Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Portfolio of divided families of British citizens and residents due to UKs family immigration rules.
September 2013
CONTENTS
BritCits .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 britcits speak out: .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Policy Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Useful links.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 205 Index.............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 205
Page | 2
v28.09
Financial requirements
Aimie & David .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 120 Alexis & Miad ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 121 Alice .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 123 Amanda & Imed ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 124 Amanda & Tony ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 125 Amy & Sean................................................................................................................................................................................................... 127 Aneela ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 129 Angela ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 130 Anne .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 131 Anthony & Appril .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 132 Asif & Hafsa .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 133 Bethan & Winston ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 134 Brian ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 135 Chrissie & Supon .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 136 Claire ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 137 Clint .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 138 Craig & Toni ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 139 Damar ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 140 David & Dee ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 141 David & Emelie ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 143 Dee & Ozan................................................................................................................................................................................................... 144 Elwyn ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 146 Emma & Haytham ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 147 Emma ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 148 Gillian ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 150 Hayley ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 151 Jack & Shah .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 152 Jade & Luis ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 153 Jay & Alberto ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 155 Jenny ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 156 Jessica & Warren .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 157 Joel ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 158 Kathryn & Colin............................................................................................................................................................................................ 159 Katie & Cliff .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 160
Page | 3
v28.09
Kev & Barbara .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 161 Kirsty & Karim.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 162 Larissa & Nicolas ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 163 Laura & Mohamed ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 164 Les & Becky .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 166 Lisa ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 168 Louise ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 169 Loz & Josh .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 170 Lyndsey & Paul ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 171 Maliha & Bilal .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 172 Mark & Mercy ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 173 Megan & Max ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 174 Mel & Mahmoud ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 175 Michael (Malaysia) ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 176 Michael (Singapore)...................................................................................................................................................................................... 177 Naila.............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 178 Nick ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 179 Paul ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 180 Pete & Karima .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 181 Phil & Amanda.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 182 Rachel & Ahmed ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 183 Ravi ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 185 Rhys &Natacha ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 186 Richard & Kate ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 187 Rob ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 188 Rob (USA) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 189 Rudi ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 190 Ruth ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 191 Sandra & Aftab ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 192 Sandra & Monaam ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 193 Sarah & Angelina .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 194 Sharon & Wade ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 196 Sierra ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 197 Stacey & Yoshi .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 198 Steven ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 199 Suzanne ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 200 Tracey & Gary .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 201 Wayne & Daisy ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 203 Wes & Rebecca ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 204
Page | 4
v28.09
BritCits
Immigration rules in the UK in force from 9th July 2012 make a mockery of family values and violate the sanctity of marriage in causing the separation of families, keeping our citizens in exile and forcing British children unnecessarily into a single-parent upbringing. British citizens from across the spectrum have become victims of their own countrys immigration rules: A British man earning over 100,000 is prevented from looking after his elderly parents because they are Ukrainian. The parent of two British kids is refused a visa, with Home Office stating At two and three years old, its considered x and y are of an age where they would be able to readjust to life without you. A young British mum with a Prohibited Steps Order in place preventing her children leaving the UK is refused a spouse visa for her Moroccan husband to join her in the UK. A British man is unable to return home to look after his elderly British parents, both diagnosed with cancer, because his wife is from South East Asia. The Syrian husband of a British woman meeting both financial and language requirements is refused a visa for not submitting a statement of entry for the language exam, despite showing the certificate of passing the exam A British pensioner with his mortgage paid off and no debt is forced to sell his home because his partner is American. For Brits with a foreign spouse, the government has placed a price tag on love, of 62,500 cash or a salary of over 18,600 p.a. if they want to live in the UK a financial threshold so high that 47% of British citizens in employment do not satisfy it.1 The onus is on the British citizen to meet the financial requirements any income earned by the foreign spouse is ignored, as are assets in any non-cash form, including property, equities or Premium bonds. The added hurdle of the English language requirement before entering the UK represents a departure from earlier policies which required spouses to learn English while they were in the UK. This has led to some with spouses in remote parts of the world giving up hope of ever returning home because of a lack of available English classes and centres approved by the Home Office in their region. If you have an adult dependant from another country, usually elderly parents, the rules are even more drastic. Labelled a ban masquerading as a rule by Sarah Teather MP in a parliamentary debate, the criteria is so contradictory it is deemed impossible to meet.
Page | 5
v28.09
Despite requests to the government since October 2012 to provide the number of adult dependant visas issued, to date they have not confirmed whether even one applicant has been successful; nor have they given an example of a situation where the criteria could be satisfied, strengthening the belief that the rules are designed to prevent any success. Our government does not care if the spouse is a nurse, teacher or engineer with skill sets our country is crying out for. It doesnt care if these rules mean we lose British NHS-trained doctors to countries with family-friendly immigration rules allowing parents to join their adult children. It doesnt even care if there are British babies involved. In making misleading statements of migrants being welcome here as long as they are not a burden on taxpayers, the government conveniently does not refer to the fact that migrants have no recourse to public funds. Indeed, family members being allowed to join their British family is actually beneficial to the UK taxpayer as most benefits are contingent on the household income, which with another income earning member of the family, is likely to disqualify the British citizen from benefits as well. Faced with my own family life being threatened, noting a lack of public awareness, and the resounding silence of the media, on the impact of these rules, I founded BritCits in 2012. Steven Green has been my partner in the organisation since day one, using his IT skills to create and manage our website www.britcits.com. Steven, and thus BritCits, has been honoured with a special mention in the shortlist for the Campaigner of the Year award from the Sheila McKechnie Foundation. BritCits is not advocating an open-door policy on immigration. However we think its imperative that immigration rules are fair and clear, in both their intent and application; rules must be such where the interest of a child prevails whatever the parents financial situation. Ridiculous reasons for refusal such as denying a British citizen is actually British, or that a couple married for over 12 years with three children does not in itself prove the existence of a genuine relationship are unacceptable. When the only recourse to an error made by the Home Office is the applicant taking the appeal to court, the path to family reunification often proves to be prohibitive in terms of time and money. We demand better from the government of a developed nation, one which has been a pioneer on the UN convention rights of the child, has benefited from the contribution of migrants to our society and indeed, a nation which historically and even today, is known for its own people venturing into other countries around the world to live and work
Page | 6
v28.09
impossible for us as lawyers to understand the rules, what hope is there for a layperson?"UK puts a price tag on love I served in British army,
defended British lives & way of life and now kept apart from own wife & child. My parents are much older than my wife's and we wanted to be closer to them, so my
wife, our son & I could see more of them, help them out in their old age. Not too much to ask, is it? Expat in exile.As a result he missed the birth of his first-born child.
This government will be remembered as attacking most vulnerable in societyWe're not asking for hand-outs, just the chance to live as a
family I am keen for my small family to be near my parents, gain recognition of our family as a
legal unit and be around to look after my parents as they get older. All we want is the opportunity to live together; we are a familyWhat married couple wants to spend twelve months, maybe more, living in separate countries? In the Conservative pre-election waffle Cameron made a great deal about his views on sanctity of marriage & family values. This is not how I expected my married life to be, a fight to be with my husband Are these the
How do you explain to kids we dont make enough money to be together as a family All visas for non-EU citizens are
to the UK."
stamped with a clear no recourse to public funds Despite being in a genuine loving
relationship, the government has forced me into becoming a single mother, juggling work, being a full-time mum and a wife. Family life is supposed to be a right, not a privilege...but it sure doesnt feel like it! I
I just want to be able to look after my parents without recourse to public funds in the same way theyve looked after me and my childWe want
hope one day I can be with the woman I love, without that love having a price tag.. to raise our baby together, in a country where the culture and language are not going to damage my career as I need to financially support my family.
The govt is blind to common sense & averse to doing the right thing, in interest of massaging numbers. I am under 18,600 threshold by 6.40 a month. I served
their final years as they are both fighting cancer, but I cant leave my wife!
As a British citizen, my country wants me to earn the right to live with my family.
10 years in army, went to Iraq. Yet must spend another 12 months apart from my husband, for 6.40 a month! I am desperate to return home to spend time with my parents in
Page | 7
v28.09
Policy Recommendations
At an APPG on Migration meeting, I was asked by Lord Teverson for suggestions on how immigration into the UK could be managed better, whilst also ensuring new entrants did not lead to an increased burden on the taxpayer. The following includes some of the suggestions sent to the panel, though by no means is this expected to be exhaustive or a solution to all family immigration issues.
Non EEA Parents Bond/guarantee, as in Australia where $10,000 is held for two years and refunded in full only if the parent has not claimed any benefits. Interestingly, Australia encourages parents of its residents to migrate when they are younger/healthier to encourage integration and allow them to contribute to the Australian community, whether as childminders, volunteers etc. Written guarantee or ring fenced assets from the sponsor. Income threshold as is in place for spouses. It does not make sense that on an income of 80,000 or so, the government deems it feasible for a British citizen to sponsor a non-EU spouse and 20 of their children, but not one parent. Mandate private healthcare insurance for terminal illnesses to reduce reliance on NHS. Reserve the right of sponsoring parents as that of British citizens only. This is similar to what is in place in USA. Or indeed, those not already in receipt of benefits. Long-term visa, as in Canada. Parents can live with their children for two consecutive years Quota system, limiting number of non-EU citizens each person can sponsor over specified period. Rolling 3-5 year visa so that if the British citizens situation changes and they are no longer able to look after their parents, the visa is not renewed. Non EEA partners Income thresholds to reflect minimum wage and regional differences in incomes and cost of living. Allow for cash and non-cash assets, without excluding the first 16,000 as is the current practice. Take into consideration the sponsor/applicants expenses and debt in assessing funds required. Prioritise cases involving kids. Allow for the potential income of the non-EU spouse. Those with fluctuating incomes should not be penalised by only the month with the lowest income counting towards the income threshold. This especially affects sponsors who are self-employed, and those on maternity or sick leave. Reduce to 12 months (from 30) the period for which the pre-estimate of financial viability is assessed. English language requirements should be such that they allow for the fact that the best place to learn English is the UK, rather than remote parts of the world with little or no access to English classes and English examination centres approved by the Home Office.
Living with your spouse and children is a right, not a privilege. Living in your country of nationality is also a right,
not
privilege.
Page | 8
v28.09
Abhay
My mother was refused a visit visa, and now the Home Office, despite the Judge ruling in favour of granting a settlement visa, continues to refuse my mother entry.
Abhay is a UK resident. He has been living here for years, and since then been diligently working as a higher-rate tax payer, claiming no benefits. Abhay, his wife and child have all satisfied the requirements for British citizenship. However, despite being a net contributor, Abhay is being forced to re-assess his future in the UK, because of his experience with the immigration rules which mean not only has his mother been refused a visa to settle in the UK, but also prevented from visiting them. When Abhay was 12, his father passed away. As the eldest of four children, Abhay was a huge support to his mother, prematurely becoming the man of the house, and his mothers crutch and confidant. As soon as he was old enough, Abhay worked to help provide financially for the family, ensuring his siblings got access to an excellent education and as per Indian culture also paying for his sisters weddings. Abhay shouldered the responsibility of a father and in doing so, there naturally developed a special bond between mother and her eldest child. There is no doubt that his mother is entirely dependent on Abhay. As time passed, and the other kids flew the nest, including one younger sibling also now based in the UK, Abhays mother found herself alone. She has trouble with things that the younger generation takes for granted mobile phones, going out shopping, using an ATM. With two of her children in the UK, including a grandchild, Abhay was keen for his mother to come visit them. There was no intention that his mother would live here. At her age, to adjust to a new life, culture and indeed, British winter, would be very difficult. However, when a visa to visit the UK was refused, Abhay decided to apply for a settlement visa for his mum, as this would allow her to visit as frequently as she wanted for five years, without further visa hassles. To his surprise, UKBA refused the application. This is despite all the evidence showing Abhays mum: lives alone in India. is unable to leave her apartment complex on her own doesnt have any close family to help with everyday tasks; running errands, going to the temple, going to see the doctor. is entirely financially dependent on Abhay is unable to use modern technology like ATMs or mobile phones doesnt have many friends where she lives having lived there for a short time when unwell and in pain, was forced to phone Abhay in the UK who then arranged for a neighbour to take his mum to the hospital
As part of the settlement visa application, Abhays mum was required to travel hundreds of miles for a face to face interview at the UK embassy in Chennai. Luckily, a distant cousin happened to be around at the time and Abhay called in some favours to arrange for his mother to be accompanied Abhay paying for all the necessary travel and accommodation costs of both his mother and the cousin. Little did he know that by being able to arrange this, the Home Office would use this as an excuse to refuse the visa by saying his mother was not alone. That the cousin is distant, and not living in the same city as his mother or even more importantly, that the responsibility for his mothers welfare falls on Abhay, not a distant cousin, seems to have been conveniently ignored.
Page | 9
Non-EEA Parents
v28.09
Indeed, if Abhay hadnt been able to arrange for his mother to be accompanied, the application would have also been refused as Home Office would say that the applicant did not attend the interview as required! The Home Office refused the visa; Abhay appealed and the Judge ruled in favour of the family, citing that there is a close tie beyond those of only an emotional nature between Abhay and his mother, what with Abhay having, to all intents and purposes, provided a roof over not only his mothers head, but the younger siblings as well. The Judge ruled that Abhays mother is entirely dependent on her son and therefore maintained that his mother should be granted a visa to settle in the UK. Unfortunately, despite what should have been a delayed happy ending, the Home Office has appealed and for this family the battle continues. According to the Home Office, the Judge has not taken into account the immigration rules (even though he has). According to the Home Office, the Judge failed to give reasons as to why Abhays mother is dependent on her (even though this is in fact very clearly indicated). However Abhay will fight the battle for the right of a son to look after his mother. For a son to not abandon a mother who raised four children on her own. For the bond to develop between grandchild and grandmother. The result and nature of the battle will determine the future of this family in the UK. Whether we retain the valued skills of Abhay, or lose them to another country willing to afford family rights to its migrants, time will tell.
Page | 10
Non-EEA Parents
v28.09
Alex
The parents issue is the most important thing to me and I will move countries if I have to rather than abandon them but I shouldnt have to leave my home when I can guarantee to look after them with no recourse to public funds.
Alex is a British citizen from Kent, Dartford with Oxford University as his alma mater. A property investor and entrepreneur in the UK for 12 years and financially supporting his parents in Ukraine during this period as well. His parents are both 65 years old, living in rented accommodation in Ukraine because they sold their property with the intention to move to the UK and bring their life savings with them. They have no relatives other than Alex and his wife. They somewhat know the UK, having stayed here for a month or two every couple of years, but travelling is proving more and more difficult with age and its unavoidable symptoms. Alex has worked hard and is earning over 100,000 a year. He is not on benefits (indeed, he wouldn't even qualify). He wishes to have his parents with him here, to enjoy and share his success, after years of hard work and sacrifices made by them all. It's well overdue. His parents would not qualify for benefits in the UK, with a very clear no recourse to public funds stamped in their passport, but Alex is willing to sign a waiver, provide a guarantee and take out private healthcare cover to alleviate any such fears this government might have nonetheless. However under the current immigration rules this is still impossible. Now Alex is not just going to shrug his shoulders and say, "oh well" and think by sending money to Ukraine his responsibilities are fulfilled. No, thats not how he was brought up and its not how he would want his children to treat him. So Alex is considering moving countries. Going to another EEA country for a year or so where he can have his parents with him and then using the Surinder Singh route to return to his home, the UK, with his parents. What is being denied to him by the UK is allowed to him by Europe. With his excellent credentials, he has already had job offers from Frankfurt and Zurich but does not want to leave unless forced to. For him though the parents issue is the most important factor at the moment and one for which he will move if he needs to. The point remains that he should not need to. With him will go his money for a year, the boost so sorely needed by our economy. Yes, Alex intends to return. But he might fall in love with his new home and never do so (supporters of Tory's net migration target with hands up in victory are oblivious to the fact that by encouraging exile of our citizens we are damaging our own future). Even if Alex does return, he won't forget what this government has done, and what the opposition has let them do. People never do forget when its their own family and family life that is threatened. And the saddest thing is - unless there's a change pronto, he won't ever trust the system in UK again, because it will have failed him.
Page | 11
Non-EEA Parents
v28.09
Page | 12
Non-EEA Parents
v28.09
The new rules have set the proof of dependency so high that it is actually impossible to foresee any circumstances whereby a visa would be granted to a parent of a British citizen. Should the sponsor earn a reasonable salary, its deemed they can afford to pay for care in the parents home country; if the sponsor doesnt earn a reasonable salary, they cant prove they can support their parent without recourse to public funds. So with money or without it, elderly parents are blocked from the country. As these rules apply only to UK citizens, within Anastasias circle of friends they are the only ones affected, because both her and husband are British. Even a non-EU citizen living in the UK with their EEA or Swiss spouse or civil partner can bring their family members (children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters and cousins) into the UK so long as their EU partner can show a family member is dependent on them. So, for example, a Russian citizen married to a citizen of France, Germany, Poland, Hungary, etc. can bring their Russian mother to live permanently with them in the UK, but Anastasia and James, as British citizens, are denied that same right, in their own country. To Anastasia, the situation in Britain today is terribly reminiscent of the forced exiles associated with Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. In the 1930s her great grandfathers family were forced off their land, had their property and belongings confiscated by the Bolsheviks, and were exiled to the north of Russia because they were a little bit richer than everybody else in their village. In 21st-century Britain, Anastasia is being penalised because she has a mother who is not British, and thus deprived of the right to live comfortably with her family in the country of which she herself is a citizen. Why? Since coming to this country Anastasia has studied, at her own expense, volunteered with several charities, worked hard and paid taxes; she has never claimed benefits. So, what has she done to deserve this? As parents, Anastasia and James want to stay in their own country and raise their kids to be British, but if they do this, then they are being told by the current government that they must abandon Anastasias mother and that she has to be vegetating before her entry to the UK can even be considered (and even then it would be rejected under the current rules). It is blatantly unfair that families in UK are being forced to make such choices, just because theyre British. Update: Anastasia & James, their twins and Anastasias mum and have moved to Ireland, exercising their EU treaty rights to live together as a family.
Page | 13
Non-EEA Parents
v28.09
Chen
My mother would not be a burden on the state. She has enough financial savings of her own to buy a property and pay for private medical cover in the UK. She just wants to not be alone any more.
Chen is a British citizen. He moved to the UK in 2000 from Beijing as a student. His family supported him by paying for his tuition fees and living expenses for the entirety of his student years. Chen is one of the crme de le crme international students the government is keen to ensure continue coming to the UK after graduating from university, Chen received a job offer which he accepted. After several years of working, paying taxes and NI contributions, Chen became a naturalised British citizen. Chens mother is alone in China. She is retired and wishes to join her son. An accident has left her disabled and unable to walk unhindered. Her ex-husband, Chens stepfather was abusive leading to their divorce. Chens mother has recently decided shed like to no longer be alone and would prefer to live with her son her only child. Chen understands people's concerns on the ever increasing public burden on NHS and other public sector facilities. However, this will not be the case for his family. His mum was a bookkeeper for a large state-owned company in China, with a great salary and fantastic benefits. As she never lived outside her means, she managed to have good savings. She even owns a property outright, without any outstanding mortgage. She's quite happy to sell her place and use the money to buy a property here. She is also more than capable of using her savings to sign up for private health care. She would not be a burden on the society as some people perceive. However, the new immigration rule sets up the criteria that simply nobody would qualify. Chen is frustrated that its because he is a British citizen he is being denied the right to have his mother join him in the country of his nationality. Non-EU elderly immigrants took up a miniscule portion of the total immigration number even under the previous rules and so denying people the right to look after their parents is not going to solve any of the perceived immigration problems either. Its clear to Chen that this is just yet another political manoeuvre that will serve to help no one, least of all Brits and our country.
Page | 14
Non-EEA Parents
v28.09
Ethan
My parents are living in the most appalling conditions, when I could easily provide them with a better life, living with me.
Ethan is a British citizen living in the constituency of Redbridge. He has lived in the UK for over 10 years, never having claimed any benefits. His brother incidentally is also a British citizen. He does however have two loving, if elderly and frail parents in Guyana. His only other sibling is a sister who lives in USA but does not have the means to support their parents. His parents are wholly, including financially, dependent on their two sons sons they worked hard all their life in the hope of their having a better life than their own. Unfortunately, his parents also suffer from ill-health. Ethans dad is diabetic, and his mum has been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis and high cholesterol. She recently suffered a stroke, luckily a mild one. Ethan is saddened that due to work and financial commitments, neither he, nor his brother can spend long periods away from the UK. And so he is being deprived from spending valuable time with his parents, who he is otherwise able to fully support in the UK from his own income..he does not need to claim benefits for himself, nor will he need to with them here. His parents are not alone in Guyana. They are living with Ethans aunt in a one-bedroom property. While his aunt is nice, she isnt able to provide the care for his parents the way he could, would and should. Third party care in Guyana is extremely expensive and anything affordable would deem that without immediate family that is able to keep an eye on things, they won't be treated well. (Often enough we hear of our elderly in homes being mistreated..imagine that a long flight away!) How can you justify to your parents, let alone yourself, why when you are able to look after them in the UK, have them living with you while they still have time, you fob the responsibility for their wellbeing to someone else. Its not just about sending money overseas. Its about being able to sit and talk about your day. Have a laugh together. Hold their hand. Smaller things make the bigger differences.
Page | 15
Non-EEA Parents
v28.09
Fara
My parents need us but all three of their kids are British citizens living in the UK and so we dont qualify to look after them when they need us most.
Fara is a British citizen living here since 2001. Her husband is also British. Her parents are, aged 59 and 69 and living in India. Due to a death in the family, her parents home must be sold (as per the terms of her uncles will who owned their apartment). Her parents dont have enough money to buy their own home, and because of their ages, are unable to obtain a mortgage. They get by, with the pension her dad receives, and help from their three children. Children all of whom are British citizens, yet unable to bring over their parents to live with them, and care for them. There is no financial clause Fara or her siblings can satisfy to show they have the means to look after their parents. The rules just dont allow this, no matter how well off you are; no matter if all your children are British citizens living in the UK. Fara is considering going down the EEA route the only route left open to her. However with two kids under the age of six, one of whom is physically disabled, its not going to be easy. Fara is feeling the weight of the burden of having a child requiring surgery and parents due to become homeless. Three British siblings, British spouses and British kids - being denied the right to look after their parents without recourse to public funds.
Page | 16
Non-EEA Parents
v28.09
Jenny
I just want to be able to look after my parents without recourse to public funds in the same way theyve looked after me and my child.
Jenny from Kingston & Surbiton is a British citizen with South African parents. She works for a very reputable regulator with a secure, stable job. She has also been supporting her parents for several years, which she doesnt have an issue with. After all, shes in a position to do so only because they made sacrifices for her to be where she is. Jenny also now has a child, a British child. As she cannot afford to pay 1000 in childcare every month, on top of her living expenses - rent, bills, while also sending money to her parents, her parents have been visiting her regularly to help with the childcare. This may sound fine and dandy, but it's when you delve further you realise that parental sacrifices don't end even in old age. Jenny's parents take it in turns to visit the UK for 6 months at a time so they can help her with childcare all year round, and so that she can afford to pay their living expenses back in their home country. Jenny could, and will, never turn her back on her parents and stop supporting them as they are, due to unfortunate circumstances, unable to support themselves. So her parents are forced to take it in turns to visit their daughter and grandchild because they can only stay here for 6 months in a year. This raises several issues: 1) The parent who is in South Africa is alone, lonely and miserable for half of their life 2) The parent who is leaving the UK after 6 months has to regularly go through the heart-wrenching process of saying goodbye to their own family, knowing they're going back to an empty existence. 3) Jenny's parents barely see their own spouse because of their own financial obligations deeming dependency on their daughter necessary. 4) UKBA could at any point cease allowing the parent in even for 6 months. At any point. It has happened to other parents, with UKBA denying them entry and saying they need to apply for a settlement visa if they wish to visit their family in the UK regularly. Whether UKBA staff are or are not aware of the rules which make it impossible for any parent of an adult British citizen to qualify for the right to be here, is anyone's guess. Like others in this position, Jenny has considered applying for a settlement visa. She knows it will be rejected, but maybe then she could appeal, or take it to court where rules which make it impossible for anyone to qualify while charging 2000 a pop per application, will be overturned by our judicial system. While this takes time and money, her biggest concern is that by applying for a settlement visa she runs the risk of her parents never ever being allowed back in the UK, because their having expressed the desire to settle here will be interpreted by UKBA as an intention to live here, with a possible slapping of a 10 year ban on even re-applying. It is grossly unfair that Jenny is not able to allow her parents to make their home with her in the UK, without recourse to public funds.
Page | 17
Non-EEA Parents
v28.09
Mahi
We just want to look after our mother and have the means to do so, yet were being told we cant.
Mahi is a permanent resident in the UK. This means she has earned the right to live here for the rest of her life, without any conditions attached. Mahis sister is a British citizen, also living in the UK. They are both married and well settled here. Mahi earns a decent salary, certainly enough to look after her family without recourse to public funds. Their mum is aged 54 and a widow. Two of her daughters Mahi and her sister live in the UK with their husbands and children. Her third daughter lives in USA. Mahis mum is completely alone in India. Yes she is relatively young and no, she doesnt need help being fed, bathed and dressed. She is haunted by a loneliness. As she has always been a housewife, her life revolved around looking after her husband, her children and her home. Her children and grandchildren her family are all overseas. Her husband is no longer alive. She is completely alone. She is lucky though. Mahi has been supporting her financially. Mahi and her sister have had their mum visit them on three occasions now. Mahis mum liked being surrounded by her kids, grandkids...it made her feel younger, more alive, less lonely certainly and less depressed. Mahi and her sister want their mum to live with them permanently. They have the means to ensure she can live here without ever having to fall back on public funds. Yet they are being denied this and understandably bemused. They are not wanting to take their mother away from her home country, to dump her in an old peoples home. They want to look after her themselves, to ensure that they can return the favours that this mother bestowed on themthe favours that have allowed Mahi and her sister to make a better life for themselves, in the UK, providing services that we all benefit from.
Page | 18
Non-EEA Parents
v28.09
Oksana
I am my mothers only child, my children her only grandkids. Yet a government official tells us she cannot even come for a visit.
Oksana is a British citizen who moved to the UK 13 years ago, after meeting her husband, with whom she now has two kids. She lives near Edinburgh, in Scotland. Her mum is 64 years old, and living alone in Russia. Her only child is Oksana. Her only grandchildren are Oksanas two children. This is a family very attached to each other. Oksanas mum has visited the UK in the past, allowing for the much valued bonding between grandparent and grandkids. However, its been over six years since she was last here, as the travelling and visa process have become too difficult. Oksana is a full-time mum. She doesnt work her husband works full time, earning enough to maintain the family and ensure they have no need to claim any benefits.
Oksana, with her mum and kids on holiday in Turkey after her UK family visit visa was refused.
It involves a nine hour flight to Moscow, for the visa application. There is no British visa centre in Oksanas mums home city and the application must be made in person, not by post. She would then need to remain in Moscow for however long it takes for the visa to be issued. In 2013 Oksanas mum applied for a family visit visa. However the visa was refused on the grounds of insufficient documentation of their financial situation. The family is bemused and dismayed. A simple family visit visa has been refused after an onerous process, yet six years ago it was issued in one day. Its heart wrenching when a government official is able to tell you that your close relatives are not even allowed to visit you. The family has decided they would now prefer to apply for a settlement visa to avoid any future visa hassles. This also alleviates issues likely to arise in the future given Oksana will need to be there to look after her mum on a daily basis, and travelling becomes more difficult with the process of ageing. Oksana lives in a large home where her mum would have her own bedroom. Her mums pension from Russia could be transferred to the UK. The family is happy to purchase private health insurance and also sign a guarantee that there will not be any need to access benefits. Her mum speaks decent English and has made lots of friends on her earlier visits, so integration is not a problem either.
Page | 19
Non-EEA Parents
v28.09
Samir
Why is the policy in the UK so inhumane in comparison to even countries like China which promote looking after elderly parents?
Samir is a British citizen who lives here with his wife and son, also British. His parents live alone in India. He is appalled that changes to the immigration rules have led to the effective banning of elderly parents living with their children in the UK, even with no recourse to public funds. Samir and his wife both work and earn a decent salary, paying their fair share of taxes. They own their house and fail to understand why if they are willing to accommodate and look after their elderly parents at their own expense, the government interferes in their family life. His parents are not scroungers, nor will they take someones job. They are not entitled to benefits. They simply want to spend the remaining years with their son, daughter-in-law and their grandson. His son who turned two in July 2013 has been fortunate to spend some time in the company of his grandparents. Samir is keen for this bond to continue and strengthen; to cultivate the strong sense of family values in his son which can only come by what his son will see and experience. When his son sees other children with their grandparents, he asks Samir, where is my granny? Samir has no answer; how do you explain to a child the politics involved in immigration rules designed to drive out British citizens? Samir is having trouble reconciling the policy in the UK now, with that even in communist states like China, where the government actively promotes family bonding, integration and looking after elderly parents to the extent of passing a law to mandate this.2 This is a stark contrast with UK practice, where the government not only is happy with, but promotes elderly to spend old age in solitude. For Samir, if the rules dont change soon, he will be forced to uproot his whole family all British citizens and move to a country where he can fulfil his duty and desire to be there for his parents. He understands this is what the government wants increasing emigration whilst reducing immigration is the only way they will satisfy their net migration target. However it is not right that British citizens are forced out of their own country. That a British child is denied a British education and upbringing. The first year of the rules have already seen professionals leaving the UK, moving to countries which allow elderly parents to join them. Samir believes this trend will continue, as more and more British professionals find themselves impacted by rules preventing looking after those who gave us life. If the concern is a burden on the NHS, a more humane solution is to mandate private healthcare cover. Why did the government not just do that? Samir questions whether it is right to raise his son in a society which prevents elderly dependent parent from living with their children what kind of example will this set for his son?
Page | 20
Non-EEA Parents
v28.09
Sarwat
As a doctor, I spend my life looking after other peoples parents and grandparents, yet Im being told I cant look after my own mother.
Dr Sarwat is a British citizen and a doctor working on a geriatrics ward in an NHS hospital. She looks after old peopleproviding her patients with the best care possible at a time when they need support the most. As she helps other peoples elderly parents and grandparents, the one person she is unable to help is her own mother. The one person she regrets not being able to look after, hold the hand of, have a cup of tea with, support and see on a daily basis, is her own mother living alone in Pakistan. Here is someone who spends her life looking after our aged, and we are denying her the right to look after the one person who gave her life. Dr Sarwat is intelligent. She understands the rules now make it impossible for her to have her mother live with herto have her mother live with her in the UK. She is intelligent. She understands the rules are forcing her to choose between her home country, albeit adopted, and her parent. She is intelligent. She will in all likelihood make the right choice. But at what cost to our country, our people, our patients and our beloved NHS?
Page | 21
Non-EEA Parents
v28.09
Sattar
As a rule, this pack contains stories from the perspective of British citizens or residents, with very few exceptions. This is one of them as it brought home the desperation and the cruelty of rules towards people who especially deserve a level of respect that UKs immigration rules prevent us from providing; people who have raised their children so that we, British citizens, can have a better quality of life.
Sattar is not a British citizen. Neither is his wife. He is however the father of a British citizen Dr Faisal, living in London. The July 2012 rules introduced two conditions which prevent Sattar from continuing to reside in the UK with his wife and son. Sattar and his wife both from Pakistan - have been living in the UK for four years, initially on Sattars work visa. However tragedy struck when their youngest son living overseas died in an accident. It is not in the natural course of things for parents to have to bury their own child and the resulting trauma took its toll on this family. Sattar and his wife were devastated; its something they naturally found hard to come to terms with and experienced psychological issues as a result. Sattar was unable to continue his work as usual, becoming mainly financially dependent on Dr Faisal, living with him in London. Under the previous rules, Sattar would have been able to switch from his work visa to obtaining Leave to Remain under the family route, as parents of a British citizen settled in the UK as soon as he was 65. However, in July 2012 when the rules changed, Sattar was four months short. Four months. And now hes facing a lifetime away from his family. A lifetime living in isolation, away from the son on whom he is dependent; the son on who he has come to rely on more and more because of tragic circumstances which no one could have foreseen. Sattar feels that these immigration rules fail to recognise the relationship between parents and their children...be the children adults themselves. As much as Sattar and his wife need their son, Dr Faisal himself needs the emotional support only his parents can provide. This interdependency is interestingly recognised and appreciated as far away as Australia a country renowned for strict immigration rulesa country where parents of adult citizens and residents are encouraged to come join their family when they are younger, healthier and more able to integrate. Dependency between family members is much more than what is portrayed as a one way matter only. Unsurprisingly, Sattar states that if he or his wife were in such a precarious medical condition as required by the rules, to be already on their death bed, they would have no interest in immigration if it was a matter of just waiting to die. They want to livelive with their son, support each other...all with no recourse to public funds. This is a classic example of the need to recognise that family bonds continue through grandparents, parents, adult children, grandchildren, and between siblings the value of these relationships should not be obscured by portrayal as extended family of less significance. Update: Sattar has now received indefinite leave to remain through the HSMP route. However he and his family are keen to help others who continue to be kept apart from their families because of the adult dependant visa rules.
Page | 22
Non-EEA Parents
v28.09
Shanika
I earn over 100,000 - enough to look after my ageing & ill mum without recourse to public funds. Yet Im told she doesnt qualify. So who does?
Shanika is a British citizen, earning well over 100,000. She doesnt normally show off her income level. But its necessary to point out that she is capable of supporting her mother in the UK; provide the care, attention and love her mother needs, without recourse to public funds. Something she is being told she is not allowed to do. Shanikas mother is 68, living in Sri Lanka. Shanika has dutifully visited her, helping her receive medical attention for her worsening memory loss. Unfortunately, mental health issues are underdiagnosed in Sri Lanka, as they often are in developing countries...things that we take for granted the diagnosis of, are usually put down simply to old age, without any further therapy, treatment or care. Shanika however knew this wasnt normal. She persisted and found a doctor who was willing to conduct a detailed testing. And they discovered that Shanikas mother is likely due to Alzheimers disease, compounded by depression and a silent stroke, confirmed by an MRI scan. Her mother also has a history of high sugar & cholesterol - having had one stroke, shes at a higher risk of another. However, her memory loss means she often forgets to take her medication, increasing the risk of heart failure, increasing the risk of another stroke. She cannot be left alone. She cannot cook as she often forgets that the stove is on. The doctor has recommended she not drive either, as even familiar roads are forgotten. Other cognitive functions are fine, but are expected to deteriorate. Shanikas mother does not live alone. She is not a single parent, nor is she a widow. She lives with her husband. But a husband who is verbally abusive and unsympathetic of her medical conditions or needs. The situation has been escalating over the last 10 years; with both the parents residing in different rooms of a housesomehow feeling lucky if they have managed to avoid each other all day. This isnt easy for Shanika to admitto share with BritCits, our members and our readers. It isnt easy for her to admit that her parents are only together because of cultural and social stigmas preventing them from seeking a divorce. Its no doubt difficult for any child to face, however much of an adult you become. However Shanika is facing it. She is an only child and while she calls her mother on a daily basis, she knows she is alone. She is lonely. She needs Shanika in the same way Shanika needed her years ago. Roles are reversed and Shanika wont turn her back on the person who nurtured, provided, looked after and loved her. Shanika has looked into finding home-help. While its a temporary solution its not ideal. Home help is paid help. Its people coming in to do a job..a job that can only really be done by family, a job that Shanika feels should be done by family. The situation with her parents also means home-help is difficult to find, because of the constant tension between her parents and the fear that outsiders will find out the details of what is an extremely delicate situation. Shanika knows that other than her daily phone call, her mother doesnt get the opportunity to converse or interact with anyone. This lack of stimulation coupled with depression exacerbates her mental deterioration. Shanika is being forced to watch from the sidelines as her mother slowly deteriorates into a semi-vegetative state a mother who she so badly wants to have return to her happy, active and vivacious self
Page | 23
Non-EEA Parents
v28.09
Sonel
I wont let myself be forced out of my own home, nor will I let this government keep my family apart.
BritCit Sonel lives in the Reading West constituency (MP is Alok Sharma, incidentally also a migrant himself with Indian heritage). She was brought up in Australia by two wonderful loving parents who, as parents do, made sacrifices to ensure she had the best in life: great education, wonderful upbringing, holidays to exotic places. Its a clich but she truly wanted for nothing. She however grew up in the UK, going to university here and then even working for Her Majestys Government. She is very grateful to her parents for enabling her this opportunity. Her career has thrived, she owns her own home and most importantly, she has met the most amazing people nearly all British but with a kaleidoscope of cultural backgrounds, from various parts of Europe to the Caribbean, from Asia to the tiny island of Mauritius. Its no coincidence that many are from Commonwealth countries; a legacy left behind by the British Empire. As a second generation Australian she is also a proud first generation Brit indeed, at times she has found herself cheering for England in the Ashes! Australia will always be a part of who she is, but its a part that was chosen for her. UK is her own choice and has been so for over 12 years - a significant portion of her life and certainly all of her adult life. She left Australia during the Olympics there and celebrated with pride the Olympics in her adopted city last yeara reminder of how quickly time flies and that we should celebrate global unity rather than putting up barriers. Because of work pressures, limited annual leave and the long distance, she has not been able to visit Australia, parents and friends very often. Luckily her parents with no other family in Australia have been able to visit her instead, allowing her to continue to pursue a career and pay taxes without shirking on her duties to her parents. However they are getting older and a 24 hour flight is beginning to feel longer and longer. Its a journey they are not able to make as frequently, and she can foresee a time when given the natural symptoms of ageing, they wont be able to make it at all. She is racked by a fear that one of them will fall ill, or worse; that she wont be able to make it to Australia on time. This takes her back to a fairly standard childhood fear of parents dying. She recalls waking up from such a nightmare as a kid and going to their bedroom to make sure they were both still breathing. That nightmare is becoming more prevalent as she sees how theyve aged. Everything is a bit slower, everything takes that much longer. They forget where theyve put things. When they go out, they get tired more quickly, need to rest more often. She wants to be there with and for them. She wants to look after them as they will increasingly need her to. She wants to be able to hold their hand, hug them, laugh with them. She wants to show off her country, get them to love it as much as she doesstand at Lands End taking the touristy photos, gawk at the beautiful houses in Lake Windermere, walk along the white cliffs of Dover picking up French networks on their UK mobile phones..take the train up Mount Snowdon, watch some Shakespeare in Stratford, go punting, wave goodbye to the ships at Southampton..browse the markets in London...discover the hidden gems of this glorious nation. All while they are still able to enjoy and understand it. She loves both, her home and adopted country. But she loves her parents more.
Page | 24
Non-EEA Parents
v28.09
Sonel assumes most parents, like her own, just want to spend their golden years with family. They like the UK but are not particularly enamoured of it; the weather is not ideal for their creaky bones and making a new start is not the adventure it is for someone younger. But theyre willing to do this so that she doesnt have to sacrifice her life, career, home, family, friends in the UK, for them. Parents are part of a very proud and endearingly vulnerable group. This is why even under the previous rules which were fair and easier only in so far as they werent impossible like the current ones, the number of parents joining their children in UK was around 1000 a year. Not a huge number. Parents only consider the UK when living alone in their own country is not feasible. It is not easy to leave all that is familiar and adjust to a new environment, new country. Sonel wants continuity for her parents. They would not be a drain on the system. She can look after them and they would bring their life savings to the UK. Her folks want to be part of a network, not fly half way round the world every few months. They want to be able to commit to a volunteering role, her mum wants to pursue the further education she had to give up because she had Sonel to raise. Older parents are now in a position where they are able to help their community with time, not just money; when they no longer feel the need to pursue business opportunities to provide for the family. Sonel feels it is her responsibility to ensure they can do all this while they are still physically able to, yet without abandoning them to live an isolated life. Yes they could continue to visit her and stay for a longer period..6 months at a time. But this does not allow them to be active in the community, nor does it offer continuity. On a visitor visa you are not allowed to volunteer, work or study. Whats scarier is the knowledge UKBA has indicated regular visits by parents is something they are clamping down on. A friend with a Russian mum was told by UKBA immigration officers at the airport that though they would allow her mum entry at that time, and despite the fact that her 10-year visa allows her to visit UK 6 months every year, if she visits every year she will be denied entry as she should otherwise be applying for a settlement visa. Sonel did look into applying for a settlement visa only to find the route is closed in all but name. She thought about applying anyway, thinking she would appeal and then would follow a lengthy court process which could take years. Time and money aside, the main issue would be that during this process, her parents would not be able to even visit her because they will have clearly expressed a desire to live in the UK, banishing them from future visits for at least 10 years. Its a risk and something she understandably decided not to take. Immigration Minister, Mark Harper rejected Sonels offer of her paying a bond, providing a guarantee and taking out private healthcare cover for her parents who under UKs immigration rules would have had no recourse to public funds in any case. She was willing to sign a waiver - as someone who has never claimed benefits, she was happy to waive her right to claim benefits for the right to have her parents with her. This was not enough for him. So she found the EU route was the only option left given their circumstances. Not an ideal route to family reunification it is costly and inconvenient, and requires her to uproot herself for several months. But as she says, ..better I do so for a short period, than my parents having to do so for the rest of their life, else languish alone. Interestingly, with all its drawbacks, this is a route with nil UKBA application fees; it doesn't require the British citizen nor the applicant to provide a bond or guarantees, continues to allow the applicants full use of NHS (which she had been willing to opt her parents out of) and indeed, even allows applicants to claim benefits in the UK. A spectacular own goal by a government with blinkers on, and an opposition which to date with a few stellar exceptions in some legendary politicians in both House of Lords and House of Commons has been too gutless to stand up for whats right.
Page | 25
Non-EEA Parents
v28.09
Sree
I have paid over 100,000 in taxes and NI contributions in five years. All I want is for my mother to stay with us and have the means to look after her without recourse to public funds.
Sree is a UK permanent resident from Middlesex. Her mother is 67 years old, living alone in India. Whilst her mother has visited Sree in the UK, she is now not able to travel frequently. Although reasonably self-sufficient financially, she does need the emotional care, love and support, which with the onset of age becomes more of a necessity. Sree has sufficient funds to support her mum without recourse to public funds. Shes willing to take out private healthcare insurance, provide a monetary bond and guarantees. As someone who is self-employed, Sree works in the IT department of a major life science company. During her entire life in the UK, Sree has been employed and paid her taxes promptly, never availing of any state benefits. She is a higher-rate tax payer, and in the five years to April 2013, has paid over 100,000 in taxes and National Insurance contributions alone. For Sree, her mother is a vital member of her family unit not extended family. Her mother has seen Sree get married, helped her during the early days of motherhood and throughout. Srees kids have spent a huge amount of time with their grandmother, having been raised by her until they moved to the UK in 2012. The bond between grandmother and grandchildren is very strong. Indeed, Sree admits that to the kids, their grandmother is likely more of a mother than she herself is, as Sree left her kids with her mother when she moved to the UK several years ago, because of the initial visa restrictions. It is cruel to now leave an elderly woman alone in a country once she has fulfilled her purpose to Sree by raising the kids. Sree also has a duty to her mother to look after her and not wrench apart grandchildren from their grandmother. Sree is clear. Her mother actively chose not to remarry since becoming a widow when Sree was 19, to ensure Sree always remained her priority. An incredibly unselfish choice. It is now Srees turn to respond in kind to the sacrifices made. It is not just to leave an elderly member of your family to fend for herself. The natural process of ageing and the stress of being apart from all family has broken her a bit. Srees mum cant manage daily chores by herself. The children are emotionally bonded to her and it is breaking their hearts as well to see someone they love so much suffering alone. Sree is gutted. Her mother has always been there for them. Now they cannot even provide a safe and secure life for her in return. Sree is reconsidering the decision to remain in the UK. She is unhappy and feels guilty at leaving her mother alone. She has paid a huge amount in taxes without every claiming anything in return. All she wants now is for the chance to stay with her mum.
Page | 26
Non-EEA Parents
v28.09
Page | 27
Non-EEA Parents
v28.09
Oleksandras application contained supporting evidence her deceased husbands deteriorating health prevented their travelling back to the UK. However this was completely ignored by the Entry Clearance Manager, despite this being allowed for in the Immigration Directorate Instructions. Svetlana and Alan are now at a loss. They are both using their holiday entitlement for 2013 to stay as long as possible in Ukraine. They never imagined that a visa which was granted in two days in 2008 under the previous government, would now take nearly four weeks only to be given a refusal. Their employers have also granted them limited compassionate leave. However, both have been away from their jobs since 2nd August. Svetlana is an optometrist in a private practice in Bloxwich. Alan is a schoolteacher working in a Stafford school, who should have returned to school on 2nd September. They cannot leave their blind mother/mother in law on her own. It is dangerous and inhumane to do so. However, there is a limit to the amount of time Alan and Svetlana can be away from their jobs as they have a mortgage to pay. Also, Ukraine doesnt let British citizens stay for more than 90 days. They cannot fathom how their government could refuse the right for a blind disabled woman to live with her only remaining family without recourse to public funds! Although the family could appeal, the process will take several months. Oleksandra cannot be left to fend for herself for that length of time. The familys problems are compounded by the fact that Alans parents, in the UK, are both 95 years old, double incontinent, suffering from dementia and heart problems. They also need support from Alan and Svetlana. The family is afraid. They are afraid that Alan may not see both his parents together again, given the uncertainty around when he can return to the UK. They are afraid that by the time any positive decision is reached on Oleksandra there will be no one to bring home.
Page | 28
Non-EEA Parents
v28.09
Tejinder
I am being forced to choose between my wife & kids, and my elderly parents.
Tejinder is a British citizen living in Birmingham with his British wife and two British children. He had arrived in the UK in 2005 to gain international experience in his domain. He grew to like the country, bought a house and naturalised in 2011. Tejinder is one of three children. His younger brother lives in Switzerland, and his parents and sister in India. His sister graduated from Leicester University with an MSc in bio-informatics, before returning to India to look after their parents. Tejinders mum is over 65 years old and his dad 70. He is a retired senior class one officer who used to work for the Indian government. A dad who did all he could for his son. They have visited Tejinder and their grandchildren many times on a family visit visa. However travelling back and forth is not very easy anymore and Tejinders sister cant cope looking after them on her own. So Tejinder sold his house, uprooted his wife and children and moved to India to fulfil his responsibility to look after his parents. However his wife and kids couldnt adjust to life in India. It was just too foreign, too different. So they returned to the UK in 2013 however Tejinder is racked with guilt at having abandoned his parents. However he cannot abandon his wife and kids, or expect them to live in a country that is alien to them. UKs immigration rules have slammed the door shut on Tejinder being able to look after his parents, with no recourse to public funds. This man is at a loss on what to do next and the only option seems to be to go move to another EEA country, exercising the treaty rights afforded to him by the EU for family reunification a right so clearly denied by his own government.
Page | 29
Non-EEA Parents
v28.09
Aaron earns just under the 18,600 mark. Combining his income with that which Kano could earn, they easily satisfy 18,600. But Kanos income cannot be included, thus highlighting a huge oversight in the rules. Not only is 18,600 too high, it does not allow for geographical differences and is much higher than the income criteria required to be excluded from qualifying for welfare benefits. It also shows a complete disregard for the potential value of the spouses income. In practice, both Aaron and Kano would work, each earning a salary that would be taxed and relied upon for their living expenses. Why then is the criterion restricted only to Aarons income? Aaron is being pushed out of his own country, by his own government, for no reason other than that its mission is to achieve a poorly selected and arbitrary net immigration target in the 'tens of thousands'.
Page | 30
v28.09
Page | 31
v28.09
If the immigration officer at port of entry had known this, she would have been refused entry on this basis. This is because apparently she should have applied for a spouse visa rather than a visitor visa; however, at that time, they were genuinely only intending to visit for a family reunion as Andys brother was visiting the UK at that time with his Canadian wife and their newborn daughter. Despite leaving UK within the six months allowed under a visitor visa, by applying as a visitor rather than a spouse, according to Mark Harper, Molly deceived the UK Border Agency, and this alleged deception means that she cannot visit UK for ten years, even though she has proved she is not an 'over-stayer'. David Laws confirmed that Harper's stamp of deception would remain in Mollys file, leaving this poor couple to face the reality that they would remain separated unless and until Andy could find a high paying job. They all miss each other so much and while there appears to be light at the end of the tunnel, with Andy receiving a job offer paying over the threshold (which should in theory qualify him to sponsor Molly six months down the line), it raises location and their children as major issues. So, the family faces further heartbreak over the next six months.
Page | 32
v28.09
The job is in Cornwall, 3 hours away from home in Somerset where the boys are settled in school and playgroup. As his job involves travelling, Andy would need a live-in child-carer. He cant cope with the thought of another person taking the place of his sweetheart and the children's mummy another woman the kids would be looking up to as a mum. Taking everything into account they have decided that the boys should stay with their grandparents temporarily, while Andy is working and until a better solution can be found. Andy will see them as many weekends as possible, but he won't be able to spend the school holidays with them, read them a bedtime story, tuck them into bed or be there to soothe away any nightmares. Andys job began in late October and so, exactly six months later, on his eldest childs sixth birthday, the couple believes they should qualify to begin the application process for a spouse visa. By this time the family will have spent nearly 8 months apart; including Christmas, and all their birthdays. The children have already stopped attempting to speak Chinese and it breaks Andys heart that his kids are losing their heritage and that memories are being created without their mother being a part of them. If Molly was here, theyd be moving to Cornwall together, as a strong happy family, but instead theyre being split up in a scenario reminiscent of Australias Stolen Generation a disastrous episode in that country's history. Have we learnt nothing from past mistakes? Andy is tired and desperately sad, yet somehow finding the energy to stay strong. I miss my wife so much and feel so heartbroken for her having to explain to friends, family, neighbours and colleagues, why she cannot be with her loving husband and sweet little boys. Shes so brave, so patient and trusting that someday well be reunited. Im so very proud of her. Who with a modicum of decency could break up this family? British MPs could and therefore do.
With the 8 hour time difference the boys only get to Skype their mummy at weekends. A clearly demoralised Andy says: Devon (3) now calls us Computer Mummy and Daddy.
Page | 33
v28.09
Anne
Are these the family values the government wants to promote? Keeping parents and children/grandchildren apart , breaking up husbands and wives? Its ridiculous that British people now have fewer rights in Britain than even those from outside the EU...
Anne is the British mother of a British son who, by this governments account, should not have fallen in love, married and had a child with a lovely woman, because she happens to be from the USA. Anne is also the British wife and main carer of a British man who is disabled. Anne recognises that, as she gets older, she will need assistance from her son, for herself and her husband.
Annes daughter-in-law, her son and the grandchild she has never met.
The rules in place mean her son is forced to live apart from his wife and daughter. They also mean that she is not permitted to be with her son and daughter-in-law and is prevented from spending time with her granddaughter. NOTHING is right about this situation. They are a proud, if not rich, family. They missed the wedding of their son to a woman who is now a much loved member of the family. While it was painful missing her sons wedding, the financial and practical constraints of Annes husbands disability meant they couldnt travel. They do, however, expect their son to be able to live in his home country, with his new family. 18,600 is a lot of money for him and Anne, on top of the daily expenses of living and substantial visa application fees (we do not all have parliamentary salaries, generous expense accounts and cushy pensions Anne pays for and travels in standard class). Annes son has been saving money for a spouse visa and paying rent in the UK while also maintaining and paying for accommodation for his wife and child. Babies are expensive, as anyone with a child will tell you. Yet he managed for a long time. Until these rules came in.
Page | 34
v28.09
The stress of being apart from his wife and child is, in itself, difficult; but the impact of the rules, which suggest to him that he may never be with them, were he also to be here for his parents, caused a meltdown, leading to the loss of his job. So, overall, this is now a worse situation for everyone, her son, his wife, their granddaughter, Annes husband, Anne and the entire extended family and community. They now cant even afford to fly to America to see the child unless friends and family help. This family cant help but wonder if these are the family values the UK government wants them to adopt. Meanwhile this whole situation is taking a very bad toll on everyone's health. Anne is now on antidepressants and blood pressure tablets. Their fifteen-year-old daughter is feeling the stress of the situation she can't understand why she can't see her little niece and sister-in-law. Their other daughter has their son living with her as he has now also lost his home, so has no choice but to move in with family. The government needs to realise there are real people affected by these changes, not just government statistics. The rules were already hard to meet in the first place, the fees of hundreds of pounds were already a lot for the majority of mainly working people. Anyone from the EU can move to the UK with their spouse and children without having to satisfy any income criterion. Not only that, but theyre able to bring in their parents, grandparents, in-laws, siblings and cousins. Yet now British people, in their own country, are being torn apart from their families!!! What has this government done to our country and why? Who will look after us as we grow old? Who will look after us when we have breakdowns? And who will answer the questions the next generation asks about why discriminatory and racist policies were allowed to be put in place, policies preventing Anne's son's children getting to know their father and grandparents?
Page | 35
v28.09
Update: The tribunal hearing scheduled for 3rd June 2013 was cancelled at the last minute by UKBA who informed the familys legal representative that they wish to withdraw the original decision for reconsideration. This isnt the end, especially with no timescales provided, but its a step in the right direction.
Page | 36
v28.09
Ben
I hope common sense prevails and my family does not have to be broken up.
Ben is a British citizen from North Wales. He has two British children with his wife from Indonesia. It is his choice of partner which has led to his current predicament. Bens wifes application for a UK settlement visa has been put on hold as they dont meet the current income requirement. This is despite the fact that Ben, as her sponsor, has 40,000 in cash savings and has stated his intention to secure employment upon return to the UK. Ben has spent the last nine years teaching English in Indonesia, promoting the virtues of the UK and British society, including our laws, customs, diversity and sense of decency and fair play. Now that he wishes to return to his homeland to spend more time with his parents, and for his own British children, he is faced with an unenviable decision. His Indonesian working visa is due to end, following which he will have to return to the UK. His eldest child, a daughter aged six, will have to return with him as she is already enrolled in a local primary school. His wife whose visa application is on hold due to the legal case and appeal currently in the High Court will not be able to join them. His youngest child, a son aged two, will stay with his mother. Therefore not only will husband and wife be separated also brother and sister, mother and daughter, father and son. Ben started part-time work at the age of 13 and since starting full time employment in 1995 he has never received or requested any help from the state in regards to unemployment or housing benefit. He has always paid his own way without recourse to public funds. He left the UK in 2005 to teach in Indonesia, a country he knew very little about and didnt know the language. In the eight years there, he has risen from the position of Teacher to Head Teacher and then to Director of Studies in a busy and successful private language school. He fell in love and got married, to be blessed with two lovely children. He has always supported his wife and kids without any help from the government. He has no intention to now seek unemployment or housing benefit upon return to the UK as this goes against the ethos he was brought up with as a child, that one must work hard and pay ones own way in life. He is willing to sign a document waiving his right to claim benefits if this would placate the Home Office and enable his family to be united. He is bemused. Surely, someone who can make a successful life in a foreign country requiring the learning of customs and language from scratch, would be able to replicate that in his home country where he is familiar with all and has support from family? Indeed, his parents live in a property which is fully paid for and is willing for Ben and his family to live there for as long as they need to.
Page | 37
v28.09
Page | 38
v28.09
these new rules, be required to work for six months before he could even apply for his wife to join him (adding another six months or so for the application process). This requirement that a 2 year-old boy be separated from his mother or father for a year or more, is completely devoid of heart or reason. So now Colin is left with a stark choice his 80 year-old mother or his 2 year-old son and wife. As a British citizen, he has been put in this position by the British government, and finds himself alternating between despair and fury. These feelings are intensified when Colin compares his situation with that of his younger brother, who in 2011 married a Polish woman and in 2012 became the proud father of twin girls. Colins brother, sister-in-law and nieces are able to live together in Bala as a family under the EUs freedom of movement laws. No visas required, no minimum income or savings needed, no forced separation demanded. In the past 12 months his sister-in-laws brother and wife have also migrated from Poland to live and work in Bala. Colin is clear. He by no means objects to their freedom to move there but as a British Citizen who cannot even bring his wife to the UK, the knowledge that EU nationals can come and go at will, and seem to have more right to a family life in the UK than he does, finds the British governments treatment of British citizens a very bitter pill to swallow. Everything about these rules is wrong that theyre designed purely to reduce numbers to an arbitrary election promise and thus damning families seems to be ignored. The barring of third-party sponsors is particularly infuriating, what with Colins brother willing and able to help them out. Colin and XXX keep going by in their more fanciful moments, talking about writing their story as an epic tale of emigration, spanning a century (her great grandfather left Bala in 1907), an ocean and a continent, and coming full circle with the original emigrant's great-great-grandson returning to and settling in the town he left 100 years earlier. They find it helps, in the face of the indifference, arrogance and hypocrisy of the Home Secretary, to cling to dreams of romance, love and destiny, in the hope that they will eventually triumph. Sometimes it feels like they're all they have left.
Page | 39
v28.09
Page | 40
v28.09
Douglas
My wife and children are in Nigeria, denied entry because I am self-employed. The requirements are so onerous I am in constant battle with UKBA.
Douglas is a British citizen living in Kent. He was brought up in England and has worked and paid taxes for the last thirty years. His time now is being spent battling UKBA to obtain a visa for his wife and two children, currently residing in Lagos, Nigeria. In his sons first two months, Douglas has only seen him for 10 days. The application process for Douglass family is even more complex because of UKBAs requirements for those who are self-employed, which is the case for Douglas, even though his wife has passed the language test and satisfied UKBA that their relationship is genuine. Items which Douglas has been allowed to deduct for tax purposes for his income, have been excluded from the income allowed towards the income threshold of 18,600 Douglas regrets missing out so much on his newborn sons life: I will never be able to get these moments back, such as missing his first smile. This separation affects the wider family, not just Douglas. His parents are elderly and therefore incapable of making the journey to Lagos so they are yet to meet their new grandson. Valuable savings are also being spent on travelling to Nigeria to spend time with his family..so Douglas is suffering from a financial strain as well. Having family overseas also means he is working less, because he has to take time off to go see them..which means his income and savings situation become more dire. Its a downwards spiral he has found himself in, made all the more worse by Douglas having to support another household in Nigeria as his wife cannot work with a newborn and an infant child, Nigerian visa fees and private healthcare cover for his wife and kids. Douglas is being forced to support two households rather than the one, if his wife and children were allowed to be with him in the UK. Douglas is roughing it himself to make ends meet, renting out the bedrooms in his home and sleeping on the sofa bed in the living room. If Douglas were allowed to have his family here, he wouldnt need to live like this, hed have his family with him and his income would be spent in the UK, thereby making a greater contribution to the economy. The Entry Clearance Officer denied his wife entry into the, stating that there was nothing stopping Douglas from living and working in Lagos. However the officer neglected to consider Douglas's situation, as he also has a son from a previous marriage, which means he cannot relocate to another country else it would mean abandoning his first born.
Page | 41
v28.09
Page | 42
v28.09
Eric works as a Head Chef. When he applied for a settlement visa for his wife and two children, both born in Kenya, he earned 23,124. With overtime and bonuses included, he earned 24,000. The visa was still however refused because this is 800 short of the 24,800 needed to sponsor a spouse and two children. Despite Eric not claiming benefits indeed, by the governments own account, earns so much he is disqualified from claiming benefits, this family is told they cant be together because of 800. A married couple with two children. A father who has not even seen or held his son. A father who knows his son through Skype. A father not able to be there for his wife and daughter either. Eric has tried living in Kenya. However he was unable to find a suitable job. With a family to support, they decided it made financial sense for Eric to return to the UK, his home and have his family move here. But because of 800 they are not allowed to be together. The family made a video of their plight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KrMqtuvcck
Page | 43
v28.09
Page | 44
v28.09
The refusal letter also stated Nate should be removed from the UK and returned to the USA. There doesnt appear to be any consideration to the best interest of the child the British child. The family has filed an appeal with the First Tier Tribunal and are awaiting a decision on whether their appeal will be allowed. .
Page | 45
v28.09
Page | 46
v28.09
She cried and cried; thinking about England night after night. Manuel would simply tell her that one day shell be able to come home again. The stress caused further health problems, with Hayley suffering from chronic gastritis and IBS. The doctors recommended she relax and return home where it would be safer. Hayley ignored the medical advice - she did not want to leave Manuel. In May 2013, the couple got married not only making them feel like the happiest couple on earth, but providing Byron with his wish to have a daddy who would love and raise him. Hayley feels every day that she and Byron are lucky to have found such a wonderful man. When Manuel however was posted in an even more dangerous part of Colombia, they agreed it would be safer for Hayley and Byron to return home. Hayley has since been in London seeking employment paying over 18,600. She is spending a lot of money on babysitters just so she can attend interviews. She has given up on her dream of going to university. She is heartbroken and at a loss as to what to tell Byron when he asks why his daddy is not with them. How can she explain to a 4-year old that mummy doesnt earn enough for the government to let daddy in. Manuel is a good hardworking man. He isnt a criminal nor someone who will sponge off the system or other people. He is willing to leave his home and career to ensure a better life for his wife and stepson. Manuel is now not only Hayleys husband, he is also Byrons daddy.
Out of the first four months of their marriage, they have only been able to live together for one. Hayley feels that she hasnt even had the chance to yet learn what it feels like to be a wife. She feels betrayed and cheated by her own government. How is it they expect her to find a job paying 18,600 while having a child to look after, being forced once again into single parenthood? She needs time to heal and excessive stress is more likely to play havoc with her health. Hayley is determined to help other people and has written a book about her experience. She hopes to prevent teenage pregnancies and raise awareness of rape and domestic violence. She is now an author having self-published her first book through Kindle, Lead towards the unknown. She has dreams and is prepared to give the UK her all. In return she hopes the UK would just allow her to live with her husband.
Page | 47
v28.09
Page | 48
v28.09
The difference of course, is her son and her dad. The education, upbringing, culture she wants her nearly two year old son to have. He is a British child who deserves to grow up in Britain. Her dad is 66 years old and not in good health. Jade also needs to be here for him. The spouse visa application took six months since the date of submitting it, until the final decision came through during which time the new rules had come into force requiring Jade as a young mum forced into becoming a single parent to earn over 18,600. Jade is clear that its impossible for her to earn this amount as a single parent. It screams of rules where only a child with highearning parents is allowed a two-parent family. She is also clear that the Home Office is just worried about statistics and therefore are trying to force British citizens to leave. Jade is currently juggling two jobs; yet she is unable to earn 18,600 while also being a single parent. Non-EEA nationals have NO RECOURSE TO PUBLIC FUNDS, so how is it that her partner will be a drain on the system? Indeed, if Merouane were able to join Jade, it would actually mean Jade was less reliant on other taxpayers. He would help ease the burden of parenthood; the juggling of two jobs, childcare, managing household duties, as well as caring for her dad. If Jade had her husband by her side, they could work in shifts to ensure someone was always around for their son and her dad. Its clear to her theyd be much better off as a team, bringing in two incomes. In the meantime, her son is missing out on his dad; she is missing out on having the support of her husband and her husband is missing out on everything. Jade will not give up. She refuses to rollover and leave her home country...make her son leave his home..make her dad leave his home or abandon him. Its clear to her the fight is not to just be with a family member, but to ensure children have access to two parents; that our parents have us to look after us when they need us most, in their old age. Jade will keep fighting until her family is all together again.
Page | 49
v28.09
Page | 50
v28.09
Juliet
I am keen for my small family to be near my parents, to gain recognition of our family as a legal unit and be around to look after my parents as they get older.
Juliet, a British citizen and a qualified teacher, lives in Thailand. She is hoping to sponsor her civil partner, a qualified chef, to return to live in the UK with her and their twins. The couple, who met in 2009, planned to live with Juliets parents in West Sussex, but are unlikely to be able to secure work in the area prior to arriving in the UK. Her familys local MP is Peter Bottomley. We had the most amazing year finally, success in our attempt to become pregnant and our wedding in Hanoi, Vietnam. We had no idea about the new visa rules because wed been tied up starting our new life together and supporting Great Britain in the Olympics. We never planned to raise this family in Bangkok we were conscious that we could not be a legal and protected family here. After a year of trying to get pregnant, once it actually happened I felt very strongly that I wanted the twins to bond closely with my own parents. We discovered the
Juliet and her partner, with their newborn twins
impact of the new rules and felt like wed been hit in the face with a sledgehammer. Absolutely devastating. Juliet feels people including politicians simply dont understand the implications of these new rules. She realises she is one of the lucky BritCits, in the sense that she is currently living with her spouse and employed abroad; but, despite her earning over the 18,600 threshold, it is unlikely they will be able to move to the UK as planned. This is especially problematic for them because, as a same-sex couple, they cannot stay together indefinitely in Thailand where their civil partnership is not recognised; with kids in the picture this is especially important UK law allows for Juliets partner to register legally as the second parent of their children at birth, but not to live where these laws apply! For ex-pats, returning from abroad is a period of great adjustment and the arrangements can be time-consuming. Juliet was aware that, under the previous rules, she could return to the UK and allow herself some time to adjust to family life. Juliet and her partner would have been able to look for work with her parents offering support in the form of childcare and living costs. They would have been able to demonstrate no need to access public funds as the couple have modest savings of their own and a property in the UK. Juliets parents were more than happy to provide third party support if required and were delighted Juliet wanted to raise her children close by. They will also need Juliet close by to look after them, as they get older. All these plans were thrown out the window, however, with the changes on 9 July 2012. The new rules require a job offer to be signed and sealed in the UK before allowing a successful spouse visa application. As a primary school teacher with 9 years experience, in theory this poses no problem and just a slight change in the couples approach. But getting a job offer as a teacher from abroad is not easy most schools will require lesson observations as part of the interview and give preference to those applying from within the UK. If Juliet wants to move to the UK with her family, her options are now: a) Find a teaching job in advance, not easy; b) Move with their children and look for a teaching job, facing at least six months apart from her partner during the twins formative years; c) Stump up 62,500 in cash and demonstrate she wouldnt need access to it over the next few years.
Page | 51
v28.09
In the case of (a) or (b) this would mean a probable move to London, without support from her family; (b) would mean being a single parent trying to meet the 18,600 income criterion while looking after two children. London makes proving secure accommodation problematic. Are the couple expected to take out a rental contract on a London property they have never seen while they await the visa result, throwing money down the drain? Would they be penalised for applying while using the homes of friends with a spare room, or a couch for Juliet to sleep on, while she is job hunting? The 1985 Overcrowding Act states that living rooms DO count as bedrooms, but the rules qualification of for their exclusive use may rule this out. Another example of the measures put in place for no reason other than to present an obstacle and prevent decent hardworking Brits from exercising their right to live in their own country. In London, Juliet would also lose the family support she moved home for and her parents would lose the support they will increasingly need from her. Additionally, she would have to spend half her salary on expenses such as childcare. In this case, she would qualify for working tax credits benefits she would not be in need of if she were just allowed to be here with her partner!! How is breaking this family apart better for the British economy? As Juliets brother is in the same position working in Tanzania, with a Tanzanian partner the future is quite grim for Juliet parents, both British, both getting old, and both alone in the UK. For now, they can handle the long-haul flights to Asia and Africa, but this will become an increasing burden. They are being denied the right to see their grandchildren and being denied to have, in their old age, their own children around them. Juliets parents were tax-paying public sector workers throughout the whole of their working lives, until retirement. Why should they too be denied such basic rights by our politicians, who are being paid to look out for British people's interests? Juliet has been employed without a break since she qualified as a teacher in 2004, is a graduate with not one but two postgraduate qualifications, and worked in UK state schools for five years. Like many others, she is now being prevented from returning to her home just because she fell in love with a foreigner. Juliets partner is also a graduate and has also been gainfully employed or managing her own business for ten years without a break. Juliet says that if the rule changes had come with fair warning, discussion and publicity, she could have planned her life around them. She never imagined when she left on a two-year work contract in 2009 that she would be prevented from returning to her own country. The very core of fairness for all applications has been removed: assessment on a case-by-case basis of couples demonstration that they wont need state help. Whatever the government says, peoples whole circumstances demand proper consideration. By their very definition, the new Fixed Requirements are utterly unfair. Juliet suspects removing the use of discretion and assessment of individual cases results in a reduction in processing times, thus giving the impression of improved efficiency. Better for Britain? Better for MPs' propaganda! Tearing apart families causes untold suffering at the most personal level, and the welfare of innocent children should be properly prioritised. For children, the security and love of their family is of vital importance and destroying or interrupting them can cause irreparable damage. The Conservatives said this themselves in their pro-family pre-election spiel but is it a qualified importance that can be disregarded on the most arbitrary technicality? What hypocrisy! What damage they will do! This isnt a couple coming to the UK to sponge off benefits. This is a couple coming to the UK to give their kids British kids a better life, and to provide support and care for ageing British parents, to allow kids to bond with their grandparents. They are not asking for anything more than British citizens have a basic right to already.
Page | 52
v28.09
Page | 53
v28.09
Kelly
All I have left is the hope that, one day, these rules will be made fairer, so I have a chance at the family life we so desperately want.
Kelly is a 27-year-old British woman married to an Egyptian man, with whom she has a son (British). They met in December 2009 while she was holidaying in Egypt, following which she spent a year travelling to Egypt for weeks at a time to see, meet and spend time with his family. They married in October 2010 and have just celebrated their second wedding anniversary albeit, sadly, not together. After they got married, they lived in Egypt, but it was a huge culture shock for Kelly; despite her numerous visits there is a big difference between visiting and living there. While they tried their best to make it a home for her, she just couldnt fit in with the lifestyle and the culture there. Soon after moving to Egypt she fell pregnant; although she was extremely happy and excited about becoming a mum for the first time, she couldnt enjoy the pregnancy as she would have liked. Thus Kelly and her husband decided she would go back to England to have the baby and her husband applied for a visit visa to be there for the birth. Unfortunately the visa was refused. At that point Kelly decided to stay in Egypt for the birth, as she wanted her husband with her for the birth of their first child. But in her seventh month of pregnancy she developed DVT and was hospitalised in Egypt. For reasons of safety, Kelly and her husband decided it would be better if she went to the UK, without him, for the birth to ensure she received proper treatment in case there were any further complications. Their son is now three and half months old and has yet to meet his father. It's a very hard situation to be in, knowing that not only is her husband missing out on their sons life, but that their son is missing out on getting to know his father. Kelly would like to be reunited with her husband but is undergoing medical treatment and is cautious about raising her son in a place that she hasnt been able to adjust to herself. Under the current immigration rules though, shes finding it impossible to envisage a situation where she, her husband and their baby could live together. For her, a salary of 18,600 for her might as well be 186,000 it is so difficult to attain. Its sad this family is torn apart because our government puts a price on being a family and Kelly dared to fall in love with someone from outside the EU; so now she is being forced either to live as a single mother, without her husband, or to move to Egypt where she doesnt want to live, despite the fact that both Kelly and her son are British and thus, effectively, being kicked out of their own home and their own country. Kelly spends all day thinking of ways of being the happy family she always wanted to have, but options are running thin. All she has left is hope that one day the rules will be made fairer, so shell have a chance at the family life she so desperately wants and should have the right to. Update: Kellys husband received a visit visa in December 2012 after winning the appeal, returning to Egypt in May 2013 as per his visa conditions. Kelly and their son went to Egypt in June to see the family there in June. While it was great at the beginning, because of the political situation, they are now stuck in an apartment, which given Kellys history of DVT is not healthy. Kelly intends to return to the UK and find work paying over the threshold, which wont be easy being forced into single parenthood.
Page | 54
v28.09
Kevin
I havent seen my wife and son in nearly a year and my family in Britain hasnt met or held my son.
Kevin is a British citizen who met his wife while travelling and they have been together for five years, though they were in no hurry to move to the UK. After being made redundant by his insurance-company employer, they decided to live in Asia for a couple of years. While in Hong Kong, they were blessed with a beautiful son. As Kevin does not have a degree, finding a suitable job in Asia proved to be near impossible, but with a child to look after it was imperative that Kevin have a good job and provide for his family. So Kevin decided to return to the UK and six months later he obtained a permanent job with a basic salary of 16,000. Two months into this job, however, the government brought in the minimum threshold, meaning that his target earnings would keep him way below the threshold. With bonuses the 18,600 may be achievable, but given the volatile nature of sales, there might be the odd month where he cannot maintain the annual average required, which means that his wifes visa application would be rejected. Kevin has been living apart from his wife and near-one-year-old son for almost a year. He has already missed his sons first Christmas; he will miss his first birthday, and he will only see his sons first steps on Skype, rather than in person. Kevin is close to a nervous breakdown; whenever he sees a family together with a toddler his heart sinks and he is unable to put aside everything he is missing out on. Kevins wifes family think Kevin has chosen to leave his wife and son in their home country rather than bring her to the UK. This has brought shame on his wife's family as well as embarrassment. Kevins immediate British family have neither met nor held his son. His son does not know his British family. The new rules are a prison sentence for Kevin and his family. Even if Kevin were to find a job paying 18,600, the visa process requires that he wait six months before applying for a spouse visa. This is far too long, especially when you have been living apart for a year already. This Tory government is demonstrating how out of touch it is with the people of Britain today. For the sake of everybodys sanity, welfare, physical and mental health, these rules must be scrapped sooner rather than later.
Page | 55
v28.09
However when Scott applied for a visit visa in 2010, he was refused as he didnt have a job in the US. The couple went into battle against the Home Office in the appeals court and won a 2-week visit. When Scott applied for a visit visa again a year or so later, he was once again refused, so Leighsa and Alex have not seen Scott for over a year. Leighsa is working. But she doesnt earn anywhere near 18,600. She does however earn enough to support her husband. However the immigration rules take no consideration of that. Leighsa and Scott dont have the money to fight the Home Office yet again. Alex needs to see his dad, his dad needs to see his son. A son who is 11 years old and in need of his father. A son who is going to start at a new school, on the verge of his teenage years when a fathers mere presence, let alone support, can make so much difference. Leighsa and Scott are both experiencing issues by the enforced separation. Leighsa suffers from anxiety for which she is seeking medical help and little Alex is just depressed and crying a lot. This is yet another family resorting to Skype to ensure parent-child are able to see each other, but its a route which doesnt allow for hugs and kisses...the daily support. Maintaining a marriage with 3500 miles is also not a picnic. Being a single mother, especially when its not out of choice, is stressful. Scott is a qualified computer technician - his earning capacity is huge. Leighsa is in university hoping to extend her own earning capabilities also this is a family that does NOT want public funds. All they want is a chance to be a family, to raise their son in his country of nationality UK - and do the right thing by him.
Page | 56
v28.09
Page | 57
v28.09
The couple on their last day together, their daughters 1st birthday in February 2012.
They submitted Alexanders application in November 2012 and thennothing. No emails, no calls, no news. In February 2013, Lizzie and her daughter returned to the UK expecting Alexander would follow not long after. However, in March 2013, Lizzie complained about the delay to WorldBridge. The response received further to the complaint was a refusal. The couple has been apart for several months already. Father and daughter have been apart for the same length of time. The family is missing out on sharing precious moments..precious first moments. Stolen moments that will never return. What makes the situation worse is that Lizzies income in Chile combined with her cash savings in the UK, this family actually meets UKBAs financial requirement. Yet UKBA was able to manufacture a reason to refuse the couple, stating Lizzie had not continued employment for the six month period prior to the application since her income was from maternity payments i.e. that maternity pay was not evidence of continuous employment. This is despite Lizzie having sent a certificate signed by her employer in Chile stating her continued employment.
Page | 58
v28.09
UKBA said Lizzie had not shown evidence of her savings. This despite her having submitted bank statements, although she admits they were a few months older an ISA which only sends out statements on an annual basis and premium bond statements which were first sent to Lizzies parents home and then sent across to Chile. But the money was there and she did the best she could to obtain evidence of her UK savings UK from Chile, while also juggling recent motherhood. Lizzie is furious that rules which clearly discriminate against women are in placerules which systematically penalise women, for having kids, for adopting the traditional role of homemaker, for sacrificing their career to care for their family...for being women who historically and statistically are paid less than men. Legal advice obtained has indicated that Alexander will not even qualify for a visitors visa now as he has displayed an intent to live in the UK. So the only way for this family to see each other again is for Lizzie to travel to Ecuador, on a 15+ hour flight with one year old. She cannot remain there as she is employed in the UK she wants to ensure she does not jeopardise her income levels here lest she lose her appeal. So she is juggling childcare and employment. Yet Lizzie believes the real victim of these unfair rules rules which should be illegal is her daughter. The Geneva Convention was created to protect families from exactly this sort of abuse. Her daughter only sees her daddy through Skype for an hour each day and her mother is constantly stressed, tired and struggling. This is not how their little family was. They were so happy. Lizzie never thought this would happen to her. She never dreamed a British system could get things so badly wrong. Her faith in British democracy and justice has been misplaced; her family torn apart just so politicians can say theyre being "tough on immigration" whatever the cost. She is upset that families of British citizens are being used as scapegoats for a bemusing political agenda. Shes hurt that her country has let her down. She is angry that there is no one who is going to be held accountable for the misery caused. With a further 3-9 months separation Lizzie is having difficulty focusing on the light at the end of the tunnel. She is desperate for the rules to change to change now, not after the next election.
Page | 59
v28.09
Lorraine
My daughter cant leave the country and her husband cant remain here. What about their innocent son. Why should a British child be forced to live without a parent?
Lorraine is a British citizen. She is also a mother to a British citizen, Emma, and a grandmother to a British citizen, Aymane. Her son-in-law, Driss, happens to be Moroccan. And herein lies the source of the battle this family has been waging with UKBA for months now. Emma met Driss and as has been happening since the beginning of time, this young couple fell in love. They got married and several months later Lorraine received the wonderful news she was to be a grandma. Lorraine and her husband visited Emma and Driss in Morocco. They were horrified to see their daughter living with no electricity or running water; sleeping on a floor. Certainly no place for Emma to be in during her pregnancy. For various reasons, Lorraines daughter returned to the UK to give birth, assured shed be looked after by her mum through the rest of the pregnancy. While the entire family was delighted, they were more so when Driss received a visit visa to be with Emma for the birth of their first child Lorraines gorgeous little grandson was born in September 2012, and Lorraine doesnt have the words to explain how much she loves and cherishes him. He is her world and shed go to the end of it for him. While it was never Emmas intention to remain in the UK, shortly after giving birth she became disabled diagnosed with severe arthritis. Much of Lorraines time is spent with Emma - helping and supporting her. It is not possible for Emma to return to living in basics with her health as is without her mum to help her. Emma is currently having chemotherapy to suppress her immune system attacking her joints. She therefore needs full time care which she receives from her husband, and Lorraine when she isnt working. Emma is unable to leave the country. And UKBA have told Driss he isnt allowed to remain in the country. Surely everyone is entitled to a family life, Lorraine asks why should her grandson be left without a daddy ? Lorraines daughter and son-in-law have appealed for him to stay in the UK; the fate of this family is currently in the hands of UKBA. It is impossible for Emma to earn 18,600. Lorraine would always support her daughter, son-in-law and grandson financially. There is no reason this family would be a burden on the taxpayer...if only the government would let them remain a family
Page | 60
v28.09
Page | 61
v28.09
Neil regards all these reasons baseless on the following grounds: a) According to UKBAs own website, Neil and Emilys marriage is valid in UK: In most cases a marriage certificate will provide satisfactory evidence that a marriage has taken place. Neil and Emilys marriage meets all the requirements for a legal marriage in UAE; with Emilys application they submitted a marriage certificate which was verified, approved, and stamped by the British Embassy. UKBA has not yet returned this certificate. b) Neil has a birth certificate for Lucy, in English and Arabic; they had notified the Consulate General at the British Embassy in Dubai of Lucys birth. Lucy also has her own British passport. While Neil did not submit this information with his wifes application, UKBA should have been able to locate this information given it had already been submitted to representatives of its own government. Or failing that, ask Neil for this information! On c) Neil is perplexed as according to the information available on UKBAs website, they should have been able to switch categories of visas. Its not surprising that this family fees that UKBA is just finding reasons to punish them. Indeed, even Citizens Advice Bureau has struggled to understand this third point of contention. UKBA has indicated they plan to remove Emily wife from UK and send her back to the Philippines if they do not appeal against this unfair decision. They have also told this family that should the appeal fail, Emily will not be able to return to the UK for another 10 years. Emily is the wife and mother of British citizens, who are now left at a loss, overcome with the fear that by appealing an unfair decision they could lose and thus be faced with a 10 year ban, or accept an unfair decision and not be able to live in the UK! Neil must either accept that the family will be broken up by UKBA or their family unit will be forced to leave UK in order to stay together. All this family wants is for the nightmare to end. Neil and Emily are British citizens, and they should be treated as such. Their family and their values should also be respected and cherished - not dismissed. Neils story has also been covered in the local media http://www.lep.co.uk/community/shock-as-filipino-wife-faces-being-thrown-out-of-britain-1-5505434 Its a sad day when two British citizens are made more welcome in the Middle East than the UK, just because their mother and wife is Filipino.
Page | 62
v28.09
Page | 63
v28.09
Their plan has always been to return to England to raise their family and after many hard knocks in the US, they opted to fast track the plan and move to the UK in March 2013. Little did this family know that since last looking at the immigration requirements, things had taken a turn for the worse. Courtney is amazed our rules are more stringent and imposing than in America, which despite being a process rife with red tape, welcomed Nick, granting granted him permanent residency. Nick never imagined the hurdles the family would have to go through to allow him to live in his home country with his family. This couple had thought they had shared their last goodbye once they got engaged in 2006. On the day they said their, I dos, it never occurred to them that theyd be going through the same thing six years later...let alone putting their son and families through the same emotional ordeal. The family has been apart since May 2013. Its difficult enough being away from your best friend and partner but to have their child without his father is just indescribably cruel and difficult to explain to a child. The whole family has been ripped apart and what should have been a fun summer running after their little boy together has become misery. With the couple missing celebrating together their six year wedding anniversary and Elliotts 3rd birthday, the family is growing desperate to find a way to reunite. Nick is yet to find a job paying over the magical 18,600. However even once he does, its a wait of over six months while he collects pay slips, and then the application processing period which can take several months in itself at the most optimistic. Nick and Courtney have good days and bad days; as the time passes though, their patience is running out and so are their options. The family is considering exercising the treaty rights afforded to them by the EU in order to be a family a right denied to them by our own government. They are still keen on making England their home; being close to Nicks family and allowing Elliott the opportunity to learn about his culture and bond with his family...but theyre also finding it hard to rationalise staying and paying taxes in a country that so clearly does not want them. To say that this couple was blindsided by these new requirements is an understatement. There have been a lot of tears, anger, and resentment but in adversity the couple is also getting stronger, especially through the support network they have come across with others similarly affected by clearly unfair immigration rules. This is a real family with the right to live as such. They have faith that with love in their hearts and fight in their gut, they will triumph over a ludicrous government policy. For now the family takes each day as it comes in the hope that something will materialise allowing mum, dad and Elliott to be all together again. Nick, Courtney and Elliots story http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFxCcrBcWmU is also in video form:
Update: The family will be relocating to Ireland and exercising their treaty rights in September 2013, in order to be together once more. Rights which denied to them by the UK government are afforded to them by the EU.
Page | 64
v28.09
Page | 65
v28.09
Nicola and Tarik are ecstatically happy to be expecting their daughter. They got married in September 2012 with all her family travelling to Turkey from Scotland. It was a wonderful time, despite the stress of knowing they would continue to be apart. They decided as a family to live in the UK to save any upheaval to MJ's life and education. Nicola continues to try and build her business while being a single parent to her son. They were hoping Tarik could join them for the baby scan and return in April for the birth. However, the family visit visa was refused. UKBA said they did not believe Tariks bank statement was accurate. They also did not believe that Tarik would leave the UK. It was also noted that as Tarik had the previous refusal under 320(7B), any future applications would also be automatically refused for the same reason. Nicola is bemused. She has planned her daughter to receive her first immunisation and then taking her to Turkey to meet her grandparents. She doesnt understand how UKBA can make their own judgement and assume what their intentions are. Which brings us to where we are now. Nicolas pregnancy is tainted with stress. She will need to take maternity leave, she will need to find someone to replace her to run the business while she is not working and she needs to be a single mum to her son. With her husband by her side, the burden would be shared and halved. Tarik and MJ have built a great bond even through the distance. MJ has been asking since the wedding, "when is Tarik coming?" "Can we put the Christmas tree up as a family this year" (last year they flew to Turkey on Christmas day). After the visit visa was refused telling MJ was heartbreaking. The ten year old was crying and sobbing, and not understanding why he could not be with his step dad, like the other kids at school. MJ rubs Nicolas tummy telling his baby sister that it will all be ok when she comes. A ten year old child should not have to experience this worry and confusion. Just as he has found this family life he so desires, his step dad is not allowed to be part of his daily life. He was let down by his biological father, now when they both have a wonderful man in their lives, who wants to take care of them, they are denied the right to that family life by the UK government. Update: Nicola is due to give birth to her daughter without her husband by her side in April 2013. Nicola and her kids plan to visit Tarik in Turkey in June 2013 and allow Tariks parents to spend time with their newest grandchild. Nicola and Tarik will then relocate to Ireland with their children. While Nicola is finding the idea of moving to a new country with two kids daunting, as she says ..but its a way to live a family life together.
Page | 66
v28.09
Page | 67
v28.09
Sarah
As a result he missed the birth of his first-born child.
Sarah is a British citizen from Bradford. Sarah met her husband in the UK, and they lived together as a family in England for 18 months before his visa expired. They should qualify for the right to live together under the Zambrano ruling but delays on the part of UKBA are keeping this family in limbo. Sarah has two kids from a previous relationship, and a child with her husband (this is her first marriage) who she is trying to sponsor to move to the UK from Turkey, so their family can be together. Her two eldest kids call her husband dad, even though he is not their birth father. That is how close this family is. Sarah does not satisfy the 18,600 income threshold. She is in receipt of benefits, including income support and child tax credit. However, this will change when her husband joins her, as once he is working (there is already a job lined up) Sarah will cease to be eligible for benefits which are means tested (although she will continue to receive tax credits in respect of the children).
Sarah relocated to Turkey with her family and eventually decided to move back to the UK for her childrens education. They applied for a visitor's visa for her husband, so that he could be here for their childs birth, but the visa was refused on the grounds that because his family was in England they thought he may not return to Turkey. As a result he missed the birth of his first-born child. It has not been an easy time for Sarah, what with having to give birth alone, raise not one but three kids alone, and then have a faulty toaster set their house on fire. Sarah, her husband and the three children stay in touch using MSN, a webcam and Web chat every day. They have applied for a spouse visa for him; however, under the new rules, they may as well just donate more money to the British government which seems intent on tearing apart this family rather than understanding that being with her husband is what would be best for Sarah and her three children.
Page | 68
v28.09
Sarah (Malaysia)
I have two kids who miss their dad so much...even our appeal date is 9 months ahead.
Sarah is a British citizen. She has two children, aged 2 and 4. Her husband is a Malaysian citizen. While Sarah and their kids returned to the UK over 15 months ago, her husband is still in Malaysia. He was not granted a family visa. In December he was refused entry because Sarah did not earn 18,600, even though they submitted bank statements showing savings and job offers exceeding this amount. They put in an appeal in January and were given an appeal date in October 2013. Despite being turned into a single parent to two children, Sarah is not claiming a penny in benefits. Her husband is paying for everything. Including the solicitor they have hired for the appeal. Her four year old cries every day for her dad; the stress is taking its toll on all of them. The family miss each other and are exploring all avenues to unity.
Page | 69
v28.09
Sarah (Thailand)
I cant believe I may never be able to return home, as breaking up my family for several months just isnt feasible.
Sarah is a British citizen living in Thailand with her Thai husband. She initially came to Thailand to work with Burmese refugees but fell in love and started a family--always with the intention of returning to the UK. Under the new rules Sarahs salary does not meet the financial requirement, nor will it ever. Indeed, it would be near impossible to find a job in Thailand that would meet the requirements as local salaries are simply not in line with those in the UK. However, combined with her husbands salary, they meet the requirements, but the new rules do not permit his income to be considered. So, to return to the UK, we are now facing the choice of: a) Sarah returns alone with their two children, seeks employment paying over the stipulated salary while placing them in full-time childcare and somehow coping as a single parent until she qualifies to qualify to sponsor her husband OR b) remaining in Thailand indefinitely as a family unit, depriving her British children of a British education and their British family. Even if Sarah opts to return to the UK alone, she would not be able to avail of her parents' support in terms of accommodation or childcare as the salary stipulations means she would almost certainly need to seek work in London or another large city where childcare costs are very high. Both Sarah and her husband are highly educated both have completed their Masters, have a decade of professional experience and her husband speaks fluent English as well. They have looked at the alternatives such as the EEA route, but find this costly and impractical for a young family. Sarah finds it hard to believe she cant bring her family home and therefore may face a life abroad indefinitely.
Page | 70
v28.09
Sean
I am desperate to return home to spend time with my parents in their final years..as they are both fighting cancerbut I cant leave my wife!
Sean is a British citizen who for the past 10 years has worked in South East Asia. His wife is from Thailand and together, they have a three year old son, also British. Seans parents, also British, live in the UK. Unfortunately, they are both battling cancer and Sean is keen to spend time with his parents in their last few years and ensure his son gets to spend that incredibly precious time with the grandparents that for many of us, has been invaluable in our own lives. However, because of this government, Sean and his son are now facing the prospect of never being able to return here - to their home, their family and the lives they are entitled to. Seans parents are devastated at the prospect of never seeing Sean or their beloved grandson again. They are depressed, habitually in tears and at a time when cancer is attacking them, so is this government. Sean is horrified that his little boy will never experience a family Christmas or the warmth and love of his grandparents. This government has deemed that in order for Sean, as a British citizen to return to the UK he must abandon his wife because he just doesnt make an arbitrary amount of 18,600 in the developing country he is living in an amount he doesnt need there. This government has deemed that for Seans son to be able to live in his home and get to know his grandparents, he must either live with his mum in Asia or his dad in the UK. This government is encouraging the breakup of a marriage and family, forcing British citizens into exile, and forcing elderly British citizens in a time of need, to battle debilitating diseases alone. Whats even more unbelievable is that these new rules only affect British citizens with non-EU spouses. Other EU citizens have the freedom to live in Seans home country with their non-EU spouses but because Sean is British he has extra hurdles to jump over. We have no answer for Sean when he asked us to explain to him why he, as British citizen, and his son, also a British citizen, are forced to live in exile. The rights of Seans non-European spouse are not the issue here. The issue is around the rights we afford British citizens and families, and the heartbreak this government deems it justified to wreak on our own. When did we become a society where an elderly British couple battling cancer are forced to do it without their British son to support them? Perhaps the government can tell us why. Update: On the 1st of September 2013, a British family was divided. A British father and his three year old British son were be forced to go and live in exile. The father find work in Spain. They have never been there and dont speak the language. From the perspective of each family member affected, on how they feel about the immigration rules and the route they are forced to take:
Page | 71
v28.09
Father and husband: I desperately want to stay in the UK, work and help look after my ageing parents. They are in their seventies and both have been fighting cancer. My father had a fall this week and mother is in severe pain with her back. I worry so much and I cant bear to leave them. I cant help thinking I may never see them again.
My little boy has brought them so much pleasure over the last months and he in turn has learned so much from them. He loves them so much it will be a terrible thing to take him away from them. There will be real heartache and lots of tears when we leave. I really do not want to go, but if we stay my son will lose his mother. What choice do I have? I have chosen Spain as I think it might be the best place for me to find work as an English teacher. I am scared though. How will we cope? What about language and culture problems? How will my son get on? If I we cant survive there what will we do? I cant work in my wifes country and she will not even be able to enter mine. We will be in limbo. We will have to split up. My son will have a broken family. Grandparents: We are coming to the end of our years and all we want is our family around us. Having our son and grandson around is the best medicine we could possible get. But now we have to say goodbye to them at the airport. We dont know when we will see them again. This is tragic. We dont understand why after all these years as hard working, law abiding British citizens we are faced with this situation. What makes us really angry and ashamed to be British is that any other European citizens can just walk into England and live and work just like that. An unmarried Polish/Thai couple with no children can just move here without restriction, yet our British grandson is expected to live without his mother. Wife and mother: This is all my fault. I feel so bad for breaking up my husbands family. My parents in law need their son and grandson. I said maybe I should just leave and go home. I couldnt though. How can any mother be expected to leave her child. I would be quite happy to go back to my rice farming village in Thailand, but it is not a good place for my child and my husband cannot work in my country. I only want what is best for them. I dont really matter in all of this. I thought western countries were very civilised. I dont really understand why this is happening. I am sure no other country would allow a mother to be taken from her child or expect a father and child to live in another country. Three year old boy: I want to be with nanny and grampy. I dont want to see anyone cry. I dont want my daddy to be so anxious and sad. I dont want to lose my mummy. I want to go to school and learn. I want everyone to be happy.
Page | 72
v28.09
Page | 73
v28.09
The family miss each other so very very much they are depressed and at their wits' end. Xocoa loves her husband with all her heart and feels discriminated against just because she isnt wealthy.
Page | 74
v28.09
Andrew
What if my 92-year-old grandfather dies, without ever having met my wife, and she cant even pay her last respects at his funeral?!
Andrew, a British citizen, has lived in Spain with his wife from South Africa, for four years. They had a beautiful beach wedding and some members of his family from England attended the celebrations. Despite being British and South African, respectively, they did not encounter any problems with the Spanish authorities regarding issuing a family member spouse visa, and his wife is now a Spanish resident. She has had a residence card for 5 years, which clearly states on the back: Family Member of EEA National. With this card they are free to travel around the whole of Europe. They can even enter the UK's overseas territory of Gibraltar, where Andrew works. They just cant enter the UK (the country of which Andrew is a national!) and where the rest of his family is. EU law states in 2004/38/EC that any family member with an EU-issued residence card of more than 3 months duration does not require a visa to enter any other EU member state. But in direct violation of the law, UK government refuses to recognise EU-issued residence cards, insisting on its own residence cards. As such, in order for his wife to come to the UK with Andrew even for a two-week visit! they have to apply for an EEA Family permit. And thus the red tape, and the farce, begins. To obtain this family permit, Andrew has to prove that he is working in another EU member state. So if he was unemployed it would be impossible for his wife to visit the UK without applying for a regular visa at a cost of 250 for South African nationals. Fortunately he does work, and as such he is able to provide such documentation. The EU rules require that there be no prohibitive cost or process for the issue of an EEA Family Permit (indeed, it must be free), yet the UK tries to circumvent this legal requirement by referring to it as a visa. In the past, they have had to fill out a 12-page form requesting financial details, relationship history, 10-year address history, etc. Then they had to make an appointment at the British Consulate in Madrid 500 miles away necessitating a 7-hour drive and a hotel stay, i.e. substantial further expense. Given that the next available appointment was 2 months after filling in the visa application online, there was undue delay on top of the expense! Also, they charge 15 to return the passport and documents via DHL and it can take 3 weeks to process an EEA Family Permit, which is referred to as a decision.
Page | 75
v28.09
This might not seem too bad if that was it, and Andrews wife was then clear to enter the UK to visit as often as she wished. But no! After all this, she can only enter the UK as long as Andrew is with travelling with her, and the permit only lasts for 6 months. After this time, they have to go through the entire laborious process again! They wanted to visit the UK in August. By the middle of October they still hadnt received the decision. They are determined to go for Christmas, especially as many of Andrews family have not yet met his wife, including his grandfather, a 92-year-old war veteran who is quite poorly and may not be around for much longer. And there are nieces and nephews who want to meet their new auntie too. Andrew is keen to show his wife where he grew up, his home town, his school, his friends. These are all perfectly reasonable expectations and something that he never thought would prove to be so difficult in his own home country, given that they were welcomed with open arms by the administration in Spain. The UK's policy of forcing them to apply for an EEA Family Permit falls well outside the Free Movement Directives of the EU, so much so that the EU challenged the UK to change these laws back in April or face court action. However, this UK government seems intent on remaining defiant and is willing to pay millions of pounds in fines. using taxpayers' money, rather than be a law-abiding government that has respect for its citizens, i.e. British voters. Update, end October 2012: Andrews wife was refused entry clearance and an EEA Family Permit. The UKBAs view was that Andrew and his wife did not provide sufficient documentary evidence that Andrew was working or self-employed in another member state prior to returning to the UK and therefore the regulations do not apply. In fact, Andrew submitted: letter from his employer, on a company letterhead, stating that he had been employed for the evidence of last 4 years permanent employment, with a salary over 30,000 copy of his work contract; payslips from preceding three months. It is likely the refusal was on the grounds that Andrew works in Gibraltar but lives in Spain we dont know. No explanation was given, and theres no one to contact to clarify the reason for the refusal. Having checked with EU Commission, Andrew received confirmation that the UK government has acted illegally by refusing his wife a family permit. Will Andrews 92-year-old grandfather ever get to meet Andrews wife? Will this family be able to gather together for Christmas? Ask the British government. Update: Andrews wife did not receive the EEA family permit in time for their scheduled trip to the UK. Nevertheless, Andrew and his wife did get to spend Christmas with his family and his wife and grandfather were able to spend valuable time together.
Page | 76
v28.09
Christine introduced Ziad to her parents when they came out to visit in August 2010. They loved him and by the time she left Syria in October felt he was the man she wanted to spend my life with. They stayed in touch via Skype and phone, speaking as often as they were able to; exchanging gifts and letters back and forth through mutual friends travelling between the two countries. In May 2011 the couple got engaged, planning to marry in Scotland amidst Christines friends and family before she moved to Syria to live with him in Damascus where Ziad had a thriving real estate business. Christine was optimistic about finding work with the UN or another humanitarian agency and Damascus was a city she loved with many close friends there, both Syrians and internationals who like her, were committed to staying there long-term. However the Syrian Revolution changed all that. As a British citizen, Christine immediately became an object of suspicion by the regime and Ziad was worried for her safety in Syria, particularly because of the advocacy work she was doing to raise awareness about the situation in the UK. As refugees flooded out, doors were closed on them from all sides. Getting a visa to the UK was impossible, and their plans to work in the Gulf received a blow when it too shut its doors on Syrians. Christine carried on visiting Ziad however as she couldn't live without seeing him - but the security situation was deteriorating swiftly and it became impossible to stay. By the time she left for the last time in October 2012 Christine had gotten used to the check points and car bombs, sounds of shelling throughout the night, plumes of smoke over the city skyline and attack helicopters overhead. The couple was even shot at by snipers when they went to visit Ziads mother for dinner during Ramadan. In December 2012, Ziad decided to flee the violence in Syria and join his family in Cairo but then they discovered he could not apply for a settlement visa from Egypt as he was neither an Egyptian citizen nor permanent resident. Christine was devastated. Ziad had no choice but to return to Syria and wait for the embassy in Beirut to process Ziads application.
Page | 77
v28.09
They pre-poned their wedding plans, which was a difficult decision as theyd always wanted to celebrate with family and friends but with the security situation as it was Christine didn't want to wait any longer and so after getting married, they applied for a settlement visa for the UK in April 2013. Christine begged Ziad to remain in Lebanon and not return to Syria but rampant inflation and unemployment has devastated people's savings and Ziad - like everyone else they know - simply cannot afford to stay in Beirut, one of the world's most expensive cities, as he awaits a decision. The following six months were horrendous, with one heart-wrenching attack after another leaving Christine in fear of her husbands life. The Home Office rejected the settlement application the first time round even though Christine meets the financial requirement and her husband has passed his English Language test at the British Council. The reason for refusal was claiming that the application did not include all the necessary evidence. In the digital age, the Home Office rejected a bank statement showing cash savings of 58,000 in addition to Christines annual tax-free salary of 13,590, because it was an online statement, even though it had been stamped and verified. They also claimed that without the certificate of entry into the KET the certificate provided of passing the exam was invalid. No common sense was allowed for...how would Ziad have been able to pass the exam if he hadnt been allowed into the room to sit the exam?! As Home Office refused to let them just then include the missing documents in the initial application, they reapplied on 15 July 2013 with the additional information also present. However, given the serious escalation in the situation in Syria particularly in and around Damascus, the couple is very worried. Ziad lives only 15 mins away from the chemical weapon attack sites of late August, where a day later there was a huge car bomb. Ziads car has been was sprayed with bullets and he has been detained. No one knows why. Ziad is under threat from the regime who may not now allow him to even leave the country. Christine asks, even while the UK considers how they will get involved in the Syrian situation, is does the UK Government not have a duty of care to the Syrian family members of UK citizens? Given that imminent military intervention has been considered, should the government not first help get our family members out the country or at the very least speed up their visa decisions? Given Cameron's determination to 'protect civilians in Syria' why can he not start by protecting Syrians with proven ties to the UK? Christine is not asking for special measures to circumvent the rules (in any case she meets the visa requirements) but simply for her government to stop dragging its feet in determining the visa for her husband given the war in Syria.
Page | 78
v28.09
Christophers children, grandchildren and friends came to Kenya for the wedding along with all the children from the two local schools, 200 local friends and volunteers ... it was a wonderful wedding. Christopher carried on with teaching, until he fell ill and was advised to return to the UK. After treatment he returned to Kenya in the hope of bringing Christine and Michael home with him.
Visa Application At some expense they engaged UK VISA and IMMIGRATION to prepare the visa application which was presented in Nairobi in January 2012. However, Christine was diagnosed with TB and thus followed six months of treatment. While the family is now blessed Christine has been given the all clear and is in good health, they face devastation under the new rules, as their new application in August 2012, was refused. Employment Christopher works for Enara Community Care as a domiciliary care worker. He cares for elderly in their homes, starting work at 6.45am and sometimes until as late as 9pm. His annual salary is c15,500 which, combined with a pension of 3,746 from Probation Service, gives him an annual income of 19,246.
Page | 79
v28.09
He is considering employing a local solicitor who has indicated there is a case for appeal with fees over 4,500. Christophers savings are being depleted by having to finance life in Kenya for his wife and stepson, maintaining his life here and the additional cost of maintaining regular contact with his wife. Christopher believes in his marriage vows and is firm in his commitment to his wife. He is lucky to have a supporting family and friends who are praying for Christopher to be reunited with Christine and Michael. Like other BritCits, Christopher is realistic about why we have immigration rules; but he feels that the draconian way these have been imposed, without regional income tolerances or respect for British citizens being taken into consideration is just plain unfair. He believes the rules brought in make a mockery of the Conservative partys manifesto commitment: Strong families are the bedrock of a strong society. They provide the stability and love we need to flourish as human beings, and the relationships they foster are the foundation on which society is built Britains families will get our full backing across all our policies We need good, strong families to help our society work well. We will support families to stay together.
Update: Christopher and one of his daughters went to the First-tier Tribunal on 5th July and presented the facts of their case, in response to the visa refusal. A Home Office representative suggested there was no need to grant Christophers wife a visa as Christopher could go and live in Mombasa. The appeal judge in his report however wrote "...I do not accept that it is reasonable to expect the sponsor, a British citizen, to live in Kenya, if it were possible, or another part of the world as yet unidentified. It would be to deprive him of the benefits of his British citizenship" So the appeal was allowed on human rights grounds even though Christopher falls short of the income level by approx 17.00 per week. The Judge accepted Christopher has no accommodation costs and that his "...resources are more than adequate to accommodate and maintain the appellants." The judge also awarded fees against the Home Office of 280. Now Christopher and his family wait a further 4-6 weeks as the Home Office has 28 days to " seek leave to appeal against the appeal decision " before making plans to be reunited once more.
Page | 80
v28.09
Claire
Just because the ECO appears to not have bothered to look at the paperwork, we may have to wait for two years.
Claire is a British citizen living in South Africa with her South African husband and British daughter. They applied for a UK settlement visa but were declined on the basis that they dont meet the financial requirement as defined in paragraph E-ECP.3.3. This is even though they do meet the financial threshold. The ECO claimed that Claire did not have a firm job offer in the UK, even though she had enclosed a copy of her contract of employment in the UK with a start date of 1st July, also showing she would have been earning over 18,600. This family has naturally appealed the decision. However they are now waiting for their appeal to be dealt with, simply because an ECO appears to not have bothered to look at all the paperwork. An additional point of concern is that they have been informed their appeal could take up to two years; theyve been told that its unlikely that her husband would be issued with a visitor visa now, given he has applied for a settlement visa. So this family waits and waits, considering perhaps the exercise of EU treaty rights just in order for three British citizens to be able to return home as a family.
Page | 81
v28.09
Dan
I cant believe I may never be able to return home, as breaking up my family for several months just isnt feasible.
Dan is a British citizen. His wife is from the USA and they have been living in Florida for four years with their two daughters...both of whom are British citizens. The time is right for this family to return to UK, their homeland. A homeland even for Dans American wife who did most of her growing up here in the UK though never obtained citizenship a fact they so dearly regret now. Dan finds the financial requirements extremely complicated and convoluted; but having made sense of them, and despite having earned over 18,600 p.a. in the US, he is still unable to return home with his family. He is not able to satisfy having a job offer starting within three months of the application. As Dan cant afford multiple trips to the UK and can't afford unpaid time off work unpaid it would otherwise mean he earned less than 18,600. He is frustrated that the UK government expects him to have a job offer before he is even allowed to return here. He questions whether the UKBA realises: 1) The impossibility of securing a job via a phone interview. 2) The difficulty in getting time off and the general lack of vacation time in countries outside the EU in order to get to the UK for a job interview. 3) The cost of flying across the Atlantic for a job interview.
He is also amazed that this wifes earning potential, as a skilled professional is completely disregarded, as are the tax dollars they are currently paying to the Inland Revenue Service in America...tax which would otherwise be paid to HMRC. He is also bemused; if he returned to the UK with his two British daughters, the three of them would be eligible for all kinds of benefits at a great cost to the British taxpayer. So it is in the best interest of the British taxpayer to allow Dans wife in the country...she would work, pay taxes and be ineligible for any benefits, whilst also rendering Dan and his daughters ineligible by way of the household income being over the qualifying threshold. Dan does not want to return home for benefits. So he will not let his family be split up and we will find a way for the family to be together in the country they have a right to live in.
Page | 82
v28.09
Page | 83
v28.09
Page | 84
v28.09
David
It took 8 months for UKBA to process my wifes application..and we had to jump through hoops to prove we had a real marriage in spite of having a child together. So my complete sympathy is with others going through the process.
David is a British citizen who has personally been affected by the new immigration rules. Since David married his wife from the Philippines nearly three years ago, the British government has made their lives a misery; causing unnecessary stress, worry and suffering in trying to prove that their marriage is genuine even though they have a son together. David finds this outrageous and ridiculous how can you prove you are in a genuine marriage if the proof of a child is insufficient? They had to submit Davids passport while his wifes application for indefinite leave was being considered; they had to send countless documents and fill out lots of forms. They had to pay an extortionate amount of money even for applying for his wife to remain in the country that is that of her husbands and sons. Although David is in the fortunate position of having received a successful decision on his wifes application, it was after eight months of stress, worry and anxiety. His complete sympathy goes out to all families that affected caught in the complicated web of these immigration rules.
Page | 85
v28.09
Page | 86
v28.09
Page | 87
v28.09
The second application was also refused on the financial requirement grounds and it was only with the amendment to the Home Office/UKBA website that it was made clear they needed 62,500 in cash savings held for six months. This was a particularly hard refusal to get over as the couple had been certain theyd finally be able to start their lives together but were once again forced apart. Six months down the line, Euan has been able to demonstrate he has the necessary amount of savings and they have made their third application. They dont know whether the visa has been refused or granted; theyve just been told that a decision has been made. It has been a year and a half since Euan and Megan started this horrific journey of being allowed to be together. Euan has lived and worked in Scotland his whole life, and is a successful musician making more than enough money to support their lifestyle. Megan graduated with honours from a top Boston university with a degree in Child Psychology. She has extensive experience working with children with autism and is eager to work with children with disabilities in Scotland. Most of all, they are just a married couple wishing to live their life together, yet being forced to live 3,500 miles apart. This decision the government has made has cost them nearly $10,000, and their family life has been put on hold. While both remain hopeful that this time Megan will receive the settlement visa, theyr both know the fight is not over. Other families and couples should not have to go through this. Euan should not be stripped of his rights by his own government simply because he has created his own successful business that just misses out on the threshold officials in London deem fit. The UK government is destroying well-meaning young couples and families who simply want to work, contribute, and live together in the country of their origin. Megan has been treated like a benefit-seeking drain on society and has been forced apart from her husband while he as the British citizen must prove his worth. The government has surpassed being strict into territory which is unfair, unjust and simply cruel. The most insulting part of the entire process is that after going through all of this madness, spouses are only entitled to live with loved ones for two and a half years. Then they have to go through this nightmare again.
Page | 88
v28.09
Page | 89
v28.09
Then he spent several months helping his elder son renovate the house he had bought in north Manchester hard unpaid physical graft. Gerard planned to sell his house, pay off his mortgage and perhaps move to France, but helping his son meant he got caught up in the crash, and missed the boat. So he rented out his renovated house and went to France on the off chance that some work would come his way. He succeeded in obtaining a language assistant job in Lille. As before, he paid all the deductions in France and living/ travelling expenses (not tax deductible), more tax on his French salary in the UK, and tax on his rental income. He came back to find the flat he had rented out trashed, not for the first time, and had to spend several weeks sorting that out. In late 2009 Gerard was fed up, lonely and disillusioned. However, finally, things were to take a turn for the better; the mortgage was nearly paid off and Gerard met his now wife, Vilai. They spent a lot of time together in Thailand and UK. Last year Vilai applied for a visit visa in Bangkok, but was turned down, with the usual insufficient reason to return, despite having a long-term job to go back to and proof of same. While querying the decision, Gerard contacted his MPs office and other individuals. Mysteriously, the decision was reversed and no explanation was given. Gerard wanted Vilai to marry him while she was here, but she had promised her boss she would go back, and so she did. The plan in December 2011 was for Gerard to spend more time with Vilai, his fiance, and proceed to marriage if and when they were both sure. She always was, he became so, despite and perhaps because of some cultural differences, and they got married. The intention was Gerard would return to UK with his wife, but they were hit by the English test requirement; it had to be taken and passed before applying for a visa, along with the health checks. Gerard firmly believes, in line with various studies, the place to learn English is in an Englishspeaking country, by immersion (acquisition), not just in a classroom. Soon it became apparent they wouldnt be travelling together as Gerard had urgent matters to attend to at home. He did hope his wife would be with him in time for the Olympic torch through his village. Alas, it was not to be. Vilai sat the English test in March and passed first time, although it took until May for the certificate to arrive. There was then an IOM query over her TB test, and it took another two months for the allclear to be received. All these delays meant that they could not submit a spouse visa application before 9 July. Finally, in August, she was able to apply for a settlement visa, pay over 800 and wait up to 12 weeks for the UKBA to decide if this married couple could live together. Worse was to come. Vilais application was rejected as UKBA wanted a vast array of additional documents. No chance was given to respond. It was a rejection and probably another 800+ to be paid before they would reconsider the spouse's application. The UKBA appears to be happy to advise what they want after they turn you down; then, on subsequent applications, they may find something else, and so it goes on. They dont ask for more information during the waiting period, which is scandalous. What does Gerard think of all this? He thinks its appalling. What should have been a happy joyous time after a decade of misery turned into an edelweiss trampled on by Douglasboots. HMRC is happy to accept the thousands he pays in taxes, meanwhile the UKBA is even happier to take the visa application fees, and find spurious reasons to reject visa applications, in order to take yet more fees. This government doesnt care how long they keep married couples apart, they dont care about British citizens and their spouses, they dont respect marriage or family. Article 8 is just a thorn in their side. All British citizens hear about are scam marriages, terrorists, drug dealers and people-trafficking. They are choosing to ignore the many decent honest citizens who just want to live with their family.
Page | 90
v28.09
Page | 91
v28.09
Eventually, the Home Office did get back to them, rejecting the application as the payslips they received were copies. Given the company is paperless, the originals of payslips are PDF documents, how do the Home Office expect submission of these? More importantly: why couldnt Home Office have contacted them? The second they opened the envelope and the payslips tumbled out, theyd have been able to spot that something wasnt quite official enough for them. In the meantime, Ziah may lose the job she has been offered a job that would mean she starts paying income tax because she cant prove she is allowed to work here, even though she is! So, we start our long and arduous climb up the slippery pole that is the appeals process. Receiving an EEA residence permit really is a formality: apparently it used to be possible to rock up at an office with a pair of passports, a marriage certificate, a couple of pay slips and a tenancy agreement, and theyd stamp the EEA residence card into your passport there and then. The whole process would take less than a day. The underpinning laws havent changed, but the process has morphed from taking 4-hours to 4400 hours. To prove the payslips and other digital documents are effectively originals, Haje was advised to purchase a rubber stamp; his lawyer said Its only 30, buy one. Its the Home Office, logic does not apply. As they prepare to put in their appeal, Ziah realises Home Office never returned their original marriage certificate. So she sends a letter to the Home Office, asking for her marriage certificate back. In response, they received a most insidious letter from EO2 LNC21 (as their case worker is known - god forbid they actually get the real name of the person deciding their fate) claiming to work for the UK Boarder Agency (sic) application was seen and decided by myself, and that there was no marriage certificate in your application The caseworker goes on to say that the application did not contain a covering letter stating the contents of the application and the only record this office has that there may have been a marriage certificate included in this application is the application form. The absolutely incredible thing about the latter statement is that the couple included the marriage certificate and a cover letter specifying this. How can they be so sure? Because the Home Office returned their cover letter to them! It does appear that Home Office puts up artificial hindrances in the way, even for people from the EU (and their family members), because they are trying to dissuade potential migrants from EEA countries as much as possible. Is that legal? Absolutely not. Does the Home Office care? Actions speak louder than words. Haje finds it hard to explain exactly how powerless he feels when facing a government agency which finds it easy to flout the law. Doubly so when what ought to be a simple formality becomes an unsurpassable wall that stands between the right-here-right-now, and being able to start a life in the UK as productive members of society. Ziah would love to work. She would love to start paying taxes. Both her and Haje would love to be a shiny example of exactly the kind of immigrants we need in this country. Now if only the Home Office would let them.
Page | 92
v28.09
Page | 93
v28.09
Page | 94
v28.09
Page | 95
v28.09
This couples experience of the UKBA is unfortunately not an anomaly. We await the result of their appeal and hopefully justice will finally prevail for this couple.
Page | 96
v28.09
Page | 97
v28.09
The couple decided to get married as scheduled on 7th December albeit in Gabon. Guests included JoJos father and aunt, many family members of Loc, and friends of both Loc and JoJo. JoJos sister was pregnant and couldnt fly. Her brother too missed out as he couldnt get time off work. Nevertheless, it was a beautiful ceremony followed by a lovely honeymoon before JoJos work commitments required her to return home. So it was that the couple began married life on different continents. What was supposed to be their first magical Christmas together with all of JoJos family, turned into a sad phone call, with bad phone signal and getting cut off on numerous occasions. The couple comforted themselves in the knowledge that the appeal deadline was the 22nd February and that in two months they would be reunited, since their appeal case was rock solid and full of irrefutable evidence. Unsurprisingly, JoJo and Loc did not receive any decision from the UKBA by 22nd February as required. HM Courts and First Tier Tribunal wrote to inform the couple that they would have to attend an oral hearing to appeal the decision. A lawyer they retained for the appeal was unphased and unsurprised by UKBAs behaviour. She informed the couple it was common for UKBA to not even open appeal documents and simply wait the five months afforded to them, to then allow it to automatically go to a hearing. Delaying tactics presumably in the hope that the relationship would not withstand the pressure. Despite all this, JoJo and Loc feel lucky compared to many other families in similar situations as they dont yet have kids and so arent enduring the pain of raising a family apart. JoJo is very fortunate to be able to earn over 18,600 to qualify for a visa. Loc didnt have to take an English test because there isnt a testing centre in Gabon. But that doesnt stop them feeling angry and frustrated. This treatment by the UK government is a breach of human rights. Their appeal hearing was scheduled for June 2013, more than a year after the initial application. JoJo and Loc tried to remain optimistic, whilst preparing for more delaying tactics and preposterous claims, determined to prove love conquers all. In March 2013, Loc received an email informing him that the appeal had been successful, asking him to take his passport to the embassy in Cameroon. However the embassy was unaware of this; finally agreeing to send his application to Ghana - a process which would take a further two weeks. Only to find weeks later there had been no progress...after several times being told the equivalent of the cheque is in the mail he was told the visa printing machine in Ghana was broken, so hed have to wait another month, or they could send his passport to another country with a working machine. JoJos father went to the UKBA office in Croydon. After an hour of not even being allowed through the door, he finally got to speak to someone who knew staff in the Ghana office. Two hours later, he received a call from Ghana promising him the passport with the visa was being sent back to Cameroon the very same day clearly the machine wasnt broken after all. Six more excruciating days went by. Finally, on 2nd May, the passport arrived and Loc could return to Gabon to take the flight to UK on 7th May where JoJo met him at the airport. At passport control Loc was taken aside and questioned for over an hour then finally allowed through. Then the now not-so-newly married couple was finally reunited. The entire application process ended up taking nearly one year, costing over 5000 and a lot of heartache. What should have been a simple application process was turned into a shambolic and frustrating process by the UK government in a misguided aim to cut immigration and break apart British families.
Page | 98
v28.09
It was pure happiness for all involved. The united families walked around the Meihekou streets together, truly but naively believing, that it would now only be a matter of time before Joyce could welcome her new daughter-in-law to meet the rest of their family including Joyces mum in her late 80s - and walk around the English streets with the same freedom.
Page | 99
v28.09
The family applied for a family visit visa for Xu Dan to spend Christmas with her new family. To their horror, it was refused again. UKBA didnt believe Xu Dan would return to China after the visit. Joyces direct experiences with UKBA and various British embassies proved fruitless and she realised UK had abandoned her family. Joyce didnt give up she went to see an officially approved immigration legal advisor in Cambridge and they put in a successful, albeit expensive, appeal.
With happy hearts the family welcomed Clyde and Xu Dan at Heathrow on 18th December 2011. Xu Dan visited her grandmother-in-law as well, spending a fantastic Christmas, followed by a tour of UK where Clyde and Xu Dan met relatives from Shropshire, North Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire. Clyde longed to live in the friendly communities among the narrow boats moored on river Cam and used his savings to buy a boat. He received job offers from English Language schools in Cambridge. At the same time, Xu Dan left UK complying with the visa conditions and went to Belgium to be with her in-laws. It was only AFTER a settlement visa application was submitted and paid for (over 1000) that fine print indicated those with temporary residence rights in Belgium couldnt apply for a settlement visa. So Xu Dan took her first solo plane journey back to China and after some complications, submitted the application. The visa was rejected - UKBA wasnt satisfied Clyde would earn 18,600; though from his performance to date indicated he was set to earn at least 21,000. It is impossible to describe the distress & devastation caused to the whole family. The offer of support of Clydes parents was ignored, as was the rent-free accommodation in Joyces mums home; also ignored was the fact that Clyde owned his own residence i.e. the boat for which he therefore wouldnt have any accommodation expenses. The income which could be earned by Xu Dan was also ignored, as a fluent Mandarin speaker. They immediately appealed in November 2012, though the hearing will take place after June 2013 at the earliest, which means the couple is separated for a further minimum 9 months. Joyces husband couldnt cope with the constant issues surrounding Joyce and her family; he suffered from depression and felt neglected and subsequently left Joyce. This family is now completely broken because of UKBAs farcical immigration rules. Joyces plea is for MPs our representatives, to take a hard look at how your draconian immigration rules are affecting British citizens, rules which dont contribute to supporting families nor stabilising society in any way.
Page | 100
v28.09
Leanne
My husband is my life and he's the best thing that's ever happened to me - it kills me every day I am forced to be without him
Leanne is a British citizen. Her husband is a citizen of Egypt and therefore not allowed to live in the UK with her. Leanne met her husband in Greece, where he has lived and worked for over six years. They have been together for the last four, and got married in April 2013, in Greece. They know they will need to be apart for over six months possibly twelve if not longer. Six months to show Leannes payslips and savings (she earns less than 18,600 but together they have 22,000 savings to supplement this for satisfying the financial requirement). Another six months or longer for processing of the application. Although the financial considerations are in hand, Leanne is petrified her husbands visa will be refused. Their view very much (not surprisingly!) is that UKBA seems to be finding reasons to refuse visas left, right and centre, often for spurious reasons. At 31, Leanne already feels like she doesnt have enough time. She was diagnosed with bowel cancer at the age of 20; after bouts of chemotherapy and surgery, she was told she would not be able to have her own biological kids. So given that her hospital has indicated she may be able to have IVF, its so urgent that this couple gets the chance to make their own family. However they cant take it further without her husband by her side. Leanne is scared..if her husband cant join her any time soon, with that not only are her rights as a British citizen jeopardised, but so is her very natural human right to have a family On 25th June 2013, Leanne cried tears of joy. This is the day she was returning from hospital after one of her regular checkups for cancer. However, the reason for the tears was the ray of hope for her being united with her husband. Leannes brother sent her a link to a BBC article, following which she watched a Newsnight program telling her of EU providing justice where the British government snatched it away, via the Surinder Singh route. The resulting questions though show more than anything that this route isnt one taken lightly; nor are British citizens with non-EEA families expecting our streets to be paved with gold. They also show the shameful fear the government has successfully instilled in the very people its being paid to represent. Does this mean I dont have to be apart from my husband any longer? Can the government close this route too? How long do I have to be working there? Can my husband work there as well? Will my husband then be allowed to work in the UK, if we return here using Surinder Singh route? There at no point have been any questions on accessing benefits which under UKs immigration rules non-EEA family members dont qualify for any way. If anything people have been adamant that with their spouse here they would have less need to claim benefits because of the multiple incomes the family would be earning.
Page | 101
v28.09
Page | 102
v28.09
Maria
I satisfy the financial threshold, but as we have not lived together, how do I prove a durable relationship to the Home Offices satisfaction?
Maria is a British citizen from Northern Ireland, with a boyfriend who is a citizen of the USA. They have known each other since 2000 when as teenagers they became friends, staying in touch across the Atlantic through emails and phone calls. In March 2010, their relationship developed into something more than just friends. They visited each other twice a year and now wish to make their relationship more permanent by living together in Northern Ireland. Maria earns 30,000 a year, well in excess of the 18,600 requirement. However, they are not quite ready for the commitment of marriage and so flummoxed by how to prove that theirs is a durable relationship when they have not been living together so dont have joint household bills, tenancy agreements or a mortgage. This is a couple who simply wants the opportunity to have a proper relationship, explore the potential for a future together before rushing into marriage. A couple that should be admired for being mature. Yet this is a couple that is afraid they will be caught in the Home Office net of finding reasons to refuse visa applications rather than using common sense.
Page | 103
v28.09
Paula
The government expects me to leave my job, my ability to support my family and just move countries, else be apart from my husband!
Paula is a British citizen. She was born and raised here. She is extremely angry that someone she doesnt even know...someone who doesnt even know her, is telling her she cant live with her husband...the man she was allowed to marry! Paula earns over 18,600 as the manager of a charity. Her husband has passed his ESOL exams and is currently devouring Charles Dickens novels. They have never had recourse to public funds. Paula does have a medical condition which requires medication and supervision. This couple has spent a lot of money on immigration lawyers, yet been refused leave to remain. The message to this British citizen is; leave your job, your ability to support your family, maintain your medical condition elsewhere...move to another country!
Page | 104
v28.09
Page | 105
v28.09
Page | 106
v28.09
The couple responded by Shafik sending in the original documents and appealing against the decision in April 2013. In May the court sent him a pending appeal, suggesting they re-send the application to the embassy to review, and that if the original decision was not overturned by late September then they would hold a judicial review of the decision. Shafiks solicitor told him that given the unlikelihood of the embassy overturning the decision, it is likely it would be March 2014 for their case to be heard in court, and June 2014 before they received a decision. These timescales are unacceptable for any family, but especially one where the affected family member is in a war torn country like Syria. Shafik is aware that the Home Office has processed only two settlement visas for Syrians in the past three years. Shafik is trying to keep his fiance free from the stress and misery she is ill and there is a shortage of medication in Syria at the moment. He speaks to her every day for the limited time that there is electricity there, trying to keep up her hopes. However he is worried. The security situation in Syria is deteriorating day by day. His fiance is in a warzone and is in real and constant danger every day. For them this is not just about the basic human right to be allowed to live with your family, but a right to life.
Page | 107
v28.09
Page | 108
v28.09
Until real life intervened. Steve was being made redundant from his very well paid job. He also discovered the immigration rules were about to change to introduce an income requirement though it was unclear as to the level. So Steve went through an incredibly stressful and uncertain month. His fiance was about to uproot herself and move to the UK for them to make a life together, and Steve wasnt sure whether or not he would be able to sponsor her as his wife. Would Yuriko be deported? Would she even be allowed to enter? Would he be able to honour his commitment to her?
Page | 109
v28.09
Steve followed the news and various immigration boards closely. The more he found out about how the rules were going to change without a parliamentary vote, the more outraged he became. By June 2012, Steve was fortunate to obtain clarity that because his fiances visa was under the old rules, theyd continue, even for the spouse visa, to not have any income threshold applied to them. Steve had wisely made some investments which meant they were okay for a period of not working. In late June 2012, the couple got married.
More good news followed with August seeing Steve finding work again earning over the 18,600 threshold, albeit a threshold which does not apply to him. So the celebrations continued and in November 2012, Yuriko received her spouse visa.
However Steve was angry with his country and his government. He had been put through an incredible amount of stress, just because he had fallen in love with someone from another region of the world. So despite his situation being resolved, Steve attended the 9th July 2012 demonstration against the rules, joined by his wife. He remained active on various online forums, when he was approached by Sonel to join as the other half of BritCits an invitation he accepted in order to make a difference and campaign against rules designed to tear families apart, even though his own was intact. Steves IT skills were a great aid to his creating the website www.britcits.com to reach an even wider audience. The collation of stories of British citizens affected by UKs immigration rules to raise awareness and drive change by lobbying politicians, liaising with media and forming a support group for those impacted, has over time gained momentum as the horrific nature of the rules have became even more apparent.
Page | 110
v28.09
Tom started a new company in March 2013, but was disappointed to learn that he cannot sponsor his wife to join him until the company has been in existence for one year to meet the strict evidential requirements of Paragraph 9 of the Appendix FM-SE, which require the latest annual tax return and 12 months' bank statements. The company is doing well. Indeed, Tom has already earned the requisite 18,600 income, but it is only because they do not have certain documents for very valid and legitimate reasons, they have been advised not to apply at this time. This evidential rule vaults form over substance and adds a further layer of red tape on self-employed persons, who must wait 12 months to sponsor a loved one even more than the other categories of employment who need to show 6 months documentary evidence. Elizabeth is a trained attorney and broadcast journalist.
Page | 111
v28.09
Page | 112
v28.09
The couple submitted a visa application for the third time, going over the top with supporting documentation. The expected processing time passed and they still had no answer, and the date of their flights was fast approaching. A chaser call led to their being patronisingly told to "wait like everyone else has to". On the day of the flight, Olya waited with her father outside the Passport Centre with her bags packed. The passport never came. Another flight missed. Another chaser led to their being eventually told that the decision had been made some weeks ago, but the application was 'stuck in the system'. The third refusal was a huge blow. Olya was deemed to have used 'deceptive means to obtain access to the UK'. An incredibly demeaning remark and unbelievable to the couple that anyone could come to that conclusion from their very standard paperwork. Apparently the case handler thought it was suspicious that a large amount of money had entered Olya's bank account and disappeared after the previous visa refusal. Indeed, the person appeared to not have read the supporting paperwork explaining that the funds were a loan from Olyas dad, and returned when not needed for the UK trip. Olya was informed she could only make an administrative appeal and that the denial would remain on her record for a period of ten years. Bear in mind, all this just for a visitors visa. Tom is dreading the problems they will face when they decide to get married. With her language skills, countries should be falling over themselves to welcome Olya. Yet Tom fears that UKs immigration policies would even reject her as the wife of a British citizen. He never would have believed without firsthand experience, how discriminatory and contradictory his countrys immigration rules are. Tom now regularly visits Ukraine where he tours successfully as a musician, selling out venues and generally being met with a great deal of support there. Olya has now met Toms family during a holiday in Cyprus. The couple remains closer than ever yet kept thousands of miles apart for ridiculous bureaucratic reasons. Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." Toms certain this is not being honoured in their situation.
Page | 113
v28.09
Page | 114
v28.09
Page | 115
v28.09
Insufficient funds Since the initial denial in early 2011, Lionel and his wife have been forced to have an online relationship apart from the times he has visited her in Russia. The expense of the initial application and the fact that he has since supported two homes, one in the UK and one in Russia, along with the cost of visiting his wife in Russia, has resulted in his savings being severely depleted which would now result in a denial on the grounds of insufficient funds to support her. They are being denied the right to be a family because of this rule. Lionel is being discriminated against because he dared to marry someone from outside the EU. While they have explored other options, they are being blocked every step of the way. They considered a family visit visa, where he would support his wife during her stay in the UK and enrol her on an English language course. Then she would return to Russia and make another application but and theres always a but it is not permitted for Lionels wife to study while on a family visit or tourist visa. Manifesto a farce In the Conservative pre-election manifesto Mr Cameron made a great deal about his views on the sanctity of marriage and family values. This rule makes an absolute mockery of his views. It effectively prevents people such as Lionel and Svetlana from living together as a family. This rule is ludicrous; the majority of couples who are affected by this rule have every intention of learning English and studying for the Knowledge of Life in the UK test in order to apply for ILR. A better solution would be to make enrolment on an English language course, once in the UK, a condition of the visa. This couple done everything correctly; they considered the fact that Lionel was made redundant and decided it would not be correct to make an application until he had secured employment. Now, the government has implemented a minimum gross income which, fortunately, Lionel can currently meet. However, with future checks and current economic climate, there is no guarantee he will continue to meet it for five years. Family visit visa They applied for a family visit visa but were unsuccessful. Svetlanas parents live in Russia and her daughter (Lionels stepdaughter) is studying at Kiel University; the UKBA felt that this wasnt sufficient to guarantee that Svetlana would leave, and therefore refused her the right to visit her husband. As time goes by this couples only solution is to accept enforced exile and for Lionel to look for work in another European country. Yet another Brit being exiled from his country. This is what these UK politicians have brought this country to. Update: Lionel and his wife have moved to Germany. They are currently living in a hotel but hope to secure their own apartment soon. They have otherwise been settling in well and are liking Germany. Lionel has also been successful in obtaining a job there. Our best wishes to this lovely couple on a long, happy life together.
Page | 116
v28.09
Page | 117
v28.09
Samantha
Although I satisfy it, the income threshold is too high; and the best place to learn English should be in the UK. Why make our family take very difficult tests other than to encourage us to give up?
Samantha is a British citizen. She married her husband, an Egyptian citizen, in May 2012. They were together for four years before tying the knot, and Samantha lived in Egypt for nine months before returning to the UK in September 2012.
She returned home to get a job. She knew the immigration rules had changed and so she thought of herself especially lucky to find a job immediately, paying well over the 18,600 required. For this couple, the hurdle proving insurmountable, is the English language test. Her husband speaks good English but his reading and writing are not so good. He took a test in February which he failed; July sees his second attempt. Samantha understands that at the end of the day, its up to her husband to pass the exams. But she is bemused by how difficult they make it for candidates...almost as if they want the candidates to give up. Results for the test are due in August/September; hopefully he passes. If not, he will have to wait till November to re-take. To Samantha its a joke that she cant be in her home country, with her own husband, without recourse to public funds. Despite satisfying the income threshold, Samantha believes its too high; she doesnt understand why foreign spouses need to take an English test, which is not remotely basic, with hours of speaking, listening, reading and writing. She doesnt understand why the test cant be taken in the UK surely it would be easier to learn English surrounded by it.
Page | 118
v28.09
Page | 119
v28.09
Aimie has been told that for them to meet the financial requirement for her husbands visa, she would have to have been earning a salary of 18600 for at least 6 months prior to the visa application. However, as she is a student, they have been relying solely on their part-time jobs and scholarships. Aimie feels the new rules for financial requirement are unjust as they dont take into account individual circumstances. Aimie cannot simply move to another country for them to be together as she still has three years left at university. She also cannot simply drop out of university and earn 18600, as she doesnt have the work experience and would not have the qualifications without her degree, to earn that figure. Indeed, on minimum wage she would earn approximately 12000, which is far off the threshold. To Aimie its nonsensical how 18,600 could be considered reasonable; as a student she receives less than half of that income, and is still able to pay her bills. The unemployed people on JSA are earning less than that figure and are able to live. Aimie does not need luxury items to love her husband.
Page | 120
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 121
Financial requirements
v28.09
Miad complained to the visa consultant who had been helping him (provided by the UK college). The consultant apologised profusely, offering to refund the visa fee. The visa adviser said Miad could make another application - instead of going back to Iran, he could simple send the money directly to the college. Miad asked if this was allowed. The consultant told him that yes, this was allowed. So listening to his 'expert' advice, he re-applied. And, surprise surprise, he was refused again. Miad was hopping mad! Again, he was given an apology and a feeble excuse that it had been fine for other students. This visa consultant again refunded his visa fee - but by this time Miad was again out of pocket from expenses whilst living in Turkey! Why was Miad using this useless man's services? Because he had been told by the college that, if Miad didn't use him and his application was refused, he wouldn't get his college fees refunded! Miad went back to Iran in August. He had to get the money back from the college which he put in an approved bank and waited until he could go for a second time, to Turkey - in September - and apply for a third time. Thankfully the application was successful this time. In the meantime, the family migration rules had changed. Miad arrived in the UK in October 2012 and started college straight away. His student visa expires in August 2013. In January Alexis had to give up college. Had she been able to complete her course, she could have aimed for a better job, better career and better future - for all four of them. However, because of the rules, the onus only fell on Alexis to find a job paying over 18,600. Alexis has been on medication for anxiety and depression with the threat of state-enforced separation hanging over them.
Page | 122
Financial requirements
v28.09
Alice
Were not asking for hand-outs, just the chance to live as a family unit.
Alice is a British citizen living here in the UK, in Norfolk. She is 34 years of age, with an 8-year-old daughter from her first marriage. In May 2010 she met a lovely man who happened to be Tunisian, and more than two years later, in June 2012, they got married in Tunisia. They previously applied for him to come here for a 6-week visit in December 2011 and were refused entry, even though they had a guarantor (Alices reasonably well-off father) AND had savings to pay for the visit. The reason for the refusal was that the UKBA felt he did not have enough reason to return to his country following the visit! They subsequently decided to apply for a spouse visa following the marriage but missed the deadline for the rules changing. Alice lives in a small town in Norfolk where a salary of 18,600, particularly in retail the industry she works in is very difficult to obtain. The language requirement is not an issue her husband speaks fluent English and even has a TEFL certificate. Alice is a single mother and has been using her savings to visit her husband in Tunisia (last year she managed three visits) because he can't come here, even for a visit!! Like countless other families affected by these rules, Alice spends most of her life on Skype and is regretfully beginning to accept that she may never be able to be with her husband, because otherwise it would mean keeping her daughter away from her dad. She is at a loss, she feels discriminated against by the British government. Alice is not asking for handouts, just the chance to live as a family unit. Alice, and hundreds like her, is exactly the sort of person we and UK politicians should be protecting.
Page | 123
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 124
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 125
Financial requirements
v28.09
The couple has surmised that: Their trip of a lifetime prevents them from living in the UK as they have not been working. Their savings aren't enough to be counted as the first 16000 is excluded altogether and it must be 62,500 in cash. Rental income on their investment properties is excluded as - for tax efficient purposes these are owned by a limited company, even though Amanda and Tony are the full owners of this company. If they were to sell their property to show 62,500 in cash, theyd still have to spend six months apart and then, as Amanda says, God knows how many more months to process the application. Amanda is aware that she is lucky. She is on a yearlong holiday, has a job offer back home, and has assets. However despite this, they are left with a choice of living apart for likely a year on opposite sides of the world or never returning to the UK and her family. Amanda is not just angry. She is livid with the UK government. An income-related immigration test for families is abhorrent anyway but to have one that is not just about stopping people claiming benefits but is actually saying only the very wealthy can marry foreigners is outrageous. She choked up when she read an example in the UKBA guidance notes that even a person with 1m in stocks and shares must liquidate his assets to show cash of 62,500 required! Their much looked forward to trip now has a grey cloud following them, while Amanda and Tony wonder if they will ever be able to realise the dream of finally allowing Amanda the chance to live near her family...to have UK welcome Tony the way New Zealand did Amanda.
Page | 126
Financial requirements
v28.09
They met in 2009 when Amy went over to South Africa for the wedding of a British friend, marrying a South African. Amy and Sean had a long-distance relationship until 2010, when she decided to join Sean in South Africa where they lived together until May 2012. Amy is very close to her family back home though and returned to the UK every few months to see them. Whilst in South Africa, Amy witnessed countless violent situations, deaths and several incidents where even her home was broken into by intruders with weapons. Although all this was a normal occurrence for Sean, for Amy it was difficult to reconcile this with the relative safety in the UK, or have this as an environment where she was happy raising any children they may have. The violence affected Amy on a fundamental level. She started to refuse to leave the house. Shed only sleep during the day when she felt safer. It got bad enough that Sean noticed and began to fear that something would happen to his wife, who was only in the country for him. So in May 2012 the couple moved to the UK. Sean had been to the UK twice before; in June 2011 and December 2011. On 23rd June 2012 Amy and Sean married in a beautiful ceremony attended by Amys family.
Page | 127
Financial requirements
v28.09
Directly after the wedding, they began job hunting, for it was once Amy had a job that theyd be able to apply for a spouse visa for Sean. However in July 2012 the rules changed mandating a minimum income level beyond anything that Amy alone would be able to achieve. It was not possible for Amy to return to South Africa she just wasnt coping there , idea of moving back left her in cold sweats and with severe anxiety. Sean naturally refused to take steps which would put his wife in harms way. The couple sought advice from Kings Court Chambers and through them, applied for Discretionary Leave to Remain for Sean. With their application in November 2012, they included Amys psychology report, showing she had been diagnosed with a very high form of PTSD. Amy was feeling positive, getting the application together. It was a step towards being with her husband, in her home country, where she felt safe. Until July 2013, nearly nine months later, they received the refusal decision. They were devastated. Accompanied with the refusal letter, clearly a copy and paste job, the Home Office had stated that though they realised it would cause the couple hardship, they could easily return to South Africa and continue their life there. Amy is currently in a government funded apprenticeship position with the promise of a managerial position at the end of her training. She fought for this position and if she loses it, she won't get it again, and she would never get an opportunity like this in South Africa. Sean has good qualifications in music, having had a successful music career in South Africa. He is fluent in English and has a decent amount of savings which due to being unable to work even during the application process have been somewhat eroded. He is eminently employable though and has a deep seated willingness to work. They have sought help from their local MP, Sir James Paice, who has also written a letter in support of their situation to the Home Office. However the couple continues to wait. Sean refuses to leave his wife. Amy refuses to let Sean go. The couple has vowed to fight for as long as they can for the right to be together.
Page | 128
Financial requirements
v28.09
Aneela
I hope the rules change so families can stop being split up.
Aneela is a British citizen, born and bred in the UK. She has been a single parent raising a beautiful little boy on her own for the last six years. After her divorce Aneela had vowed she would never marry again; love, she decided, wasnt for her. However, on holiday in Pakistan in 2012, staying with her nan and cousins, she met her now husband during an Eid celebration. Aneela had actually met him many times before, but never spoken to him. They then met for every day of Aneelas stay in Pakistan. He acted as Aneelas tour guide, showing her sites in Pakistan she would not have been able to go to alone. Aneela extended her one month stay by another two weeks to prolong their time together, and then extended it yet again. It was soon clear to Aneela and her family that what had started as a friendship was now developing into something much more serious. Aneelas family was not keen. They thought things were being rushed and tried to keep the couple apart. However, love knows no boundaries. Aneela married the man she loved in secret. In him seeing the good role model and father she wanted for her son, as well as a good husband for herself. Aneela was risking the displeasure of her family with this relationship, but she knew in her bones this was the man who made her family complete. She returned to the UK looking for a job paying over the required 18,600. However it took six months to do so, and in that time Aneela found herself disowned by her family. Her husband was being told by all and sundry that he could do better than Aneela, a divorced single mother. However the couple stuck by each other. Aneela returned to Pakistan where they had an official marriage ceremony with her in-laws present. To Aneelas surprise and pleasure, her in-laws have accepted her and her son, and they speak on the phone every day. Now Aneela works two jobs to make ends meet, with Aneelas sister and her friends helping out with babysitting. Aneela desperately hopes the immigration rules change so families can stop being separated.
Page | 129
Financial requirements
v28.09
Angela
Angela is a British citizen who met her South African husband in Scotland in 1999. They have been married for 13 years, spending almost all the time in South Africa. They had a wonderful life there and were very happy, with a stable business and two beautiful children. In 2008, their life changed with Angela discovered she was pregnant with their third child. Although delighted, the family was also a little scared given Angelas history of miscarriages. It was a difficult pregnancy, tackling work and two other children and advised to take bed rest. Angela was given cortisone injections to strengthen the babys lungs and a stent inserted when Angela experienced kidney problems. She was determined to carry the baby to as close to full-term as possible but lost the battle with the doctor at 34 weeks and had a Caesarian. She is grateful every day that she did so, as at 28 weeks the baby had actually stopped feeding and growing. July 2009 saw their baby born, weighing 1.6 kg. The baby was very ill and kept in ICU, with two holes in her heart and a stomach infection. However even when the family was told the baby had Downs Syndrome, to Angela her baby was the most beautiful miracle she had ever seen. Against all odds, the baby pulled through and nine weeks, one day later the family took her home. The first couple of years were bittersweet, and a mixture of joy and worry. The family had been warned the babys life expectancy was a maximum of two years. The baby proved the medics wrong. It was at this time that Angela decided she wanted to return home to the UK. Her sister, who had moved over to South Africa to be with them, had to go back too and she felt that her kids would benefit from a life in the UK and the freedom and feeling of safety. However, as they began to make plans and arrange the documentation to facilitate coming home, more health problems arose, with the baby diagnosed with Primary Pulmonary Hypertension. One of her heart chambers had grown to three times its size because it struggled to pump blood. The family cancelled their UK plans as the baby would not have survived the flight. The family almost overnight moved house, to live at sea level to allow for more easier breathing for the baby. This fighter baby astounded doctors once again with her pulmonary pressure levels coming down from 89 to 35 over a two-year period. Angelas family has spent four years keeping the baby alive. Now they are in a position to once again think about their original plans to return to the UK, where it would also be better for the development of all three of her children. Schools in the area Angela lives in, in South Africa, have refused to admit her youngest child, citing lack of manpower and skills. As Angela gave up her business to care for her daughter, using a substantial part of her savings for medical costs, she is unable to satisfy the financial requirements of the post July 2012 immigration rules. Although not poor, they dont have much money. However when UK slammed its door shut Angela realised EU had left its open. Though not poor they dont have much money. Moving to Ireland just to one day be able to move to the UK involves upheaval and expense not once but twice. However at their family meeting the decision was unanimous and the family made the move to Ireland. They sold everything they had in South Africa, cashing in their pensions to fund the trip and three months later settled in Ireland. They are not sure when they will return to the UK, taking each day as it comes.
Page | 130
Financial requirements
v28.09
Anne
I dont know if I will ever see Scotland again.
Anne is a British citizen who has been living in Australia for 45 years. She has been married for 43 years to an Australian man. She is keen to spend her later years at home in Scotland. However, when they looked into applying for a visa for her husband, they received a rude shock. The visa fees alone would be over 600, without any guarantee of success. Indeed, the couple had been warned that applications were refused for the most minor of things. This is a couple that has enough money to buy a house in Scotland. Their combined pension from a lifetime of work in Australia equates to 300 a week. However, none of this is good enough. Anne is firm in her belief that Australia is a Commonwealth country and Australians fought with and for Britain in every war. Having her husband being treated in such a way makes her wish Australia would exit the Commonwealth. This is yet another family who would not be a burden on the system as they have more than enough to look after themselves. Anne is now facing a future without her beloved Scotland. She isnt even sure she will ever be able to see it again.
Page | 131
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 132
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 133
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 134
Financial requirements
v28.09
Brian
I wont give up and will move to Ireland if thats the only way I can be with my family.
Brian is a British citizen, he is 70 years old and retired. Brian is also married to a woman from Brazil they knew each other for a year before getting married nearly a year and a half ago. As almost every single married couple does, this couple too wishes to live together. As Brian needs to be in the UK with 4 children and 10 grandchildren here, this isnt surprising - he wishes to settle in the UK, with his wife. However, the Secretary of State does not see it that way. Brians wifes application for leave to remain was refused, with the advice they received from the government being that there was no reason why the couple could not carry on with their family life in Brazil. Brians wife would have qualified under the pre-July 2012 rules, increasingly being dubbed inhumane, unfair and xenophobic. Brian will not give up, however is considering exercising his treaty rights as an EU citizen to ensure his family is broken up which would mean coming out of retirement and finding a job in another EU/EEA country, just to be able to one day, return home. At any age, but especially his, he shouldnt have to fight for his right to live with his own family, in his own country. Putting a 70 year old in a situation where he has to come out of retirement, move countries and prove his right to be with his wife is something worthy of politicians hanging their heads in shame.
Page | 135
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 136
Financial requirements
v28.09
Claire
My parents are shocked that the support they can offer us is not considered at all.
Claire is a British citizen married to a man from Fiji. She has been personally affected by the immigration rules which are now forcing her to choose between a life outside of her home country and away from family and friends, or spend several months, maybe even years, apart from her husband while she finds and works in a job meeting the income threshold and then goes through the laborious visa application process. Claire is exactly the kind of citizen UK is crying out for. She is a Masters graduate, with a Distinction from Oxford Brookes University. She will have no trouble at all in gaining work over the income threshold when she returns to the UK, having already received several interview requests for jobs paying over 18,600/ She really wants to work here, and feels her skills and education are being wasted in Fiji, where she is not able to work or volunteer as a spouse for her first three years there. Claires parents have offered to sponsor Claire and her husband, offering them money and free accommodation to live in. However, even third-party support has been disallowed. Claire and her husband first met in 2008, at which point they had been together for two years already. Claire visited him regularly. Her husband has been employed ever since he left school, would not accept social security benefits and wishes to fully contribute to the UK economy. However, the thought of more time apart makes Claire despair this time it would be as a married couple. The stress is also beginning to take its toll., Like many British citizens, Claire is shocked to find that the rules for British citizens to be able to live in their own homes with their family, are so severe. She had no idea that as someone in a genuine relationship; someone who just happened to fall in love with a man from another country, the road home would be filled with barriers
Page | 137
Financial requirements
v28.09
Clint
I have started to blame myself for not earning 18,600. Not many security guards do though.
Clint is a British citizen from St. Ives, Cambridgeshire. His wife of nearly three years, and five month old baby, who is eligible for British citizenship, are in the Philippines. Clints family would holiday in the Philippines for a few weeks every year so it wasnt a surprise when Clint fell in love there. As a security guard, Clint earns around 14,000 a year. This is less than the 18,600 the government has mandated he must earn if he wants to live with his wife. Clint wishes to live in the UK with his family. He needs to be here for his parents his dad is a British pensioner and his mum, also from the Philippines came to England in October 1984. She has worked her whole life as Clint is certain his wife will as well. This is not a family that expects handouts or is afraid of hard work. He wishes to live here with his family because it is his right to do so. He wishes for his daughter to have the same quality upbringing and standard of life he was afforded, and one which all British children are entitled to. They do not need to depend on benefits. As an only child, Clints parents have made it clear that their family home will pass to Clint, in which to raise his own family. Clint has started to blame himself for not earning 18,600. Even though its not his fault. He is earning what others in his profession are paid. This is a family considering exercising their treaty rights elsewhere in the EU just to be together as a family. So Clint is saving up in order to move countries just to have his wife and daughter back with him.
Page | 138
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 139
Financial requirements
v28.09
Damar
I served in the British army, defended British lives and the British way of life, and now am kept apart from my own wife and child..
Damar is a Hong Kong-born British national, a former Gurkha soldier and now an IT professional and another victim of this governments new immigration rules impacting on families. Damar lives in Stroud, Hampshire and his initial plan was to move to UK with his wife and 10-yearold daughter, both Filipino nationals, earlier this summer. The said law, however, prevents this, forcing him to be apart from his family. A man who served in the British army, defending British lives and the British way of life, is now being prevented from having a life with his own wife and child. Damar and his family decided to build a future in Britain in response to the IT skills shortage and to provide his daughter with a better education. Damar has a science degree majoring in computing and networking (BScCN) and a Master of Science in Information Technology (MScIT). With over 12 years of IT work experience, and 9 years of exemplary military service before that in the Brigade of Gurkhas, part of the British Army, he is confident that he would be a net contributor to the economy and community. Damar is, and has always been, an asset not a burden, to UK. Its clear this unacceptably harsh law will prevent British citizens, including some who have served in the British army, from settling in the UK. The pain of separation from his wife and daughter is indescribable and brings to the fore the ignorance of the Home Secretary someone who does not, or chooses not to, understand the impact of the rules she has imposed and devastation being wreaked. The enforced separation has taken its toll on the physical and psychological health of Damars family, with insomnia and depression taking a toll on their health. This government, despite a manifesto claim, is neither family-friendly nor one with morals or common sense. Damar is aware of British publics frustration with immigration abuse and sham marriages, but the Government has chosen to punish poorer and rural British citizens instead of genuinely targeting problem areas. All are shocked that this government places financial conditions on love, family and human rights. Damar is forced to maintain living expenses in UK and Hong Kong, two equally expensive places. To sponsor his wife and daughter in the UK, he has to nd a job with a salary of at least 22,400 per annum. The Government is claiming the law is fair, pro-family, and beneficial to the British economy, reduces immigrant numbers by hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands, and upholds the principles of human rights. A complete farce. If preventing certain EU citizens British citizens with non-EU spouses from living together will reduce immigrant numbers to the level claimed, its wrong in principle and in its estimate of 'success'. Damars desire to live here doesnt involve sponging on welfare benefits. Its to work and provide his family with a better quality of life in the country he risked his life to defend. This law is an attack on human rights (including a fundamental right to family life), and the UKs reputation as an advocate of human rights and open and fair democracy is fast being eroded. It has closed its door to its own citizens; it has, however, provided enough ground to be challenged in court, which it will be, and thus more taxpayers money will be frittered away. How do such rules safeguard taxpayers and the British economy, as the Government has claimed?
Page | 140
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 141
Financial requirements
v28.09
David is unable to even consider moving to Canada now as one of his daughters, Kayleigh, diagnosed with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) moved in with him permanently in December 2012. Duty of care to her makes it even more difficult for David to work the extra hours needed to reach the 18,600 level. The couple has now spent two Christmases apart, and second Christmas apart and counting. David has also had the opportunity to speak about his situation at the APPG on Migration meeting in Parliament on 10th February 2013, as arranged by Migrants Rights Network. David is not a public speaker. He doesnt like it; he doesnt profess to be an expert at it. However, he is a firm believer that if you dont stand up for what you believe in, then its not right to ask others to stand up on your behalf. When David shared his story he was overwhelmed with the support her received. He was advised by many present that Dee should apply for Leave to Enter even though they don't meet the minimum income requirement, and that theyd win an appeal anyway. In March 2013, Dee took her application to Toronto to have her Biometrics done. They told her there that she'd have to come back in May because she'd put August as her date of travel, and couldn't apply more than three months before that date. Dee went back two months later (as requested) to find that the last two pages of her paperwork was missing (it had been there at the first appointment but mysteriously disappeared this time round). For David it was really hard to receive a phone call from his wife 3,500 miles away, crying her eyes out, knowing there was little he could do to help. After speaking with her husband, Dee decided to make one last stop at the office as it was closing before catching her bus back home and happily the Consulate had found the missing pages and faxed them across. RESULT!!!! Dee was told it would take about ten weeks to process, and so the couple waited again, in anticipation of their reunion. They allowed themselves to forget that just when it looks like there's light at the end of the tunnel, the Home Office just builds more tunnel. A High Court decision in the MM & Ors vs. Secretary of State case deemed that the income rules were disproportionate and unjustified, leading to the Home Office pausing all applications where the income requirement would be the only reason for refusal. By late August, Dees application had been with the British embassy for fourteen weeks already. According to the embassys own estimate this would mean it was already a month overdue in the decision being made. However, the MM case, followed by the Home Office not only pausing applications such as theirs, but also now appealing the High Court decision leaves this family mired in uncertainty. How much longer will it take? David estimates another year. What is worse however is that the Home Office has Dees passport. If she asks for it back, her application gets withdrawn and the family loses the application fee. This means that Dee is likely to miss the wedding of her son, James, who is getting married in Manila to his fiance, a citizen of the Philippines. David and Dee have no intention of giving up. Their love is strong enough to cope with anything the Home Office throws at them. The issue of course remains, that they shouldnt have to be cope with life apart.
Page | 142
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 143
Financial requirements
v28.09
nearly
Unknown to the family, and with very little warning, in June 2012 strict new immigration guidelines were announced. There was never a debate in the House of Commons on these new rules; and yet they were to be implemented only one month later, in July 2012, giving very little opportunity for anyone - even experts in the field - to react. Dee was having a difficult pregnancy spending large bouts of time in hospital made even more painful by not having her husband by her side. Made worse by the letter from UKBA stating that she did not meet the income requirement.
Page | 144
Financial requirements
v28.09
This is despite Dee earning an annual salary of 16,300 - above the living wage; indeed, her family income would be even higher if Ozan were with her, working, supporting and providing for Dee and his stepson. Pictures show the incredible artistic talent which would not go unrewarded in the UK. Of course, this would also mean Dee and her son would be less likely to ever be dependent on the state. The government claims that the measures introduced reduce the benefits burden on the taxpayer. Dee's example disproves that; a family together, with two earners, is far less likely to have to claim benefits - now or at any time in the future - than a partner who is effectively forced to be a single mother, supporting a family by herself). Since having their baby daughter, Dee has had to lower her hours at work due to childcare and says if her husband was in the UK, her tax credits claim would be lower as she could share childcare with her husband and Ozan would be working and earning good money too. There is however zero room in the rules for any discretion or use of common sense, despite the fact that median incomes vary considerably across the country; many people even on lower incomes prefer to live frugally just as many despite being on higher incomes are in debt. The point remains that forcing a family apart is in fact more likely to push people onto benefits adding economics to moral and common sense as reasons to make the rules fair. Dees daughter also a British citizen - cannot be with her own father. Yes she talks to her daddy every day via a computer screen very similar to the Skype Daddy video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKrCUaKB4KM . Dee's son has a hard time too; he just doesn't understand why he can't be with the man he considers a father-figure, as family. Dee has no support except from extended family; she is working to support two children, and dealing with another upcoming operation, all by herself. Dee is very angry that her family has been divided through senseless rules and their ridiculous application. With good reason.
