 
He was here 12 days ago, so the next time we will see him will probably be in 2 months. 
It is very convenient with the flights and everything, so that makes it a lot easier to bear, i guess.


----------



## rwestie37

I keep seeing a wait time of 6 months before spouse visa is issued? I know it can take up to that long but I keep reading on this thread about people having to wait that amount of time. Is there any specific reasoning that causes this?


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

MacUK said:


> We do use Skype, each day for 2 hours. Most of the time when he is at home, we use it to talk, and the baby always looks at him in the monitor, and hears his voice.
> 
> There is a direct flight from London to Macedonia, it is 3 hours, and not that expensive, if you book the flight in time it might even cost 150 £ (round trip). But, there are flights 3 times per week, Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, so he would have to take days off work, which he is not allowed to do so at this time.
> He was here 12 days ago, so the next time we will see him will probably be in 2 months.
> It is very convenient with the flights and everything, so that makes it a lot easier to bear, i guess.


Being apart is never easy but it sounds as though you two are working very hard to keep it together as a family. Hang in there, and this time apart will pass.

Do you have anyone there who can watch the baby so that you can get out for an hour or two on your own, to recharge your batteries with a walk or visit to the shops?


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

rwestie37 said:


> I keep seeing a wait time of 6 months before spouse visa is issued? I know it can take up to that long but I keep reading on this thread about people having to wait that amount of time. Is there any specific reasoning that causes this?


It depends on the type of visa, and the requirements that need to be met before the application can be made.


----------



## MacUK

AAIS, we do work hard to keep it together, but mostly because we miss each other, we have never been apart more than 2 days before, and that was when i was having our baby lol! 
As for recharging the batteries I take the baby everywhere with me, to the shops, to the market, we walk each day for 1 or 2 hours, i really enjoy this, because she is a very calm baby, as odd as it may seem  My family is here, and they help me every way they can, but i prefer that i am the only person who does the upbringing for now, mostly because babies grow up s fast, and before you know it, you have to work again, and suddenly, pouf! and the baby is all grown up 
Thank you so much for the kind words, you are a great comfort in these tough days! 

As for the waiting period, we must wait for 6 months because that is how the UKBA evaluates our finances, the gross annual salary is calculated at its lowest level if the sponsor has been with the same employer for 6 months prior to the point of application, and if the sponsor changes his employer, then they check the finances 12 months prior to the POA. So if the sponsor changes employment, then it restarts the 6 month period. The requirement is met if the sponsor receives 18 600£ gross annual salary, at its lowest level. The amount rises to 22 400£ for 1 child, and so forth....and if the child is a British citizen then it is not counted in the requirement. I am talking about one of the financial requirements for a spouse settlement visa.


----------



## MacUK

I'm so sorry, i just have a quick question.....
According to the new laws, will i have to pass a Life in the UK test, along with the English Language test? 
Thanks


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

MacUK said:


> I'm so sorry, i just have a quick question.....
> According to the new laws, will i have to pass a Life in the UK test, along with the English Language test?
> Thanks


Yes. The Life in the UK (LiUK) test, and the ELT have to be passed-however, the LiUK test can be taken after you arrive, before you apply for the next stage visa. 

So, the ELT has to be taken before arrival to the UK, the LiUK test after arrival. As far as I can tell from studying the new rules, you'll have the entire first probationary period of 30 months (maybe 33 months, we're not sure on that yet) to meet that LiUK requirement, plenty of time to study.

There is a book available now, _Life In The United Kingdom, A Journey to Citizenship_. 2011 edition, billed as 'the ONLY official handbook for the Life in the UK test' on the front cover; the handbook bears the Home Office seal and The Stationary Office (TSO) stamp marking it as the approved, official study handbook. You can order it through the TSO website, or for a much nicer price on Amazon.

However. There have been news articles that the Home Office is going to change the test to test applicants more on British monarchy, government, art, literature, music, history, traditions, and heritage-the book and test will have changed, then, by the time you arrive if your visa is granted. So you might want to wait to buy the handbook until the newest edition is released, rumoured to be in autumn 2012.


----------



## MacUK

Ok, i will do that, thanks again AAIS!!!  
But as for the ELT, what grade do i have to get to pass according to the new rules? Is it still A2, or does that change too?


----------



## 2farapart

MacUK said:


> Ok, i will do that, thanks again AAIS!!!
> But as for the ELT, what grade do i have to get to pass according to the new rules? Is it still A2, or does that change too?


Under the new rules, it's grade B1 and, from October 2013, this will apply to EVERYONE (regardless of whether being considered under new or old visa rules) applying for ILR.


----------



## MacUK

Thank you so much!!!


----------



## MacUK

Oh God, be kind and please get my visa approved!!! I am starting already with the prayers!

:focus:

So it's the 9th already!I guess everything is changed regarding forms, supporting docs and guidance notes on the UKBA website. I will save that for tomorrow, for some 'light' reading lol!

So i forgot about something, which could be a big problem in the future! 

I was refused a tourist visa in Feb 2011, due to insufficient evidence, e mails etc...because i wanted to visit a friend in the UK (not my husband). 
I submitted my student book, since i was still enrolled in Postgraduate studies, but i had passed all my exams, and i was writing my thesis, which took a really long time btw (i am still writing it, baby and all). I had an official letter from my University, confirming my enrolment, my student book to prove that i had passed (with excellent grades) my exams.....an the refusal letter stated...
"Due to your disputed student book, and since you have made no progress in your studies since 2009, we are refusing your request for a tourist visa" along with the absence of e mails, phone records and so on, and no bank statement since i was not working then, ( i am a freelancer even now) and i didn't have any income, i did have ready cash however, and a letter stating that it is a gift from my parents and that i could use it anyway i wanted to, they refused my visa because of my naivete... I was just beginning to get freelance assignments then, and the tax year had not ended so i didn't have a tax statement. 

I wanted to complain, but the note said i didn't have full right of appeal.
I just wanted to make it clear, that it is a POSTGRADUATE course which lasts for 1 YEAR, and I clearly provided an official document from my University signed by the Dean...but no...they said i haven't made progress and completed only 1 year of my studies....The POSTGRADUATE studies that last for 1 year only!!!!

So i said ok, let it go, forget it.....and now it comes back to haunt me....

Is there any danger that my spouse visa will get refused because of this??? Please help!!!


----------



## 2farapart

I'm not sure any of us can say one way or the other because we're not ECOs or qualified advisers, but your visa refusal was for the least of all 'crimes' (and a commonplace reason for refusal: the suspicion that a tourist might not be planning to return home). That in itself doesn't seem huge to me.

What does seem more of a problem is that you (presumably - my guess) chose to answer 'no' to the question "have you ever been refused entry into the UK within the last 10 years?", because your refusal was only in 2011 and not something surely so easily forgotten - and so it might look like you were trying to be untruthful. If you ticked yes but didn't give all the details, that's different.

There's nothing you can do about it now (the UKBA won't accept additional documents after you've submitted everything). The refusal itself wasn't for a huge reason and they might overlook it as a result. I can't say "don't worry" because me and my partner worried like crazy through the wait, but just sit tight. It might all be fine.


----------



## MacUK

Thanks 2farapart for the comfort you just gave me!  Oh i am actually going to sleep tonight!  

I did not apply at all for a spouse visa, as i did not meet the ELT requirement, because the exam here is on the 14 September. So we decided to wait the 6 month period required for the financial part, under the new law. 

When i intended to submit my application prior today's changes, i actually did give details and i was truthful about my refusal for a tourist visa, but i forgot to mention it here...(i am really lost in translation ha ha ).


----------



## 2farapart

MacUK said:


> Thanks 2farapart for the comfort you just gave me!  Oh i am actually going to sleep tonight!
> 
> I did not apply at all for a spouse visa, as i did not meet the ELT requirement, because the exam here is on the 14 September. So we decided to wait the 6 month period required for the financial part, under the new law.
> 
> When i intended to submit my application prior today's changes, i actually did give details and i was truthful about my refusal for a tourist visa, but i forgot to mention it here...(i am really lost in translation ha ha ).


   You had me worried! Was just discussing with my partner!

As said, we can't say any application will or won't be successful because there are a million different factors differing each application and circumstance, but there have been several posters here talking about past entry refusals because the ECO thought they might have come here to stay. Anyway, you were truthful in your form and THAT is the most important part.

Very best of luck!


