# Minimum Income threshold for spouse/partner visas – appeal listed for March 2014



## Sel (Mar 17, 2013)

Hopefully March 2014 will have a positive impact on all of our lives 

Fingers crossed!! :fingerscrossed::fingerscrossed::fingerscrossed:


----------



## Hertsfem (Jun 19, 2013)

I'm doubting that as the UKBA are getting the result they set out to achieve


----------



## bluesky2015 (Sep 3, 2013)

Sel said:


> Hopefully March 2014 will have a positive impact on all of our lives
> 
> Fingers crossed!! :fingerscrossed::fingerscrossed::fingerscrossed:


Sel, are you expecting anything positive ?


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl (Mar 17, 2012)

I would not hold my breath or bet the farm that the £18.6k will be reduced in March... if anything, I think that it will either stay the same or possibly go up in the near future, given that they (UKBA) now (as of 01 December 2013) require HM Forces personnel to meet the £18.6k minimum threshold _*and*_ are seeking the previously posted about changes to the Surinder Singh rule for EU/EEA route.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

This has been known for some months. Appeal is due to be heard from 3rd to 5th March, and judgment is to be delivered some time after (a few weeks usually). Depending on outcome, the government is expected to take it to the Supreme Court and then Europe, so the ultimate outcome may not be determined for years rather than months. They are expected to fight tooth and nail to maintain the income level as it stands.


----------



## Sel (Mar 17, 2013)

Yeah I know, it was worth a try ehh. 

It can only get worse. 

however thinking "positive" gets me through working 60+ hours a week........


----------



## bluesky2015 (Sep 3, 2013)

Sel said:


> Yeah I know, it was worth a try ehh.
> 
> It can only get worse.
> 
> however thinking "positive" gets me through working 60+ hours a week........


Same here but if they increased the requirement, it could result in breaking up alot of families..


----------



## Sel (Mar 17, 2013)

waiting.stars said:


> Same here but if they increased the requirement, it could result in breaking up alot of families..


I know it's truly heart breaking!!  What can we do waiting stars?


----------



## bluesky2015 (Sep 3, 2013)

Sel said:


> I know it's truly heart breaking!!  What can we do waiting stars?


I think its a violation of human rights and the UK court and the UK citizens whose families are aboard should take a stronger stand against this unjust law..


----------



## Sel (Mar 17, 2013)

waiting.stars said:


> I think its a violation of human rights and the UK court and the UK citizens whose families are aboard should take a stronger stand against this unjust law..


I like this very much!!! Well said

The problem is though there are other countries who have even higher financial requirements


----------



## AmyD (Jan 12, 2013)

It isn't unjust. Nobody has a right to live in the UK.


----------



## bluesky2015 (Sep 3, 2013)

Sel said:


> I like this very much!!! Well said
> 
> The problem is though there are other countries who have even higher financial requirements


I have very limited knowledge about other European countries but I know of Germany does not have one neither Sweden. US and Canada for sure does not have this kind of requirement ...I might be wrong, but to tell you the truth its very painful and is creating alot of anxiety amongst families..


----------



## AmyD (Jan 12, 2013)

Every country has the right to ensure that its borders are not flooded with people trying to take advantage of the legally-resident taxpayers. There is no malice in this.


----------



## bluesky2015 (Sep 3, 2013)

AmyD said:


> Every country has the right to ensure that its borders are not flooded with people trying to take advantage of the legally-resident taxpayers. There is no malice in this.


Whatever..


----------



## LRK (Oct 26, 2013)

Joppa said:


> This has been known for some months. Appeal is due to be heard from 3rd to 5th March, and judgment is to be delivered some time after (a few weeks usually). Depending on outcome, the government is expected to take it to the Supreme Court and then Europe, so the ultimate outcome may not be determined for years rather than months. They are expected to fight tooth and nail to maintain the income level as it stands.


Is there indication of what will happen to all of the applications currently on hold once the outcome is known if it is taken to the Supreme Court? I refer to the ones on hold for the financial requirement being the sole point of refusal, will they remain on hold or has this not been determined yet?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Until the government is forced to change the rule, applications are expected to remain on hold.


----------



## LRK (Oct 26, 2013)

AmyD said:


> It isn't unjust. Nobody has a right to live in the UK.


*British citizens have the right to live in the UK and the right to a family life*, in whatever combination of nationalities that may be in addition to British.

The current government believes that family is the key to a stable society and is in fact the foundation of a stable society (see their website/ listen to speeches and debates), yet have imposed a financial requirement that a large proportion of the country cannot afford and has been judged that whilst it is not unlawful, is "onerous". This is fact. 

Whilst the forum is for very kindly offered free advice and support, I do hope I am not over-stepping the mark with this post and am happy for it to be moderated off if it contravenes the rules with advance apology (I don't think it does but you never know, I'm not infallible!).

Each case is different of course, so referring to specifics may negate the point, however I will illustrate: 

There is a British citizen/ resident who has been interviewed by the BBC on occasion about the financial requirement (one of several in similar situations) who has NEVER claimed benefits, has ZERO credit and never has had credit - no loans, credit cards, overdrafts etc and owns his property and car outright. He works 5 days a week doing a job he enjoys and that fits with his values and he enjoys spending his money on holidays to see his wife in the USA. He is no burden to the state. 

He earns £16,500 per annum. He has little savings, as it is expensive to continue to go back and forth between countries. Except for the usual food, utilities, council tax etc, this man has significant disposable income compared to those who meet the requirement yet have overdrafts, loans, mortgages, credit cards, car loans....

This man and his wife have been refused a visa solely on financial requirement. Whilst the requirement has not been met and the visa was *correctly refused*, many people would argue that the requirements in this case were "onerous" in relation to individual situation. (No, this is not me I'm talking about if you're wondering!).

Visas are issued with *no recourse to public funds*. People on spouse visa, for example, can work if they wish and add to the economy; from reading posts on this forum, I see that many people applying for spouse visa do wish to work, although I acknowledge that some people don't want to and are economic migrants - this should not mean that it is assumed everyone wants to take advantage of the tax payer. The new financial rquirement is predicted to cost the government £850 million in the next ten years, not to save it money. This cost will be passed on to the tax payer.

The financial requirement is what it is and unfortunately for many, it is a huge "onerous" obstacle and they are resorting to Surinder Singh (which has also tightened up) to be able to exercise treaty *rights*. They could be nurses, carers, retail workers, part time workers... - in fact ANYONE who earns less than the threshold. These are people who are spending the money they DO have on flying out to see their partner to maintain their relationship because the financial requirements for visas are out of their reach, so saving up at least 16k isn't realistic for them.

This forum is an amazing resource and I am truly grateful to all who have responded to my questions, moderators or not and my fiance and I will continue to read and ask questions regarding our own application, as we do not wish to spend thousands on lawyer fees - that doesn't mean we don't have the right to support and to provide it to others for free though.

Rules are rules, yes and *applications are correctly refused according to those rules*, however that doesn't mean that all those who do not meet "onerous" requirements and are British/ UK resident necessarily do not deserve to have their family life in their home country purely based on income of £18,600 - it is indeed their right as a British Citizen/ UK resident (some people prefer "UK" to "British" and there are technicalities of things, I appreciate).

For all those hoping for a lowering of the threshold as a result of the hearing as the only barrier so that you can be with a loved one in your home country of residence/ nationality/ heritage, sincere good luck to you.


----------



## bluesky2015 (Sep 3, 2013)

LRK said:


> *British citizens have the right to live in the UK and the right to a family life*, in whatever combination of nationalities that may be in addition to British.
> 
> The current government believes that family is the key to a stable society and is in fact the foundation of a stable society (see their website/ listen to speeches and debates), yet have imposed a financial requirement that a large proportion of the country cannot afford and has been judged that whilst it is not unlawful, is "onerous". This is fact.
> 
> ...


God bless you for this beautiful and considerate post. When Ms. AmyD said that "Nobody have the right to live in the UK" , i was shocked and speechless..she poured salts into the wounds of so many people who are trying to be with their loved ones.. there is a famous quote " walk in my shoe to know how i feel".. I too, wish best of luck to everyone and to myself as well


----------



## ppretty (Jun 13, 2013)

You are right LRK - it a right. Nobody deserves to be separated from their families. Its a painful experience.


----------



## AmyD (Jan 12, 2013)

You may be shocked, and I am sorry for that, but it is an obvious fact: nobody who is not a UK citizen has the right to live in the UK. That is one fact upon which every country in the world agrees. I realize you believe the financial requirements are tough. That doesn't make them unfair or impossible.


----------



## Hertsfem (Jun 19, 2013)

Some of us DO have a right to live in the UK AmyD!

I just think that the UKBA are targeting the wrong people when trying to cut back on immigration. Perhaps their energy should be used on chucking out illegal immigrants and the like? Just a thought...


----------



## AmyD (Jan 12, 2013)

Exerting a "right" to live somewhere that you have no visa or passport is ludicrous. I don't have a right to live anywhere but the US and the UK; I can't move to France just because I feel like it. And those who complain about the rules are not living in reality. I know that the UKBA is the punching-bag of this forum, but I honestly don't see anything wrong with forcing people who want to live in your country to have enough money to support themselves. That is wise; it isn't "mean". 

Since I am an immigrant to the UK, I feel it is my duty to contribute as much as I can by following all the rules, making money, and just generally being a nice, normal citizen. Many people on this forum and elsewhere seem to think the UK owes them something. I just see it differently.

I know it is heartbreaking when you can't see your loved one. But I also know that if you follow the rules, you absolutely can come to the UK (or wherever) and enjoy life with your family and loved ones. There is no big mystery to it.


----------



## Hertsfem (Jun 19, 2013)

AmyD said:


> It isn't unjust. Nobody has a right to live in the UK.



I was replying to THIS post Amy...

I do understand what you are saying about the rules, however I do wonder if you would have the same sentiments if you were in a different position (eg spouse earning under £18 600)


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Only British citizen who has right of abode and EEA and Swiss citizen and their family member, guaranteed under the EU treaty (of which UK is a signatory - the Treaty of Rome and subsequent agreements), have the right to enter and live in UK. Everyone else, including family members of British citizens, need leave (permission under the immigration rules) granted by Home Office. This includes those who are now settled in UK, who have indefinite leave to remain so there is no longer time or other restrictions attached to their stay. This is the same as just about every country in Europe.

So granted that the government has the right to determine whom they issue leave to and under what conditions, it becomes the question of whether their rules are reasonable and equitable under the circumstances. They have to balance the need of the country, going through tough times of higher prices and low growth, overstretched public services and limited supply of affordable housing, and the right of British citizen to marry and to form permanent union with anyone they choose. Previous to last year's revision, the question of available finance to support the migrant was answered by adequate maintenance, which means whether they have the same amount of money available as what a British couple would get in benefits, chiefly income support. Clearly this proved to be a low threshold, and the number of family migrants rose steeply, who were then entitled to free education for their children and healthcare, putting enormous pressure on public services. So something had to be done. Instead of basing the monetary requirement on what locals would get in benefits, they decided to switch to income level, so that the migrant family, mainly their UK sponsor, will bring in slightly more than the cut-off point for income-dependent benefits, hence the new limit of £18,600. This was considered roughly the level above which the migrant family will be self-supporting, paying enough in taxes and not needing to be subsidised by British taxpayer. £18,600 is an artificial figure but the government decided on just one level applicable for all (except family size) to make the rule easier to understand and to implement. You can argue that the limit is unfair, esp for British women who choose not to work in order to devote their life and time on raising their family, and those who live in parts of UK with low wages and fewer jobs. Also British partner who has been living in Third World countries can't meet the requirement of having earned £18,600 (which is absolute fortune) so is forced to return to UK on their own and work for at least 6 month before being able to sponsor (if they are lucky to find a job). Government aim is sustainable migration, with the net effect of immigration being broadly neutral, so that new arrivals are seen to be contributing to UK economy as much as they are taking out. This is difficult to quantify, but they regard the current limit, perhaps adjusted upwards for inflation, is absolutely crucial to controlling non-EEA immigration. They also feel the public are broadly on their side, and while they can do little with EEA migration (unless they leave EU altogether), where they have control they must act firmly and decisively. I do realise that where individual lives are concerned, it raises human right issue and while UK has a proud record of helping genuine refugees and generous overseas aid, I think they want British citizens to consider that if they choose to marry or form permanent union with someone from outside EEA, they don't have unlimited right to bring them into the country and must meet the requirements laid down. We can always argue until the cows come home whether the requirements are reasonable and equitable.


----------



## bluesky2015 (Sep 3, 2013)

AmyD said:


> Exerting a "right" to live somewhere that you have no visa or passport is ludicrous. I don't have a right to live anywhere but the US and the UK; I can't move to France just because I feel like it. And those who complain about the rules are not living in reality. I know that the UKBA is the punching-bag of this forum, but I honestly don't see anything wrong with forcing people who want to live in your country to have enough money to support themselves. That is wise; it isn't "mean".
> 
> Since I am an immigrant to the UK, I feel it is my duty to contribute as much as I can by following all the rules, making money, and just generally being a nice, normal citizen. Many people on this forum and elsewhere seem to think the UK owes them something. I just see it differently.
> 
> I know it is heartbreaking when you can't see your loved one. But I also know that if you follow the rules, you absolutely can come to the UK (or wherever) and enjoy life with your family and loved ones. There is no big mystery to it.


Good for you..


----------



## Hertsfem (Jun 19, 2013)

Thanks Joppa, you can take a breath now


----------



## AnAmericanInScotland (Feb 8, 2012)

waiting.stars said:


> I am sure you are from Taxes...


Really? That seems gratuitous to be honest. Because you disagree with her opinion you make a comment seemingly insinuating she's bigoted? Well honey, I grew up in the Desert SouthWest, and spent a good bit of my adult life in the American Deep South and I can tell you when it comes to bigotry we Yanks don't come close to a lot of other countries! I'm deeply insulted by your racist comment frankly.

FTR, I'm an immigrant to the UK as well. I passed through flaming hoops to get my visas spending a not inconsiderable chunk of my savings to do so and that was under the old rules. My only complaint was the maze of information gathering on the UKBA website.

And to be very-very honest here, my ancestral ties are to Scotland and Wales - my ancestors right up to my grandparents are buried three hours up the road here - are yours? 

Were YOUR parents British-by-birth or descent? Did they give birth to you outside of the UK and then fail to register your birth? Because that's why I had to go through those flaming hoops to EARN the right to call Scotland home again even though I was married to a Scotsman who had no intention of ever leaving his native Scotland. 

There were rules and I followed them. 

Your UKC partner fell in love with you and wants the two of you to live in the UK - so now you need to meet the very reasonable financial requirements, how is that bigoted or unfair?

It should be different (in my opinion) if your partner were a British national (bred and born) who'd been living with you in Turkey and now wishes to return to the UK to live permanently but unfortunately UKC who have been living abroad have a financial burden to meet as well. This burden is onerous in my opinion and has trapped British nationals outside their home country. 

But that's not the case, is it?

There are rules. They aren't going to change anytime soon if ever. Follow them or have your partner relocate to Turkey. It's not that hard, and no, you haven't EARNED the right to live on our over-crowded, infrastructure stressed wee island simply by marrying in.

It is your human right to fall in love. It is NOT your human right to pursue that love in the UK. End of.


----------



## LRK (Oct 26, 2013)

AmyD said:


> Exerting a "right" to live somewhere that you have no visa or passport is ludicrous. ....
> 
> I know it is heartbreaking when you can't see your loved one. But I also know that if you follow the rules, you absolutely can come to the UK (or wherever) and enjoy life with your family and loved ones. There is no big mystery to it.


Everyone is on this forum because they want to obtain a visa in the right way, by following the rules - no one is asking how to enter and live in the UK against immigration laws. Just to note, I said British Citizens have a right to family life and to be with their loved ones according to the immigration laws and requirements, onerous as they may be to some and that those who do not meet the requirements are correctly refused - not that the right to enter the UK should be automatically granted to all who wish to enter.


----------



## WestCoastCanadianGirl (Mar 17, 2012)

waiting.stars said:


> I have very limited knowledge about other European countries but I know of Germany does not have one neither Sweden. US and Canada for sure does not have this kind of requirement ...I might be wrong, but to tell you the truth its very painful and is creating alot of anxiety amongst families..


If I wanted to sponsor my UK born Husband to come to Canada, I'd have to find a job in Canada that pays a minimum of CAD 21,202$ p.a. (and provide proof of this in the form of a tax return) Husband would have to undergo a medical evaluation (even coming from the UK this is required.... he is blind but likely _not_ precluded from entry) and it would take _at least_ 11 months for him to get his entry clearance to come and live with me in Vancouver (where my family and my last Canadian job are located).

My cousin is newly graduated from university and would love to sponsor her Czech national boyfriend (Common Law partnerships are recognised in Canada, regardless of the gender match ups - cousin and boyfriend been together to qualify as an unmarried/common law partnership) but since she doesn't have the income, he is currently in the Czech Republic until he can get a visa to go back or she can get to Europe.

Once Husband got to Canada, my provincial health insurance premiums would be CAD 125.50$/mo. Husband is a diabetic and on two different types of insulin, so that would cost us every month, as prescriptions are not free (dispensing fee alone is about CAD 10$/_per item_... add to that the cost of the medicine being prescribed) If the job that I found offered medical benefits, those rates may go down, depending on the plan, but as they're deemed to be a taxable benefit to the job, the federal and provincial governments will assess income tax on the value of the benefit package. 

So, you see, we really _don't_ have it that hard here in the UK, and the benefits of UK spousal residency are great compared to other places. Sure, the minimum income requirement is steep, but it's just as steep, if not steeper elsewhere, comparatively speaking. The social services safety net in Canada is over extended just like it is in the UK, and whilst Canadian banking laws protected the country from suffering as badly as the United States in the aftermath of the '08 market crash (God help Canada if it happens again!), times are tough in Canada and people have lost jobs (my brother reported to work one Monday morning, was called into a company wide meeting and was unemployed before lunchtime).


----------



## KHP (Oct 25, 2012)

I find it very strange as a British citizen to read posts by people who have themselves gained the right to live in the UK being so opinionated about others who want to be able to do the same for themselves or their loved ones. 

I think we should be more tolerant of people who are going through a really stressful time and separated from their loved ones. When I was helping my husband apply for his visa it was an immensely stressful time (and I _did_ earn over the minimum). So I can't imagine how painful it must be to be working full time and still not be able to reach the minimum for your spouse to apply for their visa. 

I am not against having minimum requirements for spouse visa applications (although I do think the current rules are too general and should take into account sponsor's disposable income).

In the spirit of the festive season I hope we can all be a bit more understanding of each other and less judgmental. 

KHP


----------



## bluesky2015 (Sep 3, 2013)

KHP said:


> I find it very strange as a British citizen to read posts by people who have themselves gained the right to live in the UK being so opinionated about others who want to be able to do the same for themselves or their loved ones.
> 
> I think we should be more tolerant of people who are going through a really stressful time and separated from their loved ones. When I was helping my husband apply for his visa it was an immensely stressful time (and I _did_ earn over the minimum). So I can't imagine how painful it must be to be working full time and still not be able to reach the minimum for your spouse to apply for their visa.
> 
> ...


Thank you for understanding our pain and the stress that we are going through instead of judging us.. I wish you have a wonderful holidays with your loves ones.


----------



## VKocher (Dec 12, 2013)

So where can I find out what the new requirements will be?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

You don't. Wait till the appeal judgment is delivered, and what Home Office will do about it.


----------



## LRK (Oct 26, 2013)

VKocher said:


> So where can I find out what the new requirements will be?


There might not be any new financial requirements. It is unlikely that they will be changing soon, if at all and as Joppa mentioned, this could be a much longer process than a simple outcome a few weeks after the hearing in March.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Think in terms of years rather than weeks and months.


----------



## hanane salim (Aug 14, 2013)

*income*

The current income requirement for British citizens to bring their non-EU spouses to the UK is £18,600. According to the BBC, 'the Migration Observatory estimates 51% of working people in Wales do not earn enough to meet the new requirements.' Across the UK, that figure is 47%. Britons earning minimum wage should have the right to a family. 

The High Courts suggested £13,000 — still above National Minimum Wage — which is being appealed by the Home Office as too low. Meanwhile, members of the EU with non-EU spouses and children are not subject to any income requirement. British citizens should not be punished for the porous borders the EU has created


----------



## Crawford (Jan 23, 2011)

hanane salim said:


> The current income requirement for British citizens to bring their non-EU spouses to the UK is £18,600. According to the BBC, 'the Migration Observatory estimates 51% of working people in Wales do not earn enough to meet the new requirements.' Across the UK, that figure is 47%. Britons earning minimum wage should have the right to a family.
> 
> The High Courts suggested £13,000 — still above National Minimum Wage — which is being appealed by the Home Office as too low. Meanwhile, members of the EU with non-EU spouses and children are not subject to any income requirement. British citizens should not be punished for the porous borders the EU has created


So are you suggesting that the British immigration rules should be relaxed because the EU rules have no minimum levels of financial requirements? How does that help in trying to control the entry of persons to the UK to those that can continue to support themselves while living in the country. 

The rights to having a family also entails being able to support said family without recourse to public funds. If one cannot meet the necessary level of earnings to support a family, I fail to see that you continue to have a 'right' to bring them to the UK.

If as you quote some 47% of people are earning less than 18,600 then 53% are earning more than this - some a lot more. I read that the average earnings are 23K across the country.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Those who aren't earning £18,600 are probably on benefit as well, so they are being helped from public purse. Fair enough they are British (or settled) and have in all likelihood contributed to the country in taxes and NI contributions over the years for generations. But is it right that they should also be entitled to bring non-EEA family members and should indirectly be subsidised by British taxpayers. OK they aren't entitled to non-contributory benefits but they can still access free health care and education for their children, and protection of the police and fire service, so they are putting pressure on overstretched public services. You can always argue the exact level of financial requirement. £13,000 was about the level of previous requirement of adequate maintenance, roughly equal to the level of income support a British couple would get. £18,600 represents the approximate level above which a UK couple would no longer be eligible for benefits, and £25,000 (the highest level proposed prior to the 2012 change) equals national average salary and is seen as the level above which you become a net contributor. So the government maintains the current level represents a reasonable amount a migrant couple should be able to show, coming about midway between relying on income support and being a net contributor.


----------



## Sel (Mar 17, 2013)

I don't know what's everyone complaining at. If one can not meet the requirement then they can combine savings, which may mean that you may have to work longer (may reduce spending money on luxuries) but being patient can get you where you want to be because if you want to be with the one you love I'm to sure you'd anything to make that wish come true..

if people spend less time complaining and more time working then I'm sure they could meet the requirement.


----------



## OrganisedChaos (Mar 26, 2013)

The foreign spouse is not entitled to any benefits anyway. They're presence makes no difference, the single benefit for the UK spouse would have to stretch, they would be only ones suffering....

Sel if you can only get minimum wage or part time hours taking home 18,600 isn't just about "working hard".


----------



## Thaicat (Dec 21, 2013)

AmyD said:


> You may be shocked, and I am sorry for that, but it is an obvious fact: nobody who is not a UK citizen has the right to live in the UK. That is one fact upon which every country in the world agrees. I realize you believe the financial requirements are tough. That doesn't make them unfair or impossible.



While you are right about citizen rights...I know as I am part Canadian and canada has this nutty approach too..while the usa do not seem to anymore according to citizenship law..It does not mean it is not unfair or not wrong..

What would be right, would be that since the EU is freely open ..anyone from the EU who is not from a particular country as a citizen..should be the one with restrictions..since the EU route is open to anyone and everyone as long as you are from the EU or married to someone who is..it seems to matter not that an EU citizen and his wife has more rights to services and movement without financial checks than a british citizen and his wife..atleast make it equal and make it reflect the average wage of the country.

Otherwise you are in the sole position of looking like you have your nose far up a tory members ar$£ .....The stipulations should be that your spouse is to work within 6 months of being here unless they are disabled and you can pay for them until they are a citizen. Allowing non brits in with their families willy nilly is unjust and if stopping that effects a right to family life to non citizens ? I hope this judgement is changed to reflect equality for Brits. They have stiffed the wrong people here.


----------



## mehemlynn (Nov 16, 2011)

I've seen a few people say the US does not have similar requirements; that just isn't the case to move to the US as a spouse, the American must prove income (a specific % of the national poverty level), when my husband moved to the US it was 117%, which is not much, unless you are making less.

Immigration law is challenging. We were thrilled when the new rules came in at such slow level, with options how to get there; some of the options floated really were horrific.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Remember the size of US, and its economic resources, which are substantially larger than the overcrowded, island-nation that is UK. So while US can manage with lower requirement given their ability to absorb more migrants, UK by necessity has to be more selective and discriminating.


----------



## Sel (Mar 17, 2013)

OrganisedChaos said:


> The foreign spouse is not entitled to any benefits anyway. They're presence makes no difference, the single benefit for the UK spouse would have to stretch, they would be only ones suffering....
> 
> Sel if you can only get minimum wage or part time hours taking home 18,600 isn't just about "working hard".


There's always a way. I work on minimum wage and still manage to work enough hours because I tried my best to achieve my goal. IF one needs hours then they do everything in their power to get them


----------



## Thaicat (Dec 21, 2013)

Yes the level for USA now is 125% ..the only differences there I guess is that a citizen is a citizen unlike Canada and UK. It is a real shame discrimination is against it's own people.


----------



## ALKB (Jan 20, 2012)

Thaicat said:


> Yes the level for USA now is 125% ..the only differences there I guess is that a citizen is a citizen unlike Canada and UK. It is a real shame discrimination is against it's own people.


This is not a British concept, it is simply the difference between domestic and EU immigration law.

If a German person wants to bring a non-EEA spouse to Germany, the spouse has to show German language skills before they enter and are required to attend a year (!) of German language and culture classes after they arrive in Germany. None of this is required for other EU citizens moving to Germany with their non-EEA spouses.

I got married in Denmark because it was the quickest, easiest and cheapest way to marry a non-EEA person (Germany wanted 1300 German marks just for checking documents) but if you are Danish wanting to settle with a non-EEA spouse in Denmark you better be prepared to face some extremely stringent rules!

It all goes both ways. There are about a million Brits settled in Spain enjoying their right of free movement within the EU, all under EU immigration rules.


----------



## OrganisedChaos (Mar 26, 2013)

Sel said:


> There's always a way. I work on minimum wage and still manage to work enough hours because I tried my best to achieve my goal. IF one needs hours then they do everything in their power to get them


As a parent who had no support other than my husband in a different country at the time of trying to meet the requirements, I strongly disagree. Not everyone is in a position to just get all the hours they can.


----------



## kejal_k (May 4, 2009)

AmyD said:


> It isn't unjust. Nobody has a right to live in the UK.


