13 June 2012 On 11 June 2012 the Government announced changes to the Immigration Rules for non-European Economic Area (non-EEA) nationals applying to enter or remain in the UK on the family migration route. The new Immigration Rules will also unify consideration under the rules and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, by defining the basis on which a person can enter or remain in the UK on the basis of their family or private life. Today (13 June 2012) rules have been laid in Parliament which will bring these changes into effect, along with an impact assessment, a policy equality statement and a statement on the compatibility of the rules with Article 8. Most of these changes will apply to new applicants from 9 July 2012. The changes are part of the Government's programme of reform of the immigration routes and follow wide consultation and expert advice from the Migration Advisory Committee. The changes include: introducing a new minimum income threshold of £18,600 for sponsoring the settlement in the UK of a spouse or partner, or 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; publishing, in casework guidance, a list of factors associated with genuine and non-genuine relationships, to help UK Border Agency caseworkers to focus on these issues; extending the minimum probationary period for settlement for non-EEA spouses andpartners from two years to five years, to test the genuineness of the relationship; abolishing immediate settlement for the migrant spouses andpartner where a couple have been living together overseas for at least four years, and requiring them to complete a five-year probationary period; from October 2013, requiring all applicants for settlement to pass the Life in the UK Test and present an English language speaking and listening qualification at B1 level or above of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages unless they are exempt; allowing adult and elderly dependants to settle in the UK only where they can demonstrate that, as a result of age, illness or disability, they require a level of long-term personal care that can only be provided by a relative in the UK, and requiring them to apply from overseas rather than switch in the UK from another category, for example as a visitor; and restricting family visit visa appeals, initially by narrowing the current definitions of family and sponsor for appeal purposes, and then, subject to the passage of the Crime and Courts Bill, which was published on 11 May 2012, removing the full right of appeal against refusal of a family visit visa. For more information about the changes that are being introduced and details of transitional arrangements, please see the Statement of Changes to the Immigration rules (HC 194), the Explanatory Memorandum, impact assessment, the policy equality statement and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) memorandum on the right side of this page. Source:- http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/newsarticles/2012/june/13-family-migration
Probably neither interesting nor in an easily readable format for most people at this early stage. But posted here solely as an official of the day Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules as presented to Parliament pursuant to section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971
Here is the now published Impact Assessment This is published in a much more readable and understandable format.
I am still certain this will get overturned and it will be yet more egg on the face for this Government.
Spouse visa? No, old rules apply.. Though I am not so sure about fiance visas that then move onto spouse visas after 6 months (Micawber thinks perhaps not, I'm just too paranoid )
Which visa are you thinking of? As Kuya mentioned, if submitted with timelimits the spouse visa will be considered under the "old rules" right up to settlement (ILR) The fiance(e) visa looks like it will be the same also, but.............those Home Office weasel words are not so clear. Have to check the detailed immigration rules and guidance. But to me, and the way that I read it, the fiance(e) visa looks to be treated under "old rules" also. Are you considering a visaapplication submission soon? If you can do it then I feel it will save a huge amount of hassle for you in the future. That 5 year route looks worrisome to me
I dont personally see the 5 year route as worrying its true its probably a revenue stream but it should also address issues of early breakups in marriages where the intention by the overseas partner was always suspect it also is mirrored by the European 5 year residence followed if you still qualify by permanent residence so in some ways we should encourage the euro model to be adopted wholesale its everyones best chance to get what we want de ba
I agree with the 5 year rule, I do think it will cut down on sham marriages. Another thing they could have tried is only allowing citizens to sponsor a partner, meaning those who are on ILR have to become a citizen of the UK or EU before being allowed to sponsor family. That would have helped with integration more, instead of the "keep the poor out" option chosen.
Those are good points Kuya, which I agree with in principle. Some of the detail along that 5 year pathway looks quite challenging. I wonder how many more illegals/overstayers it might encourage along the way. Also I have some concerns about what could happen with any children born in UK during that 5 year period if requirements to remain cannot be met. UKBA does not have a very good record on those issues.
Well, if myself and Joy have a baby then that child would be a British citizen from birth and by heritage. The child could not be deported and in worst case scenario we would do the EEA thing. Though I think human rights laws would stop the mother of a British citizen (who is a child) from being deported.
I am trying in my own head to put together a bigger situation on this exact point (children) not had enough time to think the arguments through but I will.
This issue came up in Question Time and This Week. Sadly, they didn't debate it much on Question Time and it was towards the end of the programme, on This Week it was the first issue of the show that was brought up by journalist Sarfraz Manzoor. Sorry.. Links won't work for those outside of the UK due to BBC iPlayer rules
On Question Time there was little time spent debating the issue. The lady from Labour tried not to answer, simply saying that her party was debating the issue internally before they work out whether it was right or wrong (the person who asked the question pointed out that she too was a member of the Labour party and expects Labour to be against this). Greg Dyke said he was insulted that by the notion of limiting overseas partners to the well off, the Lib Dem was (I think) against it, but he often broke ranks and was critical about much of the Governments policies. Obviously the Tory was all for it.. Then it pretty much moved on. On This Week, the story made a good case against this current rule and only Michael Portillo made any attempt to say that it was right, though he didn't make a strong case for it. Overall, there was no outstanding conclusions. Had it gotten more debate time on Question Time then maybe a few people in the audience could have given their say.
If you read all the details and "small print", there is great deal that does need to be done and must be done. The problem is that Family Migration is almost buried in a much broader document. I still don't believe most people understand just what an important issue the EU migration is and that EU migrants have such a big benefit in being allowed to bring their family members here. I'm sure plenty of people are considering the EEA route of some sort or other. The problem is that most EU coutries have either high unemployment, limited employment or barriers.