----------



## MacUK

Oh Hi to both of you then  
Well, when i actually submit my application, after 6 months, i will be in need of A LOT of good luck lol! 
p.s. I just saw the apartment my husband got today in London,he walked me through it while we were on Skype and i fell in love with it. So i guess i am panicking right now, i almost cried when he moved in there without me and our baby. 
Still, gonna be brave, and get as much info as i can, really stay up to date withthe changes, and then it is up to God, and the ECO!!! 

Cheers!!!


----------



## MacUK

Hi everyone!
I was just wondering, did you notice that the UKBA website has not changed the application forms, guidance notes and supporting documents list yet??


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

MacUK said:


> Hi everyone!
> I was just wondering, did you notice that the UKBA website has not changed the application forms, guidance notes and supporting documents list yet??


They're in the process of uploading everything now, and it looks like another set of mazes to navigate for those of us under the pre-9 July rules. Lots of new bookmarks and pdf's to sort out, I am on a feeding frenzy right now:lol:

For those who were concerned that we (who are of majority English speaking language countries) would have to take the ELT per the confusing wording in the info coming off the UKBA--for example that EVERYONE would have to take the ELT--take heart, we were right, nationals of majority English speaking countries WILL NOT be taking the test D: :



> National of a majority English-speaking country
> 
> All applicants must submit their current original passport or travel document with their application.
> 
> If you are a national of a majority English-speaking country, your passport or travel document is evidence of your nationality. You will not need to provide any other documents to meet the English language requirement.


UK Border Agency | Evidence of your English language ability

*And conveniently, the above link not only takes you to the quoted page, but if you have a look at the sidebar navigation menu, you will find links to ALL the new 'before 8 July 2012' (that's how they are writing pre-9 July) info* Give them a chance, a few of the pages are still being uploaded. Loading of those pages either doesn't happen and you get an error message, or the page load takes a while. Patience, friends, patience, the up/down/load eventually happens


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

MacUK said:


> Hi everyone!
> I was just wondering, did you notice that the UKBA website has not changed the application forms, guidance notes and supporting documents list yet??


And here is the link for the new, post-9 July forms, appendices, and Guidance Notes:

UK Border Agency | Applying from outside the UK

Remember, you will need to download and fill out the appendices by hand to accompany your other hard copy submittal of application and supporting documents.


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

The UKBA has updated the website to include a special section for pre-July 9th Fiancé(e)s and also a special section for pre-July 9th Spouse/Partners.


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle

WestCoastCanadianGirl said:


> The UKBA has updated the website to include a special section for pre-July 9th Fiancé(e)s and also a special section for pre-July 9th Spouse/Partners.


This is very helpful, thank you.


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

*"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"*

Lucky Ralph Wiggum... he applied for and was granted a Fiancé Visa before the July 9th cut off and is now enjoying life in the UK with his new bride and his shiny new SET(M) visa.

It would also appear that in spite of his apparent lack of proper knowledge of the English language and because of_ the proof of his US Citizenship that he provided as proof of his exemption from the English language requirement when he applied for his visa_, our good friend Ralph is exempt from the English Language component of the KOL requirement when he applies for ILR in two years and ultimately naturalisation a year after that.
(See bullet number three in the subsection "Evidence of knowledge of English and of life in the UK")

Good luck on your LiUK exam, Ralph old boy... study up - you've got two years to pass it before your SET(M) expires!


----------



## akhilh

BailyBanksBiddle said:


> This is very helpful, thank you.




I am currently on a 2 year spouse visa which is due to expire in December 2012. I am also studying for my Life in the UK test, which is dated for later on this month. I have now read this article on extending the probationary period from 2 year to 5 year. All I want to know that is this going to affect me or is it going to affect new applicants?

No one can provide me with an answer so far. So if you can make that clear to me, that would be very helpful.

Kind regards


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl

akhilh said:


> I am currently on a 2 year spouse visa which is due to expire in December 2012. I am also studying for my Life in the UK test, which is dated for later on this month. I have now read this article on extending the probationary period from 2 year to 5 year. All I want to know that is this going to affect me or is it going to affect new applicants?
> 
> No one can provide me with an answer so far. So if you can make that clear to me, that would be very helpful.
> 
> Kind regards


Good Luck on your LiUK, and DO NOT lose the documentation you get showing that you achieved a pass on the test.... you're going to need it when you apply for ILR in November!


----------



## akhilh

WestCoastCanadianGirl said:


> Good Luck on your LiUK, and DO NOT lose the documentation you get showing that you achieved a pass on the test.... you're going to need it when you apply for ILR in November!



