Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

JOINT BRIEFING BY BRITCITS and JCWI On the Stay on Decision making for Spouse/Partners Visa Applications For Monday

9th September 2013 BritCits is a group formed in 2012 in direct response to the attack on British citizens and residents with non-EEA family members. Immigration rules in the UK in force from 9 th July 2012 make a mockery of family values and violate the sanctity of marriage in causing the separation of families, keeping our citizens in exile and forcing British children unnecessarily into a single-parent upbringing. BritCits is not advocating an open-door policy on immigration. However we think its imperative that immigration rules are fair and clear, in both their intent and application; rules must be such where the interest of a child prevails whatever the parents financial situation. Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) is an independent national charity established in 1967. Since its inception it has promoted justice and fairness in immigration, nationality and asylum law and policy. It provides direct legal advice and assistance to those who are affected by the unfairness of the UKs immigration control. JCWI also actively lobbies and campaigns for changes in law and practice and its mission is to eliminate discrimination in this sphere. JCWI has been instrumental in influencing debates on immigration and asylum issues in both the UK and at European level. Issue: The Home Office has paused the processing of visa for spouses/partners of British citizens and residents for an indeterminate length of time leaving British families in limbo. In a recent High Court case, MM & Ors vs. SSHD, Justice Blake ruled that the financial requirements imposed on spouses and partners of British citizens, British residents and refugees meant that although there may be sound reasons in favour of the individual requirements in isolation, the combination of more than one feature of the rules is so onerous as to be an unjustified and disproportionate interference with a genuine spousal relationship. He went on to say that the consequences are so excessive in impact as to be beyond a reasonable means of giving effect to the legitimate aim." And concluded, "[the] interference in family life is disproportionate and unlawful". The Home Office response was to immediately stop the processing of family visa applications. The Judge analysed the case extensively and made recommendations that would allow the Government to achieve its stated policy aims but still be fair and equitable, but the Government is choosing not to heed them. Two months on these applications are still on hold, adding to the Home Office/UKBA backlog and leaving hundreds of British families in limbo. The Home Office is now appealing this decision so the state of limbo will continue indefinitely for separated families. The damage this is doing to families and children is unquantifiable. Lives are being ripped apart and emotional and psychological long term damage especially to young children is an extreme cause for concern. Putting aside the drain on taxpayers from the Home Office repeatedly taking to court cases where the judgement has already been made in a fair manner, this has meant hundreds of British citizens are now left in limbo, just because they fell in love with someone from another country. It is laughable when Home Office decisions such as the above separate couples for months and even years whilst David Cameron states he misses his wife desperately even when he is away from her for a few days.

Income Requirements in Immigration Rules to qualify for a Spouse/Partner Visa: 1. An annual income of 18,600 (22,400+ if child incl) (but must be working for at least 6 months and the figure is actually calculated on a monthly basis) 2. Shortfall can be made up by savings only if they exceed 16,000, have been held for at least 6 months 3. The use of a 30 month period for forward income projection (if a person does not have an income they need at least 62,500 of savings to qualify) 4. Spouses earning capacity during the 30 month period is disregarded 5. All third party support (even by undertaking or deed) is disregarded High Court Recommendation to Government: 1. An annual income of 13,500 (13,400 was identified by the Migration Advisory Committee as the lowest maintenance threshold under the benefits net and equates to the adult minimum wage for a 40 hour week) 2. Permitting all savings above 1000 to count 3. Permitting account to be taken of earning capacity of spouse after entry or satisfactory supported maintenance undertakings of third parties. 4. Reducing to 12 months (from 30) the period for which the pre estimate of financial viability is assessed. Case Studies: We have come across families directly affected by the recent Home Office practice: a) David, a British citizen, is married to Dee from Canada. They have been married for over six years and lived together in Canada for several years. David now has to remain in the UK to look after his daughter - from a previous relationship - diagnosed with Autistic Spectrum Disorder. Duty of care to her makes it impossible for David to not only live in Canada with his wife, but to visit her regularly. Dee applied for a spouse visa in May 2013 submitting her passport as required. She is still waiting despite Home Office estimates indicating such applications should be processed within a maximum of ten weeks. Dees son is getting married this year in Manila to a citizen of the Philippines. Dee does not have her passport so is likely to miss her sons wedding. If she asks for her passport back, her application is considered withdrawn and this family lose not only the application fee, but have the process start all over again. To them as soon as there is light at the end of the tunnel, it just seems the Home Office builds more tunnel. b) Then theres Nat, a British citizen married to a Tunisian. They have a 7 month old British daughter. The couple missed sharing the special first moments their babys first smile, her learning to roll, sit up, babble. Nat does not earn 18,600 even though she works full time in a nursery. Being forced into single parenthood also means their baby daughter is left without either parent more often than theyd like at such a crucial age. Nat wishes to sponsor her husband even though she doesnt meet the onerous financial requirements. Once refused she would have been able to appeal and have her case heard in court. However, because HO is no longer processing applications such as hers, she is prevented from doing so which means she cant even begin the process to have her family reunited.

c) Dell is a British citizen. He owns his own home (mortgage free although this is completely ignored by the Home Office), has some savings as well, but does not earn the mandated 24,800 required to sponsor his wife, Valery, a lawyer from Russia and his two stepchildren. It is likely that despite a Home Office refusal, an appeal would see the family reunited once more. However they are being denied the right to appeal because the Home Office is not even processing spousal visa applications. Questions to Ask: 1. Why does the Government not want to implement the lower income level of 13,500 which will still prevent access to any public benefits? 2. When does the Home office intend processing family visa applications, which have been put on hold, again? 3. What is the number of outstanding applications? 4. Has the Government given any regard to the devastation these rules and the now the limbo is causing to families and children?

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen