# Court of Appeal Judgment on Minimum Income Requirement



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Home Office wins appeal. Income rule not unlawful and still in force. MM asking for legal aid for appeal to the Supreme Court.


----------



## Hertsfem (Jun 19, 2013)

Not surprising, however there will be many disappointed people


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

The immediate result of this judgment is likely to be that those who have been put on hold - said to number over 3,500 - will now have their case rejected. Things may be back to before if the appeal is allowed but we won't know for a few weeks.


----------



## helpmeplz (Sep 23, 2013)

What a shame. Another hit to those families who have already been hit. Do they not understand that not everyone can get a job which pays that much? Not everywhere in the UK offers the same amount of money for a job. A real shame.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

One of the judges said that while immigration rules are inherently discriminatory, they can sometimes be justified.


----------



## Ob111 (May 23, 2014)

Sad, but it is what it is....


----------



## KCambs (Mar 11, 2014)

helpmeplz said:


> What a shame. Another hit to those families who have already been hit. Do they not understand that not everyone can get a job which pays that much? Not everywhere in the UK offers the same amount of money for a job. A real shame.


We have to have some threshold though, we cannot open our borders to the entire world without any regard to applicants' financial situations. That would soon destroy the UK.

It is unfortunate that the law is hypocritical in regards to non-EU and EU citizens in that EU citizens do not have to meet any financial requirement. My wife is in the former category and it is quite annoying known that I could have married a woman from France or even Romania and they could have dived on a plane and moved here without restriction, irrespective of either of our situations. 

There can be a debate whether £18,600 is too high, but realistically that is £7733 net per person, which is a rather meagre sum to be living on in all but the cheapest places in the UK


----------



## MacUK (Jul 3, 2012)

Too bad, the applicants that were put on hold had to wait such a long time just to get refused.


----------



## cc9 (Oct 29, 2012)

I am soooo sad for all the families in the awful situation of being separated by this rule. I know how difficult it is as my own husbands visa was rejected  hopefully u all will have the strength to carry on and find a resolution x


----------



## MacUK (Jul 3, 2012)

cc9 they rejected him for a spouse visa? If that's the case I'm so sorry  I hope you're doing ok though...


----------



## cc9 (Oct 29, 2012)

Aah thanks macuk, yes we are both doing ok .it has been an extremely difficult and emotional time as we are now expecting our first baby... We have an appeal date for the end of November so fingers crossed we will be successful


----------



## MacUK (Jul 3, 2012)

Well, that's wonderful news! Congratulations to you both!  
I realise how frustrating it is, but I am certain that you will find a way and that the upcoming appeal will be successful! Stay positive and I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you!


----------



## grasshopper33 (Mar 17, 2014)

I find this terribly sad. I am reminded of the recommendations from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Migration’s Report of the Inquiry Into New Family Migration Rules which was published last year. At the very beginning it states: The UK Government properly recognises family life to be the bedrock of a strong and stable society.” Then it goes on to outline various recommendations for changing the rules to adapt to individual circumstances (for example: adjusting income thresholds taking region into account, taking the incoming partner's potential wages into account, taking family contributions into account, and adjusting the rules for those who are self-employed).

The ruling today flies in the face of those recommendations. Of course there should be something in place to ensure that immigrants will not be a burden on society, but the "one size fits all" threshold that is in place is not the answer, in my opinion. 

We feel lucky and blessed that we were able to meet the threshold this year, finally. My prayers are with those still separated from their loved ones.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

They have rejected regionalisation on the ground that it's difficult to implement, more difficult to understand and, most importantly, benefit levels don't take regions into account, so a claimant in London gets the same as someone in Bradford (said to be the cheapest place to live in UK), with the exception of housing benefit, based on the average rent in the district (but there is now a cap).


----------



## Hertsfem (Jun 19, 2013)

Court of Appeal rules on family migration and the minimum income threshold


Court of Appeal rules on MM and others v Secretary of State -- 43templerow chambers


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

If you want to read one immigration lawyer's take on today's judgment:
Outcome of MM minimum income case in Court of Appeal | Free Movement


----------



## Anxious_wife (Mar 11, 2013)

I'm so sorry to all of those who had their hopes pinned on a positive outcome.

I really hope you all find a solution and you are successful very soon.


----------



## maegantee (Jan 8, 2014)

My heart literally breaks for all of these families who have been affected.. It's scary to think that we could all be affected by this if our situation changed or was different. I'm 110% in agreement that there needs to be a threshold.. But I do think it's a bit high.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

*Decision made on those put on hold from 28th July*



> The judgment will mean that, from the 28 July, the 4,000 individuals whose applications are currently on hold, pending this judgment, will now receive a decision. These are cases which met all the requirements apart from the minimum income threshold and now stand to be refused.


Home Office Statement


----------



## andrie (Jun 19, 2014)

This is sad


----------



## SHUVO GIRL (May 2, 2014)

So upsetting news. My heart goes out to everyone affected. 

If Labour come into power, would this rule remain?


----------



## _shel (Mar 2, 2014)

Both Lib Dem and Labour support it mostly but Labour has said they would like things like job offers taken into account.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

I doubt any future government will make big changes to the minimum income requirement. Nobody wants to be seen as favouring immigration, esp for those on the borderline of self-sufficiency. Labour now wants to be seen as much tougher on immigration and has acknowledged its past mistakes. As for LibDems, they are such a spent force in British politics that they are unlikely to hold balance of power in any future coalition and will have no say in forming government policy.


----------



## binaryop8 (Aug 17, 2013)

What I cannot understand in all of this debate is… How can immigrants that have "no recourse to public funds" be a burden on the taxpayer??

So surely just the criterion of that statement should settle everything? Like the position for the visa that refuses a holder the ability to undertake any form of work.

No means test or mountain of forms to fill, no tunnel of hoops to jump through. Just one simple rule... With a time-limit of say 5 years, until ILR is granted?

I have moved to Germany with my Chinese wife, and she CAN work and we can integrate!


----------



## _shel (Mar 2, 2014)

Because they do actually have access to funds via their British spouse. Tax credits for one along with increased housing benefit, council tax support etc and in specific but limited circumstances can be awarded income support. 

The £18600 wage means the British spouse would not be entitled to those benefits.


----------



## OrganisedChaos (Mar 26, 2013)

binaryop8 said:


> What I cannot understand in all of this debate is… How can immigrants that have "no recourse to public funds" be a burden on the taxpayer??
> 
> So surely just the criterion of that statement should settle everything? Like the position for the visa that refuses a holder the ability to undertake any form of work.


Exactly! 

My understanding was that despite being a couple, the British citizen would only get benefits as a single claimant....

As for Tax Credits, I earn comfortably more than the magic number and I am still entitled to payments.


----------



## KCambs (Mar 11, 2014)

binaryop8 said:


> What I cannot understand in all of this debate is… How can immigrants that have "no recourse to public funds" be a burden on the taxpayer??
> 
> So surely just the criterion of that statement should settle everything? Like the position for the visa that refuses a holder the ability to undertake any form of work.
> 
> ...


Couples with no children and an income of less than roughly £25,700 tend to already be net burdens on the state, as on average through the course of their lives they will draw more than they contribute. 

We must remember even with no recourse to public funds, the immigrant spouse will still receive the benefit of: NHS, emergency services, military, transport infrastructure, schooling for their children. The spouse not subject to immigration controls can still claim for public funds including any children the couple have together on their claim, irrespective of the immigration status of the children.

We have a public sector debt that is 75% of our GDP, we still have a fiscal deficit of £107.7 billion, and an ever increasing population with a severe housing shortage. 

Admitting yet more people based on hypothetical future situations in our current situation is bordering insane. A reassurance of at least some sort of financial security is the least we can ask.


----------



## binaryop8 (Aug 17, 2013)

Plus the fact that now, when I return to the UK - after over 35 years working and paying taxes/social security/pension... I will be treated like a young person from anywhere else in the world and HAVE to prove I'm actually habitually domiciled in my own country before I can get a farthing's return on my 'investment' in the country of my birth.

With or without a foreign (non-EU) bride.

So what the government are trying to do is sweep their ineptitude under the immigration/get out of the EU carpet then - yes?


----------



## _shel (Mar 2, 2014)

Investment? You weren't paying into a private savings fund. What you paid in you recieved at the time of doing so via the NHS, education, council services and military.


----------



## binaryop8 (Aug 17, 2013)

_shel said:


> Investment? You weren't paying into a private savings fund. What you paid in you recieved at the time of doing so via the NHS, education, council services and military.


