THE MP with the highest immigration caseload in Scotland has described as “hugely disappointing” a Supreme Court ruling that mandatory minimum income requirements (MIR) on British citizens who want their foreign spouses or partners to join them in the UK do not breach human rights legislation.
Glasgow Central MP Alison Thewliss was speaking to The National after justices at the UK’s highest court dismissed challenges over the rule that a UK sponsor must earn a minimum gross of £18,600 a year before they can apply for spouses or partners from non-EEA (European Economic Area) states to join them.
However, the court also decided that the “rules and instructions” required amendment in relation to the duty towards children, and other funding sources available to the couple.
“Today’s ruling from the Supreme Court is hugely disappointing,” said Thewliss. “It is important to remember that the people at fault for this policy are not the Supreme Court judges but, instead, it is the Home Office and this heartless Tory Government whose draconian immigration policies make people’s lives a misery. They are separating families, and making it as difficult as possible for them to live their lives with dignity. My constituency casework has included individuals who just miss the minimum income requirement, in one case by only £7.
“The Home Office often refuse to use sensible discretion in these cases, even when people have savings or can make up the income with a few hours of overtime. The current immigration rules are far too restrictive and are designed to whittle down the numbers of people coming to the UK.
“I am afraid that we’ve reached a point where the Government is designing a deliberately inhumane immigration policy based on what might play well on the front pages of right wing newspapers, rather than what’s actually good for families and good for our economy.”
The case she referred to is that of Saeed Mohammadi, who lives in Cowcaddens, and who has been trying to apply for a spousal visa from Iran for his wife in Iran. They are a childless couple with no children so are subject to the £18,600 salary limit.
Mohammadi earns £18,593 from his work at HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and is £7 short of the MIR. Because UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) only take into account gross earnings, even if he works only one hour of overtime a year to make up the shortfall, the visa will be refused. He is now on his third application for his wife.
In 2014, the UK Government won an appeal court ruling that the MIR was lawful. The Supreme Court has now decided the overall scheme is compliant with human rights legislation, meaning that the £18,600 threshold will remain.
At a hearing in London in last February, the justices 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 yesterday’s ruling, they allowed the four appeals “to a limited extent”. They said the MIR “is acceptable in principle”, but that the rules and instructions “unlawfully fail to take proper account” of the Home Secretary’s duty … to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when making decisions which affect them.
A Home Office spokesman said: “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.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel