This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23198144
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| UK visa rule challenge rejected by High Court | UK visa rule challenge rejected by High Court |
| (about 3 hours later) | |
| UK family immigration rules are not discriminatory and do not infringe human rights, the High Court has ruled. | UK family immigration rules are not discriminatory and do not infringe human rights, the High Court has ruled. |
| Three claimants had challenged the new rules which set earnings thresholds for people wanting to sponsor the visas of their non-European spouses. | Three claimants had challenged the new rules which set earnings thresholds for people wanting to sponsor the visas of their non-European spouses. |
| The Home Office introduced the rules in July 2012 to ease the financial burden of migration on the state. | |
| The court found that the rules should not be quashed. Appeals are expected from both parties. | The court found that the rules should not be quashed. Appeals are expected from both parties. |
| Under the new family migration policy only British citizens, or those with refugee status, who earn at least £18,600 a year can sponsor their non-European spouse's visa. | Under the new family migration policy only British citizens, or those with refugee status, who earn at least £18,600 a year can sponsor their non-European spouse's visa. |
| This rises to £22,400 for families with a child, and a further £2,400 for each extra child. | This rises to £22,400 for families with a child, and a further £2,400 for each extra child. |
| Officers briefed | Officers briefed |
| The new policy was challenged on the basis that the rules were discriminatory and interfered with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, the right to a private and family life. | The new policy was challenged on the basis that the rules were discriminatory and interfered with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, the right to a private and family life. |
| The court concluded that the rules were not unlawful on the basis of discrimination, or due to a conflict with the statutory duty to regard the best interests of children while making visa decisions. | |
| However, it did find that the earnings threshold could be disproportionate if combined with one of the four other requirements in the rules - for example, an inability to supplement a shortfall in income with savings, unless the savings were over £16,000. | However, it did find that the earnings threshold could be disproportionate if combined with one of the four other requirements in the rules - for example, an inability to supplement a shortfall in income with savings, unless the savings were over £16,000. |
| It is now for Home Secretary Theresa May to decide whether any amendments should be made to the rules to satisfy the requirements of proportionality. | |
| A Home Office spokesperson said: "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're pleased that this judgment supports the basis of our approach. | |
| "We are looking closely at the judgment and its likely impact on the minimum income threshold before we decide how to respond. | |
| "In the meantime, where an applicant does not meet the minimum income threshold and there is no other reason to refuse it, the application will be put on hold." | |
| 'Causing anguish' | 'Causing anguish' |
| A group of MPs and Lords, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Migration, is calling for an independent review of the minimum income requirement. | A group of MPs and Lords, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Migration, is calling for an independent review of the minimum income requirement. |
| In a review published last month, it looked at more than 175 cases from families affected by the rules. | In a review published last month, it looked at more than 175 cases from families affected by the rules. |
| Baroness Hamwee, chairwoman of the review and Liberal Democrat home affairs lead in the House of Lords, said the parliamentary group had been "struck by the evidence showing just how many British people have been kept apart from partners, children and elderly relatives". | Baroness Hamwee, chairwoman of the review and Liberal Democrat home affairs lead in the House of Lords, said the parliamentary group had been "struck by the evidence showing just how many British people have been kept apart from partners, children and elderly relatives". |
| "These rules are causing anguish for families and, counter to their original objectives, may actually be costing the public purse," she said. | "These rules are causing anguish for families and, counter to their original objectives, may actually be costing the public purse," she said. |
| They said thousands of Britons had been unable to bring non-EU spouses to the UK since the minimum earnings requirements were introduced. | They said thousands of Britons had been unable to bring non-EU spouses to the UK since the minimum earnings requirements were introduced. |