I had a private dentist, had already finished school/uni, paid 'rates'/council tax, rarely needed a doctor/hospital... And when my ex-wife did, they almost killed her with their lack of facilities and ineptitude...

The government allowed my pension company to almost collapse, and then granted me a pittance in return. I could not claim unemployment or council tax benefits when I needed them as I missed ONE months payments... Whereas my son, that had NEVER worked or paid into the system at all got twice as much as me a married man with a house.

I'm talking about an 'investment' of faith mainly. 

And don't get me into arguing about the misuse of our military.


----------



## binaryop8 (Aug 17, 2013)

_shel said:


> Investment? You weren't paying into a private savings fund. What you paid in you recieved at the time of doing so via the NHS, education, council services and military.


Also to be correct, the money I paid in - via taxes etc. was actually paid out to others. I wouldn't get MY pension or unemployment payments until much later... Same as the firemen and their pension gripes! Yes?


----------



## _shel (Mar 2, 2014)

binaryop8 said:


> Also to be correct, the money I paid in - via taxes etc. was actually paid out to others. I wouldn't get MY pension or unemployment payments until much later... Same as the firemen and their pension gripes! Yes?


 Correct for pensions, not so for everything else. If you lived in the UK you benefited or were entitled to benefit from Government services at that time. Tax doesnt just pay for benefits, the roads you drove on, the city you lived in, countryside and environmental management, policing and so on. 

Though get what you are saying about emotional investment. Though I do think its only fair that we are all subject to the same rules in proving habitual residence etc. There are many benefit & NHS tourists including brits who flit between countries on such frequent basis and only way the only way to stop it is to subject everyone to the same rules. Bit arrogant imo to say other Europeans cant be benefit tourists but its ok for brits to be so.


----------



## MacUK (Jul 3, 2012)

Childcare could be cheaper, that's the only thing I would comment. I can't start working because the childcare costs are preposterous.


----------



## _shel (Mar 2, 2014)

MacUK said:


> Childcare could be cheaper, that's the only thing I would comment. I can't start working because the childcare costs are preposterous.


 Totally agree. I'd planned on going back to work but haven't 4 years later because I'd be working to barely cover childcare costs only. 

This new initiative being bought in is hardly a vote winner either because it only covers £2000 per year when it costs most families 5x that for a pre school child or up to 10x if you have a child with a disability.


----------



## MacUK (Jul 3, 2012)

Exactly. I read an article a while back, that most families feel like they're taking one step forward and two steps back with current childcare costs. 
Blessed are those who can count on grandparents to take care of the children while they work.


----------



## Pannyann (May 31, 2014)

_shel said:


> Totally agree. I'd planned on going back to work but haven't 4 years later because I'd be working to barely cover childcare costs only.
> 
> This new initiative being bought in is hardly a vote winner either because it only covers £2000 per year when it costs most families 5x that for a pre school child or up to 10x if you have a child with a disability.


Child care costs are so high I work with some people who say it doesn't pay but they need to keep up the professional registration. It's not going win any votes at all.


----------



## D2K77 (May 12, 2014)

Yep we are affected by this silly decision and sorry for the oncoming rant 

My partner and I decided that it would be best to move back to the UK from Australia because she just couldn't get full time teaching work in Sydney. It was affecting her career plus her mum is very ill now and she naturally wants to be close to home. We knew about the £18,600 limit looked at my partners wages and thought great she has grossed £20,200 for the year we would be right.

Little did we know that they work out her wage by using 6 months of payslips and X it by 2 to work out her wage! This meant that she fell short by £700 because surprise surprise schools take 6 weeks off which meant no work for her!!! 

Unfortunately 3 weeks ago my partner has had to go back home to take care of her mother but in this time she has organized a place to live and has received a job (over £19,000) offer through her fathers company. We are hoping that this will fill the requirements of CAT B along with her 12 months of payslips which puts her over the £18,600. But I'm guessing its probably all too late and they will find another little clause to refuse us.

It really is stressful times and its unneeded for our case. We both are professional career people both can earn high salaries and actually my old UK employer whats me back, so I could apply for another work visa again I guess. Just didn't want to go down that route of being tied to one company again. 

Situation suxs I hate politicians


----------

