Supreme Court backs income ruling

THE Supreme Court has ruled that government f i n a n c i a l me a s u re s which affect British citizens who want foreign spouses or partners to join them in the UK do not breach human rights legislation.

Seven justices at the country’s highest court announced their decision today 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 before they can apply for spouses or partners from non European Economic Area states to join them.

Previous rules only required a couple to demonstrate that they could maintain themselves without having to depend on public funds. In 2014 the government won a ruling in the Court of Appeal that the 2012 measure 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 instruc tions” require amendment in relation to the duty towards children, and other funding sources available to the couple.

At a hearing in London 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 nephew “AF”.

In today’s ruling the justices allowed the four appeals “to a limited extent”. They said that the minimum income requirement “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 take into account the welfare of children when making decisions which affect them.

During the hearing last year the court heard submissions that the measures amounted to an “unlawful interference with core human rights”. 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”.

his