There is still hope for non-EEA national partners of British citizens, refugees and people settled in the UK to get a fair deal in the spouse/partner visa financial cap imposed by the Government as the Supreme Court granted the permission to hear the appeal in the case of 'MM and Others' on February 22-24 after the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court decision that favoured the affected parties.
In July 2012 controversial new maintenance funds requirements were introduced for spouse/partner visas (affecting non-EEA national partners of British citizens, refugees and people settled in the UK). In effect, these require visa applicants to have available funds equivalent to a minimum gross annual income of £18,600 (or higher in cases including non-EEA national dependent children). In many cases only the British/settled sponsor's employment income can be considered, because the non-EEA national's employment can only be taken into account if they are already in the UK with permission to work.
Various migrants' rights groups started campaigning against the financial requirement, which they consider to be unfair, disproportionate and counter-productive to the Government's intentions.
In June 2013 a report by members of the APPG on Migration called for an independent review of the requirement and its impact.
The Government has made some minor adjustments to the policy, but overall is satisfied that it is operating as intended. It considers that the maintenance rules ensure that families are able to support themselves and the migrant partner's integration without being a burden on the general taxpayer.
The lawfulness of the rules has been challenged in the courts.
In July 2013 the High Court found that certain factors in the way the financial requirement is applied represent a very significant interference with British citizens' and refugees' rights. It suggested some alternative ways of applying a financial requirement. However, on 11 July 2014 the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court's decision, following an appeal brought by the Government.
A further appeal was made to the Supreme Court.
In the meantime, the minimum income requirement remains in force. UK Visas and Immigration is resuming consideration of applications that had been put on hold pending the outcome of the Court of Appeal case.
The Supreme Court granted permission to hear the appeal in the case of 'MM and Others' on the minimum income requirement for partner visas in the Immigration Rules.
According BritCits, a registered charity, run by Sonel Mehta (founder), the Supreme Court will now hear the case with MM as the lead appeal on 22-24 February, with the other cases to only deal with the points that MM has not dealt with.
Prior to 9 July 2012, parents of immigrants, who have acquired British citizenship and rights to live in this country were allowed to bring their dependents to live with them here, provided the applicant was able to look after them financially.
However post 9th July 2012, reviews to the immigration rules especially to the Adult Dependant Relative (ADR) route, made a mockery out of family values. Yet the government continues to make misleading statements suggesting migrants are welcome here as long as they are not a burden on taxpayers, or have no recourse to public funds.
The new rule also violates the sanctity of marriage in causing the separation of families, keeping citizens in exile, even forcing British children unnecessarily into a single-parent upbringing. It actually undermines the reality that family members being allowed to join their British family is beneficial to the UK – more taxpayers through additional household incomes.
The case to be heard at the Supreme Court from 22-24th February (Court room 1, open to public), as it is believed that some of the arguments in relation to the rights of British citizens under Article 8, to live in the UK with family, may well influence the ADR issues too.
