Stark choice under new immigration rules: exile or family breakup

[lastlid]

so 30,000 applications could be refused a year, 600 a week, near 100 a day
i cannot see this happening

No sign of a U turn yet though Joe?

[joebloggs]

No sign of a U turn yet though Joe?

wait til next week, a lot of MP's are going to have angry voters on their back soon, not just a few, many.

i would estimate that 90%+ of spouse visa are granted on here first time, so a refusal rate is 10% or even less , but the refusal rate could jump to 50 or 60%

[gWaPito]

wait til next week, a lot of MP's are going to have angry voters on their back soon, not just a few, many.

i would estimate that 90%+ of spouse visa are granted on here first time, so a refusal rate is 10% or even less , but the refusal rate could jump to 50 or 60%

I dont think so Joe...
Its'only' going to effect a quarter of a million people a year....I dont think the remaining 65 million are gonna be that fussed

The refusal rate wont be that high Joe....the applicants will know the criteria..they wont be silly enough to waste there monies.

T he attachment test is the least of peoples worries...basically its wondering when they are going to win the lotto...thsts the only way, for some are going to get in the uk

[lastlid]

I dont think so Joe...
Its'only' going to effect a quarter of a million people a year....I dont think the remaining 65 million are gonna be that fussed

That is the problem. It is a large percentage but of a small amount of the UK population.

[joebloggs]

That is the problem. It is a large percentage but of a small amount of the UK population.

how many people do you think were effected by the change from 18 to 21 for a settlement visa ? if you use the same figure of 50,000 apps, how many would you guess were under 21 ? - 5,000 ?? yet the gov was forced to change it back to 18.

it only takes one person to take the gov to court/ judicial review or the ECHR and win.

i've seen how HSMP beat the gov, i've seen how IMG's beat the gov ..

[lastlid]

how many people do you think were effected by the change from 18 to 21 for a settlement visa ? if you use the same figure of 50,000 apps, how many would you guess were under 21 ? - 5,000 ?? yet the gov was forced to change it back to 18.

it only takes one person to take the gov to court/ judicial review or the ECHR and win.

i've seen how HSMP beat the gov, i've seen how IMG's beat the gov ..

I see what you mean. Good point. Thanks.

[joebloggs]

I dont think so Joe...
Its'only' going to effect a quarter of a million people a year....I dont think the remaining 65 million are gonna be that fussed

i don't think so, i know many Mp's are already overloaded with immigration cases, wait til they get *5 the workload who do you think they will blame and dont you think everyone of those 30,000 who are refused a visa will contact their MP ? of course you will.

in simple terms 30000 refused a visa / 650 mp's = 46 refusal each, nearly every week another person will be why their visa is refused and why they as a British citizen, some who have never claimed benefits , cant bring their partner to the UK,

[lastlid]

So. For someone who already has a spouse visa or completed FLR then they can face further FLR as ILR has been extended to 5 years - more fees. And attachment test - more fees. Aswell as the other fees ( Life in the UK, ILR etc.) WOW.

[Terpe]

So. For someone who already has a spouse visa or completed FLR then they can face further FLR as ILR has been extended to 5 years. More fees. And attachment test. More fees. Aswell as the other fees ( Life in the UK, ILR etc. WOW.

Well it's a possibility I guess. But we'll just need to see what the implementation ends up as.

[lastlid]

Well it's a possibility I guess. But we'll just need to see what the implementation ends up as.

Just trying to think the above posting (#1) through.

[joebloggs]

i really cant see this happening, if it does not for long,, who can argue with the below ?

Any legislation has to be 'compatible' with the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998. If it's incompatible, that legislation can be struck out by the courts. The HRA provides a national remedy to the European Convention on Human Rights, which was signed by the UK eons ago. Previously, if someone wished to assert that their 'human rights' had been infringed, then remedy would have to have been sought through the European Court for Human Rights - so costly as to generally not be worth it.

Should a sponsor's minimum income proposal be introduced to the Immigration Rules, it could be perceived as a disproportionate interference in the right to a private and family life (Article 8), as well as discriminatory, and thereby 'incompatible' with the HRA. After all, it is 'not fair' that one person can have their foreign spouse settle simply because they earn x amount, whereas the bloke next door can't because he falls shy of an arbitrary threshold.

from davis Khan - immigration associates.

[lastlid]

Should a sponsor's minimum income proposal be introduced to the Immigration Rules, it could be perceived as a disproportionate interference in the right to a private and family life (Article 8), as well as discriminatory, and thereby 'incompatible' with the HRA. After all, it is 'not fair' that one person can have their foreign spouse settle simply because they earn x amount, whereas the bloke next door can't because he falls shy of an arbitrary threshold. [/I]

Interesting.

[Arthur Little]

There but for the grace of God, go I ...............

... AND me, Peter.

Have to agree with gWaPito, people are not going to risk the huge application fees if they clearly don't meet the criteria of Income Thresholds.

... that's precisely what the Government is banking on - the fewer direct sponsors who can afford the proposed income levels (since the plan is also to disallow third party support) the fewer the number of applicants.

Any legislation has to be 'compatible' with the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998. If it's incompatible, that legislation can be struck out by the courts. The HRA provides a national remedy to the European Convention on Human Rights, which was signed by the UK eons ago. Previously, if someone wished to assert that their 'human rights' had been infringed, then remedy would have to have been sought through the European Court for Human Rights - so costly as to generally not be worth it.

from davis Khan - immigration associates.

I'd been going to mention the International Human Rights Organisation. But ... BANG goes this theory if, by any chance, it STILL HAS to entail drawn out and costly action involving the ECHR initially.