Home Office won their appeal in minimum income challenge

You can read the judgment here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/985.html

And read Free Movement's take on it here:
http://www.freemovement.org.uk/outcome-of-mm-minimum-income-case-in-court-of-appeal/

See the Home Office's response here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-office-wins-judgment-on-minimum-income-threshold

They are planning to appeal this decision, but the home office has said they will be now refusing all those (4000) on hold applications.  Here's hoping this ends up in the Supreme court and we get a favorable ruling next time.

I, for one, cannot believe this!  
 

Edited to add:  I do agree with the idea that those coming to live in the UK should be able to support themselves without assistance from the government (with some exceptions, of course).  

However, this whole situation makes it seem like UK citizens are effectively being penalised for having non-EEA family members!  I think it is completely unjust that those EU citizens exercising their treaty rights in the UK with non-EEA partners have things SO much easier than UK citizens themselves, in their home country!  Ridiculous.

They kicked it up basically (legal eagles?).

Me neither honestly. I haven't read the full judgment yet because I'm studying for the bar exam, but this was shocking to me. There is some serious classism and xenophobia going on in the home office, and these rules and their unyielding application  are evidence of it.

Also, and  Colin Yeo addresses this on free movement briefly when he notes that the court ignored this, the no recourse to public funds provision on all visas pretty much stomps out the possibility of documented migrants being on the dole. Because if we are documented and genuinely present, we obviously would not want to run afoul of that rule and jeopardize our futures in the UK. There is just a lot of circular reasoning going on here to me.

Also, and  Colin Yeo addresses this on free movement briefly when he notes that the court ignored this, the no recourse to public funds provision on all visas pretty much stomps out the possibility of documented migrants being on the dole.

If that's what he said, then he didn't do his homework. We have been through this before on this site and the income based welfare payment Tax Credits can be claimed by those with no recourse to public funds, if one of the partnership is not subject to immigration control. The cutoff (too much income) for Working Tax Credits for partners is.......about £18k. Hence why the £18,600 financial requirement was set.

I am merely referring to the fact that he mentioned the no recourse to public funds to say that the court ignored it entirely. Not that he is making that argument.  Looking at  my post I can see that would be misleading. But a quick read of the free movement blog would clear it up.

And yes, I know we have been through that before on here.
As we have discussed time and time again, couples can live on less than that outside the southeast.  So it hardly seems fair to punish people because of the loopholes in the benefits structure concerning migrants.

As we have discussed time and time again, couples can live on less than that outside the southeast.  So it hardly seems fair to punish people because of the loopholes in the benefits structure concerning migrants.

Tax Credits are based on income, not on where you live. I'm not sure those Brits living outside the SE would be happy to be told that they are having their Tax Credits benefits removed, as they can live on less.

The minimum wage per hour is the same all over the UK too.

The financial requirement was brought in to protect the UK. The judge mentioned that too.

Yes I realize all those things. I am saying that amount is inappropriate as some sort of masquerade for what a couple is able to live off of regardless of how benefits amounts are determined. And yes I know it's based off the amount for a benefits cut off.

Yes I know that's the official "reason." As I think that reason is a great big front for unnecessary discrimination.  we will just have to agree to disagree.

I haven't got enough time to read through all the information about the decision, but is there anything in there regarding third person financial support?

Personally, I can understand the UK government wanting to set a minimum financial requirement, but not allowing a third party to support the family with a non-EEA member is taking it too far. It leaves no room for consideration of the social and financial support the family can receive to keep them from being a financial burden to the UK. For instance, students, recent graduates and people working internships have a really difficult time uniting their families, even when they have friends or families who can provide the additional support necessary. In addition, families who have been living abroad and want to return to the UK should be able to use third person support to prove their financial stability upon their return. Forcing the UK member of the family to return on their own and look for a job if they don't have one lined up, then work for 6 months or more while their family members wait abroad, is a ridiculous and unnecessary burden on a family, especially when there are children involved. Some families choose to move back to the UK to be with ill or dying parents, and they often have accommodation and perhaps even savings, though if short of £60,000+, tough luck - your family can suffer separation. It's disgusting. Keeping families apart who have support in the UK is abhorrent and inhumane. Very sad state of affairs.

Other countries including the US allow third party support for families to meet financial requirements for immigration. I see no reason other than petty pandering to a xenophobic public to exclude third party support in the UK.

Tax Credits are based on income, not on where you live. I'm not sure those Brits living outside the SE would be happy to be told that they are having their Tax Credits benefits removed, as they can live on less.

The minimum wage per hour is the same all over the UK too.

The financial requirement was brought in to protect the UK. The judge mentioned that too.

A couple (no kids) earning £18,500 would not be able to claim any benefits, why should they be turned down for a visa?  The £18,600 has nothing to do with Working Tax Credits IMO, it was a figure introduced to cut immigration by a certain amount, they admitted that much IIRC.

I haven't got enough time to read through all the information about the decision, but is there anything in there regarding third person financial support?

Personally, I can understand the UK government wanting to set a minimum financial requirement, but not allowing a third party to support the family with a non-EEA member is taking it too far. It leaves no room for consideration of the social and financial support the family can receive to keep them from being a financial burden to the UK. For instance, students, recent graduates and people working internships have a really difficult time uniting their families, even when they have friends or families who can provide the additional support necessary. In addition, families who have been living abroad and want to return to the UK should be able to use third person support to prove their financial stability upon their return. Forcing the UK member of the family to return on their own and look for a job if they don't have one lined up, then work for 6 months or more while their family members wait abroad, is a ridiculous and unnecessary burden on a family, especially when there are children involved. Some families choose to move back to the UK to be with ill or dying parents, and they often have accommodation and perhaps even savings, though if short of £60,000+, tough luck - your family can suffer separation. It's disgusting. Keeping families apart who have support in the UK is abhorrent and inhumane. Very sad state of affairs.

Other countries including the US allow third party support for families to meet financial requirements for immigration. I see no reason other than petty pandering to a xenophobic public to exclude third party support in the UK.

I don't think the judgment found any of the provisions to be unfair/overly discriminatory. They didn't single any out as far as I know. The best hope for getting any of it changed is likely an appeal to the Supreme Court or getting Theresa May out of office.

I don't think the judgment found any of the provisions to be unfair/overly discriminatory. They didn't single any out as far as I know. The best hope for getting any of it changed is likely an appeal to the Supreme Court or getting Theresa May out of office.

I just see very dark times ahead - fear, hatred and division everywhere.

I just see very dark times ahead - fear, hatred and division everywhere.

Yeah it feels pretty bleak. Especially as I'll be going for FLR in a year and half after I get married and before my Tier 4 runs out. Everything just feels really unstable. And I've really not got any confidence in Labour to do anything about it even if they do get into power. I suppose even if the Tories win again, I'll just thank my lucky stars that Nigel Farrage isn't in charge.

This all feels like some Python-esque farce wherein we all need to start singing "always look on the bright side of life."

I'm just really happy I have ILR now.  I worry for what would have happened if this had been brought in a year or two earlier.