Britain’s supreme court has ruled that government financial measures which are hitting British citizens who want foreign spouses or partners to join them in the UK do not breach human rights legislation.
Seven justices at the UK’s highest court announced their decision on Wednesday in a number of linked challenges brought against a mandatory “minimum income” immigration requirement.
The cases centre on a measure that a UK sponsor must have a minimum gross annual income of £18,600 (€22,000) before they can apply for spouses or partners from non-EEA (European Economic Area) states to join them.
Previous rules only required a couple to demonstrate that they could maintain themselves without recourse to public funds. In 2014 the Government won a ruling in the Court of Appeal that the measure, introduced in 2012, was lawful.
The Supreme Court has now decided that the overall scheme is compliant with human rights legislation, meaning that the £18,600 threshold will remain. However, the court decided that the "rules and instructions" require amendment in relation to the duty towards children, and other funding sources available to the couple.
At a hearing in London in February last year, the panel of justices, headed by Supreme Court deputy president Lady Hale, heard challenges from two British citizens, Abdul Majid and Shabana Jawed, who cannot meet the requirement to bring their non-EEA spouses into the UK, and from MM, a refugee from the Lebanon who is resident in the UK and in a similar position, and his nephew AF. In their ruling on Wednesday the justices allowed the four appeals "to a limited extent".
They held that the minimum income requirement (MIR) “is acceptable in principle”, but that the rules and instructions “unlawfully fail to take proper account” of the Home Secretary’s duty under the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when making decisions which affect them.
The court further ruled that the “instructions also require amendment to allow consideration of alternative sources of funding when evaluating a claim” under Article 8 (right to private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Supreme Court justices announced a decision in a fifth appeal.
This was in the case of SS, from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, who challenged a refusal of entry clearance as the spouse of a refugee who became a naturalised British citizen, but whose earnings are below £18,600.
Immigration tribunals allowed her appeal under Article 8, but the appeal court ruled she had not demonstrated “compelling circumstances” justifying the granting of entry clearance. But the justices unanimously allowed that appeal, restoring the original decision in her case. During the hearing last year the court heard submissions on behalf of the appellants that the measures amounted to an “unlawful interference with core human rights”, and that the minimum income level had been set “unreasonably high”.
The Home Office has said that the aim of the minimum income threshold was to “ensure that family migrants do not become reliant on the taxpayer for financial support and are able to integrate effectively”.
A Home Office spokesman said: “The court has endorsed our approach in setting an income threshold for family migration that prevents burdens on the taxpayer and ensures migrant families can integrate into our communities.”
“This is central to building an immigration system that works in the national interest. “The current rules remain in force but we are carefully considering what the court has said in relation to exceptional cases where the income threshold has not been met, particularly where the case involves a child.”
PA