Actually, I disagree. I, as a British born British citizen, do have the right to live in the UK. My kids, despite being born overseas, inherit their citizenship through me. Thus, they do have the right to live in the UK.

Through the choice I made to fall in love with and marry an Australian-based Singaporean, we now face the prospect that I cannot return to my homeland. 

Do I have the right to live in the UK? At the moment, I feel like I'm being told by the government 'you are not wanted back in the UK'!


----------



## binaryop8 (Aug 17, 2013)

AmyD said "Exerting a "right" to live somewhere that you have no visa or passport is ludicrous. I don't have a right to live anywhere but the US and the UK; I can't move to France just because I feel like it. And those who complain about the rules are not living in reality. I know that the UKBA is the punching-bag of this forum, but I honestly don't see anything wrong with forcing people who want to live in your country to have enough money to support themselves. That is wise; it isn't "mean". 

Since I am an immigrant to the UK, I feel it is my duty to contribute as much as I can by following all the rules, making money, and just generally being a nice, normal citizen. Many people on this forum and elsewhere seem to think the UK owes them something. I just see it differently.

I know it is heartbreaking when you can't see your loved one. But I also know that if you follow the rules, you absolutely can come to the UK (or wherever) and enjoy life with your family and loved ones. There is no big mystery to it."

So that includes me then? A British citizen that has the "right of abode" by birth (born and bred in the Uk from indigenous parents that go back many generations) and over thirty years of paying taxes and national insurance is clumped together with some 'johnny-come-lately' from another country?? I cannot now bring my foreign wife back to my home country either! As I'm getting near the end of my financial usefulness (58 years old) how can I even hope to meet the financial requirement set for "immigrants and their extended families of "job seekers"

Sent using ExpatForum App


----------



## Harun (Jan 27, 2013)

entry level jobs are usually £16k-£17.5k which is below the threshold. So even if you did mange to get a new job you'd have to rely on overtime; which isn't guaranteed! or work 2 jobs to make the threshold of £18.6k. It's a choke on the British people which needs to be rectified.

This comment of £23k being an average wage in UK is laughable. Most teachers earn £21.8k as a starting wage and they're considered professionals.

£17,000 a year (£326 a week) is a better threshold amount. High but not too high!


----------



## Thaicat (Dec 21, 2013)

Yes.. the average wage is not 230000..and as much as rules need to be in place.. they need to be changed. If you chose to move around EU..be prepared to pay for it..but in your own country you should not be subject to rules that force you to make an income that is not expected of people from other EU countries. Non cits should be subject to 18000 a year wage..and brits marrying people from out UK should maybe be subject to a 6month period to find work. Its much easier to allow floods of people and their familys in who are non EU...I dont think those who marry a person out of UK by sham marriage is anywhere near the levels of non citz flooding in.


----------



## Kumamon (Jan 29, 2014)

Sel said:


> Hopefully March 2014 will have a positive impact on all of our lives
> 
> Fingers crossed!! :fingerscrossed::fingerscrossed::fingerscrossed:



Lets hope so. If the appeal is rejected the UKBA should do the decent thing and accept the decision.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

They won't. Financial requirement is a crucial part of controlling family migration and they will fight tooth and nail to maintain the current levels, which have already seen a reduction of 1/3 in numbers migrating.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

> 'Our family changes were brought in to make sure that spouses coming to live in the UK would not become reliant on the taxpayer for financial support and would be able to integrate effectively. We are pleased that the High Court judgment of 5 July supports the basis of our approach.
> 
> However, we believe matters of public policy, including the detail of how the minimum income threshold should operate, are for the Government and Parliament to determine, not the Courts. We also believe the detailed requirements of the policy are proportionate to its aims. We are therefore pursuing an appeal against the judgment.'


UK Border Agency | Minimum income threshold for family migrants - update


----------



## Thaicat (Dec 21, 2013)

A reduction in migration because Brits can not marry outside uk. Not a reduction in non British families...the status quo needs to change.


----------



## Hertsfem (Jun 19, 2013)

Thaicat said:


> A reduction in migration because Brits can not marry outside uk. Not a reduction in non British families...the status quo needs to change.


But they can marry someone from outside the uk - they just need to meet the requirement...


----------



## Thaicat (Dec 21, 2013)

Yes that's the option. Being eu means less requirements than being a british citizen..so while eu cits can bring family from out eu...with bare requirements..uk cits can not. i realise that is eu law..but the requirement is over what most people make and the eu route and british cits route are vastly different in requirements. That is the issue... british cits are worse off than their eu counter parts.


----------



## Hertsfem (Jun 19, 2013)

Quite right you are and also a bug bear with me but nothing we can do about it is there?


----------



## Thaicat (Dec 21, 2013)

No..not with out a large backing campaign for better treatement of citizens..while asking the onus to be on people not married to brits.. to provide heavily for themselves before having access to the UK. It's crazy.


----------



## thunderb0lt (Feb 15, 2014)

Wow, thanks for confirming the date of hearing. really annoying that home office is loking to fight this all the way.


----------



## lishah (Mar 5, 2014)

Hi

Just wanted an update on this as it is now March, any news if they have changed the income threshold or if it is still the same?


----------



## Hertsfem (Jun 19, 2013)

I don't think they have been to court yet or we would have heard about it surely?


----------



## lishah (Mar 5, 2014)

I thought that the governments appeal was being herd yesterday, but I am unsure if this is true or what the out come was.


----------



## bluesky2015 (Sep 3, 2013)

I have been checking as well, no news so far...


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

No news. The hearing started on Tuesday and presumably it's still continuing. The Court of Appeal case reference is C4/2013/2086.


----------



## Thaicat (Dec 21, 2013)

The twitter one is a blow by blow account. Best updates.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

It says the court ruling is still one to two months away.


----------



## BRITCARL (Mar 5, 2013)

May I ask, please...

Is it only me, as the fiancé, who can sponsor the woman I want to bring here? Can I have support from others? In effect, can we have guarantors, so to speak?

Cheers.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

No. That's the point they are arguing in court, among other things.


----------



## BRITCARL (Mar 5, 2013)

Thank you Joppa

If someone was to 'loan' the money, or if I was to borrow the money, would that be acceptable?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

No. They can only gift you the money, which then becomes yours under your full control. And it has to remain in your account for 6 months.


----------



## BRITCARL (Mar 5, 2013)

In short,

I was forced to return to the UK, from China, in November last year, due to being declined a visa.

My fiancée, who came to visit me in January, has returned to China, and is pregnant.

I am now working, but am not earning enough yet to reach the £18,600 mark, and I rent a room in a houseshare.

She probably will pass the IELTs, and she has potential work once she arrives, if she is legally entitled to work (dependent on the visa we go for).

I am looking at the partner visa, but we haven't lived together for two years. Only seven months, but we have been in a relationship for what is almost seventeen months.

A marriage visa is not advisable as we wish for her to stay beyond the six months.

Are we completely ******ed? Regardless of all the support from others that we may have, including employer?


----------



## nyclon (Apr 3, 2011)

You must meet the financial, accommodation and relationship requirements. Third party support is not allowed. If you can't meet the financial requirement, you don't qualify.


----------



## mrustean (Feb 20, 2014)

waiting.stars said:


> I think its a violation of human rights and the UK court and the UK citizens whose families are aboard should take a stronger stand against this unjust law..


waiting.stars,
I totally agree with you I am very lucky that my partner makes well over double to financial requirements but I think this law needs to be challenged. The minimum wage in the UK is not even 18,600 so this means for hundreds of families they will never meet the financial requirements. This forced separation of course breaks EU laws on the right to family life. So why is it not challenged, why is the EU not making Britain tow the line. I say a daily prayer for all the families stuck in this nightmare. I have spoken with EU staff in Britain who tell me over 2000 visa applications are on hold until the outcome of this test case. Devasting for the families.

Good luck & please never let them take away your hope.


----------



## Thaicat (Dec 21, 2013)

Mru, thank you. 
At 35 with a degree in Psyche. I don't want to be stuck indoors unable to work. I wan't to be with my fiancee. We are seperated due to my illness, yet if she was here earning.. I wouldn't need access to disability. She want's to look after me until I am better. Thank you for your kind words..I'm sure 0000s more would be in hold but many of us won't apply.


----------



## bluesky2015 (Sep 3, 2013)

mrustean said:


> waiting.stars,
> I totally agree with you I am very lucky that my partner makes well over double to financial requirements but I think this law needs to be challenged. The minimum wage in the UK is not even 18,600 so this means for hundreds of families they will never meet the financial requirements. This forced separation of course breaks EU laws on the right to family life. So why is it not challenged, why is the EU not making Britain tow the line. I say a daily prayer for all the families stuck in this nightmare. I have spoken with EU staff in Britain who tell me over 2000 visa applications are on hold until the outcome of this test case. Devasting for the families.
> 
> Good luck & please never let them take away your hope.


Thank you so much for your kind and sweet words.There are only a handful of people who understand our frustration..I have been criticized many times for raising my voice against this by those who are already with their loved once but they fail to put themselves in our shoes..
Thank you and may God bless you and your family..


----------



## Thaicat (Dec 21, 2013)

I will 2nd that Stars


----------