Thanks for your reply - West coast Canadian girl. I am just being a bit daft here.

So that means I can apply for my ILR in November no problem? Would I not have to extend my probationary period to 5 year under the new scheme? As their website is now changed from 2 yr to 5.
Do you also have a contact number for UKBA where they can actually confirm that to me as their website does not seem to be that helpful.

Thanks again


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

akhilh said:


> Thanks for your reply - West coast Canadian girl. I am just being a bit daft here.
> 
> So that means I can apply for my ILR in November no problem? Would I not have to extend my probationary period to 5 year under the new scheme? As their website is now changed from 2 yr to 5.
> Do you also have a contact number for UKBA where they can actually confirm that to me as their website does not seem to be that helpful.
> 
> Thanks again


Yes, you are under the transitional arrangements for applicants and holders pre-9 July. 

If you will check this page, you'll find the info. Look on the left side of the page for links to all of the information:

UK Border Agency | Partners who applied on or before 8 July 2012


----------



## nyclon

akhilh said:


> Thanks for your reply - West coast Canadian girl. I am just being a bit daft here.
> 
> So that means I can apply for my ILR in November no problem? Would I not have to extend my probationary period to 5 year under the new scheme? As their website is now changed from 2 yr to 5.
> Do you also have a contact number for UKBA where they can actually confirm that to me as their website does not seem to be that helpful.
> 
> Thanks again


Really, the website isn't helpful?? 

UK Border Agency | Changes to the family migration Immigration Rules come into effect on 9 July 2012

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/news/soi-fam-mig.pdf

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/visas-immigration/partners-families/citizens-settled/spouse-cp/


----------



## BailyBanksBiddle

nyclon said:


> Really, the website isn't helpful??
> 
> UK Border Agency | Changes to the family migration Immigration Rules come into effect on 9 July 2012
> 
> http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/news/soi-fam-mig.pdf
> 
> UK Border Agency | Partner of a British citizen or settled person


Hopefully there's no ironical barb here and you're being quite helpful as usual, hyperlinks and all. Much of this info wasn't up and working on the UKBA site until very recently and so may have been inaccessible.:clap2:


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland

BailyBanksBiddle said:


> Hopefully there's no ironical barb here and you're being quite helpful as usual, hyperlinks and all. Much of this info wasn't up and working on the UKBA site until very recently and so may have been inaccessible.:clap2:


LOL, scroll back a page, I posted links at 10:14 By noonish they'd refined the uploads enough to make it possible for WWCG to post links again. 

I can understand why Akhilh couldn't find anything though, and needed a bit of help this afternoon, as UKBA isn't especially known for its user friendly site on a good day, and this surely isn't a good day for the UKBA with all the uploads-their IT team must be working extremely hard to get all the pages with cross-references, etc, up.


----------



## kamii

Quick question:
Does all this only apply to UK visas or EEA permits as well?

Thank you


----------



## mehemlynn

kamii said:


> Quick question:
> Does all this only apply to UK visas or EEA permits as well?
> 
> Thank you


The change are for UK visas, EEA permits are not affected. Although there was a clarification that people who are dual nationals (with one being UK) that they should use the British nationality, not the other.


----------



## kamii

mehemlynn said:


> The change are for UK visas, EEA permits are not affected. Although there was a clarification that people who are dual nationals (with one being UK) that they should use the British nationality, not the other.


Phew! Thank you for the clarification!


----------



## StephanieJasminePreston

I am engaged to a Brittish man, and really need to be informed more on these issues. thank you for posting this



lewismistreated said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I know there's been quite a bit of speculation and discussion around this lately, but it looks like there's finally going to be an announcement from the government next week.
> 
> Copied and pasted the article because the board won't let me post a URL as a new member (spam prevention, I guess). It's from The Guardian though, published by Alan Travis earlier today.
> 
> 
> 
> I married my wife - an American - in January of this year, so like many I'm eager to see exactly what will be changed, and when those changes will come into affect. Roll on next week I guess!


----------



## mehemlynn

This thread has a lot of information, especially if you start reading after the announcement was made (around page 24, I think). Make sure to check out all of the links for the new rules.


----------



## 2farapart

StephanieJasminePreston said:


> I am engaged to a Brittish man, and really need to be informed more on these issues. thank you for posting this


In summary, the main changes are:

1. There must be a minimum £18,600 gross income per year (more if non-UK children are involved)

2. No external sponsors permitted any longer.

3. The 2-year probationary spouse/FLR visas leading to ILR have been replaced by two probationary visas of 30 months duration each, with application for ILR only after 5 years qualifying term of being resident in the UK.

4. No overseas living-together will be taken into consideration in reducing that qualifying term (the old 'KOL REQ' endorsement for immediate ILR is now abolished).

5. English Language test results must be level B1 or higher.

This IS just a summary of the basics. There are lots of clauses (for example: if granted Disability Living Allowance or being a HM Forces dependent) that will affect how or if the rules apply and as said, it would be a good idea to read through the changes - though I'd recommend reading from the official source guidance here: UK Border Agency | Can you apply? as this thread is rather long and there's a chance you could read something that was speculated rather than a substantiated fact. 

There is still guidance to be published (for example: specifics about the amount of savings required if you don't meet the minimum income threshold). Even though the figures don't seem to be published yet, we know what they're going to be based on the original Statement Of Intent so we can give you an idea of those if you need them.


----------



## MacUK

mehemlynn said:


> The change are for UK visas, EEA permits are not affected. Although there was a clarification that people who are dual nationals (with one being UK) that they should use the British nationality, not the other.


My daughter has dual citizenship, one of those is British. What does this mean? If they are dual nationals...what will happen?


----------



## 2farapart

A dual national, one of which is British, means your daughter is already classed as British and, with a British passport, is free to enter the UK and stay (or leave) at will.


----------



## MacUK

Refusal exemptions
To apply for entry to the UK, or to stay here or be granted settlement you will need to meet the suitability, relationship, financial and English language requirements. If you do not meet the requirements your application will be refused unless:

You are the parent of a child who:
is under the age of 18, and
is in the UK, and
is a British citizen or has lived in the UK for the last 7 years, and
it would not be reasonable for us to expect the child to leave the UK.
or

there are insurmountable obstacles to family life with your partner continuing outside the UK. 
Insurmountable obstacles means that we would look at the seriousness of any difficulties that would prevent you and your partner from living in another country, and whether those difficulties could be overcome. 

Can anybody please tell me, perhaprs AAIS, 2farapart or nyclon, what exactly does this mean? I am to afraid because i might get excited and then disappointed!!! Please!!!!


----------



## 2farapart

MacUK said:


> Refusal exemptions
> To apply for entry to the UK, or to stay here or be granted settlement you will need to meet the suitability, relationship, financial and English language requirements. If you do not meet the requirements your application will be refused unless:
> 
> You are the parent of a child who:
> is under the age of 18, and
> is in the UK, and
> is a British citizen or has lived in the UK for the last 7 years, and
> it would not be reasonable for us to expect the child to leave the UK.
> or
> 
> there are insurmountable obstacles to family life with your partner continuing outside the UK.
> Insurmountable obstacles means that we would look at the seriousness of any difficulties that would prevent you and your partner from living in another country, and whether those difficulties could be overcome.
> 
> Can anybody please tell me, perhaprs AAIS, 2farapart or nyclon, what exactly does this mean? I am to afraid because i might get excited and then disappointed!!! Please!!!!


You're doing the 11th-hour-panic that we all did! 

As part of your application, you had to prove that your relationship is genuine, that you both have somewhere to live and adequate funds to support you both, and that you meet the current requirement for the English Language test. 

What this paragraph talks about is where people _cannot prove these things_, or their proof is not credible to the UKBA. Right now, you will no doubt be imagining how all your proof is crumbling into little pieces, but you've done what you can. The waiting is the worst part so I'd advise not reading any more. All you'll do is single out sentences out of context wuth other rules, decide it applies to you and panic even more.


----------



## MacUK

2farapart said:


> You're doing the 11th-hour-panic that we all did!
> 
> As part of your application, you had to prove that your relationship is genuine, that you both have somewhere to live and adequate funds to support you both, and that you meet the current requirement for the English Language test.
> 
> What this paragraph talks about is where people _cannot prove these things_, or their proof is not credible to the UKBA. Right now, you will no doubt be imagining how all your proof is crumbling into little pieces, but you've done what you can. The waiting is the worst part so I'd advise not reading any more. All you'll do is single out sentences out of context wuth other rules, decide it applies to you and panic even more.


2farapart thanks!!! 
But i have not yet applied at all....i will have to wait 6 months as my husband only returned to the UK a month ago.* I will be applying in december or january 2013*, i am just getting informed right now. I almost applied before 9th july, but i was missing my ELT,* so i did not apply at all*. When i do actually apply, i will be needing as much help as i can get form you amazing people!!!


----------



## mehemlynn

MacUK said:


> My daughter has dual citizenship, one of those is British. What does this mean? If they are dual nationals...what will happen?


Hi MacUK,

There was a clarification that if you were a dual national (say British/ Italian) you couldn't use an EEA family permit to bring a non EU spouse into the UK. This one doesn't affect you.

If your daughter doesn't already have her UK passport, you should go ahead and apply for it. She will need it to enter the UK when you all finally move.

My daughter's has take about seven weeks already.

M


----------



## MacUK

mehemlynn said:


> Hi MacUK,
> 
> There was a clarification that if you were a dual national (say British/ Italian) you couldn't use an EEA family permit to bring a non EU spouse into the UK. This one doesn't affect you.
> 
> If your daughter doesn't already have her UK passport, you should go ahead and apply for it. She will need it to enter the UK when you all finally move.
> 
> My daughter's has take about seven weeks already.
> 
> M


I really hope you get it very very soon M!!! Keeping my fingers crossed!!! :clap2:
We already got our daughter's passport, 2 months ago. But we also waited, about 3 or 4 weeks, and my husband's passport arrived 2 weeks after receiving the first one.


----------



## mwickens

*Clarification on Savings Required*

Thanks to those working hard to answer questions and find information on this thread. It is very kind. 

I am writing on behalf of friends to seek clarification on a few matters. It seems every time they set a date for their wedding the government move the goal posts and they no longer qualify. 

Any help with these questions would be greatly appreciated. I've gone through many of the pages and posts here and am still a little confused. 

1. The Savings - Are the savings required only if the annual minimum income is not met? Or are the savings of, what they estimate to be £25,000, required as well the £18,600 annual income? My understanding is that the savings are only needed if the annual income is below the required amount but they are reading it differently. 

2. The Annual Income - can that be an hourly rate, does it have to be salaried or does it not matter?

3. Accommodation - Can they live with family providing there is sufficient room in the parent's home? 

Sorry if I am asking questions already answered, I guess I'm suffering with information overload.

EDIT: One friend is a British citizen, the other is from the USA.


----------



## 2farapart

mwickens said:


> 1. The Savings - Are the savings required only if the annual minimum income is not met? Or are the savings of, what they estimate to be £25,000, required as well the £18,600 annual income? My understanding is that the savings are only needed if the annual income is below the required amount but they are reading it differently.


If the sponsor of the applicant (ie the UK partner) earns at least £18,600 per year, savings are not required or calculated in the equation.



mwickens said:


> 2. The Annual Income - can that be an hourly rate, does it have to be salaried or does it not matter?


It shouldn't matter provided the paperwork (bank statements, P60, pay stubs) proves that the earnings per month (if applying under Category A) always exceed £1,500 gross or (if applying under Category B) over a full 12 months a sum total of £18,600 or was earned. Both categories require that this must be proved by the UK partner unless the US partner is currently over here on another visa (e.g. student) which permits working.



mwickens said:


> 3. Accommodation - Can they live with family providing there is sufficient room in the parent's home?


Yes, but a housing inspection report is recommended as part of the evidence. This report will satisfy UKBA that there enough rooms in the house and that it is in habitable condition. This can be arranged with the housing department of your local council for a small fee.


----------



## mwickens

Thanks for that reply, it was great. I have passed the information on to my friends and they are encouraged I think. I think they may be heading here to do further research. 

Thanks again.


----------



## nyari

Do u think these rules will be enforced with immediate effect ?


----------



## nyclon

This thread is a year old. These changes have been in place since July 2012.


----------



## bookman0105

*no*



nyclon said:


> This thread is a year old. These changes have been in place since July 2012.


.. yes .. the original rules have been changed about 4 times since July 2012... 

every time they re print the rules there are changes .. 

I have been watching extremely carefully as i am affected by some small (but significant to me ) changes .. 

the latest change means you cant just earn £18600 a year to fit in the rules .. 2 months ago the rules read differently ..


----------