Page | 145
Financial requirements
v28.09
Elwyn
I am ashamed to be British but I will keep fighting these rules.
Elwyn is a 55 year old British man. He has two children and four grandchildren. He owns his own home in south Wales and is employed as a minister of a Christian church in the town. After nursing his first wife for eleven years, the last five, 24/7 sadly she passed away in 2012. In 2013 Elwyn married a Ukrainian national who he had known for many years as she worked as secretary to a church he visited in Ukraine regularly. They looked into making their settlement visa application straight away. However, Elwyn was confused by the information on the UKBA website. He sought clarification from the passport office and British Embassy in Kiev on at least six occasions, by phone and email. However the only thing that was forthcoming was that they were unable to provide advice, and Elwyns pleas that he was asking for clarification not advice fell on deaf ears. So the couple did what they thought was correct thinking Elwyn could seek clarification when he was submitting the application in person, before handing over nearly 1000 as the application fee. All the documents had been translated and apostilled at an additional cost of 500. Elwyn however wasnt allowed into the office and only his wife was able to go in and get the paperwork submitted. While it was being looked over, she asked if it was all right and was told that it would be submitted once the application fee was paid. Three months later they received an email to say all the documents were on their way back and that the passport was ready to be picked up. They had been refused, because although they had submitted his wifes diploma, along with her straight A grades as a graduate of Kiev university as an English teacher, they had not submitted the Cambridge English Test certificate. Elwyn is now living in Ukraine, managing with regular trips back and forward to UK. His father is 85 years old and seriously ill, having been diagnosed with prostate cancer. Elwyns fathers dearest wish was to spend some time with Elwyn and his new daughter-in-law. So while getting the extensive requirements and paperwork together for another settlement visa application, they decided to apply for a visitor visa so Elwyns wife could come and spend most of September with her new father in law. She sat the Cambridge exam and they still await the results of that. But this was not needed for the visitor visa. Elwyn applied with all the necessary paperwork and the 90 fee at the Kiev office. He submitted a letter of support and itinerary for the time up to Christmas, when they were due to be in Africa on humanitarian work for six weeks from October. It was clear that this was just a visit. However, the visit visa was also refused. This time on grounds that theyd been less than truthful as it was obvious their intentions were not to return to Ukraine. Elwyn has residency in Ukraine; they own their own apartment there and he has changed work roles so that he can remain employed whilst living in Ukraine until they are eventually in a position to be granted a settlement visa. He finds it amazing that a civil servant would call a minister of the church untruthful! So Elwyn is unable to take his wife to see my 85 year old sick father, or his 62 year old severely disabled sister or his still grieving daughters and four grandchildren. Elwyn is now ashamed to admit he is British. He is adamant though that he will continue raising awareness of the issues he has faced, its now a personal crusade for justice.
Page | 146
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 147
Financial requirements
v28.09
Emma
I am in despair. My family has been kept apart for many years, despite playing by the rules...which the government keeps changing.
Emma is a British citizen. She met her now husband in Indonesia in 2001. She returned in 2002 and they stayed together before Emma came back to the UK. They kept in touch via post and email over the next seven months, before Emma returned to Indonesia to marry her husband. Her husband applied for a UK visa, allowing him to move here with his new wife, following which the couple moved here, and had a daughter and son. Both Emma and her husband worked in the UK, without claiming a penny in benefits. This was in 2002. In 2007, the family decided to try living in Indonesia. They set up their own business there. However, some time later, they decided to return to the UK, where Emma felt that she could find better work. However, they were in for a shock. Emmas husbands returning residence visa was refused as hed been outside UK for over two months in a two-year period. The British Embassy in Jakarta advised the couple to apply for a returning visitor visa as they were still within the rules. But they were in for another shock! This visa was refused, wasting time and money. They were subsequently advised to apply for a spouse visa costing 800. This too was refused, on grounds of Emma (the sponsor) not having a job in the UK. The immigration officer advised them in the refusal letter that if Emma were to return to the UK and make provisions for her husband to return get a job, and a house adequate for family life in the UK she would be able to make a successful visa application for her husband. Emma returned to the UK with her two children, arranged accommodation, settled the kids into school and started job hunting. This meant, unfortunately, that she was juggling childcare and associated costs, effectively as a single mother, making it incredibly difficult to secure full-time employment, despite securing job interviews! It was ironic, because if her husband was allowed to be with her, the familys child care problems would cease to exist, as the couple could have organised their time to work and care for their little family without having to claim any benefits. In fact, Emma did everything in her power to avoid becoming a burden on the State. She set herself up as an entrepreneur with her own freelance business, working from home. In desperation, she wrote to her local MP explaining the situation, expecting some help from a person paid to represent his constituents. The MPs reply was unhelpful, expressing his sympathy for their situation and stating that even another MP had had his wifes visa refused entry to the UK difficult for everyone! Emma then wrote to the Prime Minister, receiving a standard letter expressing his sympathy, and enclosing the immigration rules! As if she didnt already know them! She was featured on the front page of the local newspaper which had initially contacted her about a mural she had produced for the school, but were subsequently more interested in her family situation. People stopped Emma in the street asking her how she was coping. Like many members of the general public, they couldnt believe her story But you are married! and they could not believe how, at this stage, she had been apart from her husband and the kids from their father for three long years. Emmas husband came into some money in April 2012 and applied yet again for a visa, only for it to be refused yet again this time on the grounds he hadnt done his English test. They were aware he had to do this test in due course, but the Embassy in Jakarta had informed him he could do it in the UK. They lost another 820. Yet more time and more money lost..yet more heartbreak.
Page | 148
Financial requirements
v28.09
Emma contacted a lawyer who told her the couple couldnt appeal as its now a requirement to pass an approved English test pre-visa application. Despite being incorrectly informed by a British Embassy cut no ice so hard-working Brits are forced to donate money to UKBA because of incompetence of UK government employees. Emmas husband did his English test on July 20th. As of the end of September, they are still waiting for the result. More time has passed, more money has been lost. And, brutally, the government has changed the immigration rules yet again . Now, Emma has to be earning 18,600 on top of whatever her husband earns if the family is to be reunited. The rule changes were announced in June, and introduced in July hardly enough time to prepare. As of today, Emma is in despair. The family has been kept apart for many years, despite playing by the rules. What hope is there for them? The government has behaved appallingly. One part of the government (the Embassy) incorrectly advised Emma on the rules. Yet they are prepared to take her money for each application, in a manner which would make a lowlife street conman proud. Another part of the government (the UKBA) introduces rules so arcane that, within a matter of weeks, they would have made Kafka proud indeed, rules so complex that even MPs getting paid 100,000 have difficulty grasping the key concepts and locating all the hidden annexes. The new rules were introduced by means of secondary legislation meaning the House of Commons didnt even get to debate them, and doubtless many politicians remain unaware of all the intricate Machiavellian details! What an utterly shameful situation.
Page | 149
Financial requirements
v28.09
Gillian
Mother, mother-in-law and grandmother.
Gillian is a British citizen from Scotland. She is mother to four British sons and mother-in-law to four daughters-in-law, all from the USA. Gillian has had to fight long and hard in order for her son, Kevin, to be able to live with Jamie, his wife, and their two small children. Gillian herself returned to UK from USA once she had retired, in 2006. Her third son, Kevin followed in 2008 with his wife Jamie and their daughter Eowyn. They moved into a house in the same village and the little girl went to the local school. All was going well. Jamie was working managing a local farm shop and ice-cream parlour and Kevin went back to university to get his IT degree. Jamie gave birth to a son in August 2011. In March 2012 she received news that her dad was seriously ill in California and needed major heart surgery. Jamie was settled here under the old two-year visa program at the time and had been here for four years. She was due to apply for indefinite leave to remain in April 2012 but did not have the money needed for that as well as having money for the airfare for herself and the two kids to fly to California to be with her dad. Naturally she chose to see her dad. Jamies father died in September 2012 and the familys attention turned to Jamie returning to the UK. Unfortunately, by this time the rules and changed and they found that because Kevin had been at university and not working full time, he did not have the six months worth of pay slips and bank statements needed to even apply for Jamies visa. Kevin immediately abandoned his degree and got a job as a security guard working 60-65 hours a week to make the minimum amount of 18,600 needed to get her home. His daughter already had indefinite leave based upon Kevins citizenship and his son was born in the UK so neither of them needed visa clearance. However, because his wife was caught up in this mess the children were also prevented from coming home. It took a further six months to get the necessary paperwork together to apply. All told, they had been apart for a full year. His son, who had only been six months old when they left only knew his dad as a face on the computer. Jamie had no job in the US and they moved around staying with various friends and relatives for the entire year they were there. The little girls education has been severely compromised as she has moved from school to school during the years they have been nomads in the USA and it is going to take her several months if not years to catch up. The happy part of this story is that, with the help of their local MP, some local press coverage and some much deserved luck, Jamie and the two children were able to return to Scotland on 27th March 2013. The family has found the immigration rules to be punitive in the extreme, as they punish British citizens. It is clear to this family that the rules are purely down to a numbers game being played by people without conscience and should be struck down. The family was forced to pay a huge price for Jamie doing what any daughter would do. Kevin, in giving up his studies to reunite his family, has paid the price of a more secure future for them all.
Page | 150
Financial requirements
v28.09
Hayley
Why is the income threshold such that nearly half of the British population would not be able to meet it?
Hayley is a British citizen who in April 2011 went to start the summer season working in Tunisia as an entertainer where she first met her now husband. From when they first met, all through the summer, they were inseparable and spent every day in and out of work together. When in winter she had to return to the UK, they were both heartbroken. Hayley soon booked two separate trips to ensure they would spend time in person together over the winter as well, and not just through a computer screen on Skype. She travelled back to Tunisia in January 2012; met all his family, and then again in March 2011 to celebrate her birthday with the man she loved. Returning to Tunisia for the second season in summer 2012, Hayley felt like they had never been apart. At the end of the season she decided that she wanted to end her career as an entertainer, get married and find a stable job in the UK. She returned to the UK, once again booking trips back to Tunisia for January and April 2013. While apart, theyd share jokes every day, keep each other company, share their days with each other, albeit through Skype. In June 2013 they got married and what an amazing wedding day it was! All the preparing and sorting out a wedding a thousand miles apart from each other was so stressful but paid off as it really was the best day of their lives. Like any other couple they are looking forward to building and planning future together as husband and wife. Unfortunately due to the current 18,600 income requirement that allows no third party support, nor evidence to show Hayley can support her husband without earning the magical 18,600 they still having to live apart. It hurts. Most newly-weds are beside each other but instead this couple has to look at each other through a computer screen hundreds of miles away. Hayley is convinced that while she doesnt earn 18,600 she can support her husband without any aid from the state. She works full time, lives in a large family owned property and all her family work. The income threshold is unjustified, unrealistic, irrelevant and therefore needs to change. Hayley is firm in her belief that the requirements should not be such that around 50% of the British population would never be able to meet.
Page | 151
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 152
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 153
Financial requirements
v28.09
sadness; its scary to think that were she to fall pregnant, she would have to chose between pregnancy at home with family and friends around her, and the father of her child, the choice is difficult but obvious she would have to stay in Argentina and therefore be forcibly exiled from the UK. Jade is aware that she could move to Spain where she and Luis would be welcomed with open arms, as part of the EU treaty. However this still means putting her life on hold; dreams of studying in the UK are postponed and she would continue to have to teach English as a foreign language for another few years. Indeed, its odd that as a British Masters student Jade wouldnt be able to live here with her partner because she doesnt earn the required income, but international students do not face the same restrictions! Jade just wants the UK to keep its doors open to her, welcome her back and not punish her for travelling around the world and accidentally falling in love with someone from outside Europe's borders.
Page | 154
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 155
Financial requirements
v28.09
Jenny
Jenny is a British citizen living in Australia for the past nine years. She lives there with her Australian husband and three-year old daughter. She was 20 when she met her husband and never thought returning home one day would be a problem. Although her daughter qualifies for British citizenship, Jenny would still have to move to the UK alone, and find a job paying a large salary before her husband was allowed to live here. This is completely unrealistic for Jenny, who is a stay-at-home mum. She cant leave her daughter with her husband in Australia, nor can she bring her daughter to the UK without her husband, as that would mean working full time in a job flexible enough to cope with the demands brought about by enforced single parenthood. Jenny does not wish to take her daughter away from everything that is familiar, and separate a child from her father, just to then entrust her to strangers in day care.
Page | 156
Financial requirements
v28.09
In June 2012, Warren was granted a holiday visa, so they both could visit UK and attend Jessicas father's wedding. While here, they looked at properties and assessed the employment market. They did return to South Africa after the visit - Warren is a law abiding citizen and adhered to the expiry dates of his visas. Then discovered the immigration rules had changed virtually overnight and they could no longer move back to the UK unless Jessica, and Jessica alone, was earning over 18,600. Jessica is 21 years old. She is living in a country which is known for not being particularly safe. There is no minimum wage like in the UK..how is she expected to earn over 18,600? Even as an IT Manager for once of the largest ISPs in SA, she earns 6,000 p.a. Warren earns 12,000 p.a. Indeed, Warren could easily get jobs paying over 25,000 in the UK as he is a specialised voice engineer. There is no way Jessica can earn 18,600 living in South Africa. This young couple feels trapped and are experiencing a lot of anxiety and tension because of rules designed to keep British citizens with non-EEA family out of the UK. Jessica lives in hope that the rules will change and her little family will be welcomed in the UK.
Page | 157
Financial requirements
v28.09
Joel
My parents are much older than my wife's and we wanted to be closer to them, so my wife, our son and I could see more of them and help them out in their old age. Not too much to ask, is it?
British citizen, Joel, lives in Forest of Dean (in Gloucestershire) and his MP is Mark Harper, Minister for Immigration. Joels wife is from the USA. Theyve been married for five years, with a four-year-old son, also British. As Joels parents are much older than his wifes they decided to relocate from US to UK to be closer to Joels parents, spend time them with them, allow a bond to develop between their son and his grandparents and afford his parents the respect they deserve by looking after them in their old age. All these are noble intentions the government should encourage. Instead, Joel and his family are being penalised. Ironically, Joel used to work for UK government departments in various locations in the world as an Entry Clearance Officer. So he had sound working knowledge of the immigration rules, having processed thousands of visa applications himself. However, not having worked in immigration for over two years, it was only when they came to look into making an application for his wife that Joel discovered how drastically the rules had changed. Previously you had to demonstrate you could 'adequately' maintain and accommodate your spouse. It was a common sense decision that the Entry Clearance officer could make themselves. Third-party support (i.e. from parents, etc.) was perfectly acceptable; there was no statutory minimum income for the sponsor to earn (although it was very loosely based on the level of income support amount for a couple over 18, i.e. 111.45 a week). Also taken into account was the applicant's ability to find employment in the UK and ALL savings were admissible, not just those over 16,000. The new rules take all powers of discretion away from the Entry Clearance Officer. If you don't meet the rules, you get refused. Simple as that. Joel does not believe, in his extensive UK public sector service and immigration experience, that these rules are lawful, or understood by politicians themselves. Joel has had excellent jobs in the past, while his American wife has a post-graduate degree, an MBA in Finance, has worked as an investment banker and is currently working for the US government i.e. she is extremely well qualified and not someone who is going to switch countries to claim meagre welfare benefits. Clearly, her chances of getting a job in the UK, with these qualifications, are very good, and indeed she is exactly the kind of candidate we should be seeking to attract. But that's no longer taken into account. So, Joel has moved here with their son, and is living with his parents in Gloucestershire. Meanwhile, his wife is on her own in Washington DC. Joel is desperately trying to find a job that will make the required 18,600 a year. That's not a realistic amount to find easily in this area, so he is looking for work in London. But then he faces the problem of who will look after his son and elderly parents. If his wife were here, then the duties of looking after their child and his parents would be shared. The burden would be halved, and the family would not be torn apart. The ludicrous nature of this situation and the rule changes mean that, in theory, Joel could earn the required amount but probably end up spending a huge proportion of that on living in London and paying for care for his family. Yet he could find a job paying around 15,000 a year, live with his parents, wife and child and not have the carer expenses to pay for. And his wife could find gainful employment.
Page | 158
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 159
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 160
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 161
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 162
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 163
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 164
Financial requirements
v28.09
It is not feasible for Laura to move to Egypt to be with her husband Mohamed. She has a degree and a good job with great prospects here in the UK. Were she to be forced to move to Egypt, everything she has ever worked towards would be taken away. Laura does not speak fluent Arabic, meaning it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find a job, especially in the science field. Laura wants to start a family in the near future. She has cysts on her ovaries, so fears kids may not be an option were she to wait very long. Concerns of poor education and conditions for her future children, things other British citizens have a right to, also make moving to Egypt undesirable. Laura would never wish for her worst enemy to be in the situation she is in now; she feels like she is being told that she doesnt have the right to love who she wants, or to start a family when she wants to. She is being discriminated against for not having a well enough paid job and her life has been put on hold because of these changes. Laura is on anti-depressants to combat her depression and at times, suicidal thoughts as a result of her frustration at finding that each time she thinks they have satisfied the criteria the goal posts have been moved yet again. How many people will have to sacrifice their life before this government realises the devastating impact of these rules on British families?
Page | 165
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 166
Financial requirements
v28.09
The expiry date on Beckys visa came and went; their lawyer told them that Becky would have three months following the expiry to leave UK before being deemed by UKBA to be an overstayer. His wife, best friend and soul-mate was now, to all intents-and-purposes, a tourist in his own country. They spent what was to be their last Christmas together in Scotland (and possibly the foreseeable future). Their friends and Beckys family were incredibly supportive, as well as shocked, dismayed, angry and incredulous at what had befallen us and what was to come. They received dinner invitations; delicious food, selfless generosity, great company (and not a little malt whisky) provided a momentary cushion against the looming reality of our enforced separation. Beckys flavoured chocolate fudge was consumed in excessive quantity. Once this festive period had passed (in, if Im quite honest, a somewhat anaesthetised haze) their separation day February 24th 2013 looked - four days after our first wedding anniversary. Beckys flight was booked: Departure from Glasgow Airport at 1pm with layovers in Reykjavk and Denver. We booked a night in a nearby hotel to negate a needless rush with baggage across Central Scotland, to break up the journey and spend last precious hours together. The tears were never far away. Truth be told theyve flowed almost constantly since last years sudden thump of realisation that this day would eventually have to be faced. Less last sight of Becky was of her passing through airport security, placing personal items into the containers provided. He hoped to catch her eye one final time but she didnt look back. Becky later told me that she couldnt do it. If I had Les then I would have scrambled back over the barriers towards you. Im sorry sweetie. Of course he understood. How could he not? And so to today. Becky is lodged temporarily with her parents in Washington. They speak on Skype, exchange emails and comments on Facebook. But its never the same. She cant afford to visit, and besides, could we go through the trauma of separation all over again? Because thats what it would be like, so thank goodness for the world-wide-web, despite its obvious limitations in conducting a full and meaningful marriage. The couple have decided their only real prospect of being reunited is to initiate the US immigration process for Les to move there. Something they had considered much earlier, as there the income requirement is much more reasonable, at 125% of the poverty level. However, Les has a daughter who lives in the UK, and moving overseas would damage any prospects of a relationship between father and daughter. Becky may be American but her heart is in Scotland. She was settled here, she had found her place in the World and she had much to offer this country by way of talents and skills. Les in turn has no desire to move to the States, leaving his home and moving further away from his daughter. Les is filled with anger and resentment that two people so obviously made for each other could be treated so inhumanely and that too by his own country He is embarrassed and ashamed and does not feel British. But, for all that, there will be pain, because I know, when this happens, he will most likely never see again his little girl who turned 7 this year. Maybe she will demand answers as to why her father isnt here. While Les is now resigned to leaving UK, he knows he will be leaving behind a treasure - a beautiful person by the name of Holly Rowan Hudson who will never be far from his thoughts. Less message to Holly is that despite his being forced to leave because of rules designed to break up families, while he may be leaving Holly, she will never leave him.
Page | 167
Financial requirements
v28.09
Lisa
It is ludicrous and unlawful to put a price on anybodys marriage and love. We are human and deserve to be together with our loved ones.
Lisa is a British citizen married to a man from Morocco. She has children with her ex-spouse who is British. He has put in place a Prohibited Steps Order whereby she cannot take her kids out of the UK. As Lisa does not earn 18,600, her husband does not qualify for a spouse visa. She is strongly opposed to these immigration rules and wants some justice she should not have to choose between her husband and her children. Lisa has to keep travelling back and forth to Morocco as a Prohibited Steps Order prevents her from taking her kids from the UK. So now she is left with no choice but to live two lives and split up her family. Lisa demands that Theresa May be made to explain to innocent people here how she justifies such extreme measures and insists that she will campaign until our basic rights as British citizens are given back to us. Lisas only family are her kids and husband her parents and brother passed away. What will happen to Lisa 20 years down the line when her kids are living their own lives? The pressure on and guilt felt by Lisas kids knowing their mother had to sacrifice her marriage for them will be insurmountable. Lisa will have given up her youth and her marriage to the man she loves in order to be a good mother; or she will have to give up being a good mother in order to be a good wife. What kind of legacy is being left for Lisas family and hundreds like her? All studies show that children are better off in a two-parent family. Common sense dictates that Lisa making sacrifices for her kids or for her husband will not yield good results years down the line, for her own sanity or that of her family. Why is this government putting us in the position where we are essentially faced with a choice that is no choice at all, knowing that whatever decision is taken will leave lives destroyed, with the ramifications felt for years to come?
Page | 168
Financial requirements
v28.09
Louise
There are better ways of managing immigration than punishing British citizens and the people we love.
Louise is a British citizen from Manchester. Her husband is from Kenya. They met in 2011 on a family holiday there. Their relationship started off as just friends, but by the time she returned to the UK, she was so much in love with him, she decided to visit him for Valentines Day. Since then, she has visited him three times a year with her family offering her financial support. Louise lives at home with her family. They are supporting her while she works in a volunteer and lowincome role. She is also searching for full-time work. The agony of being separated was tearing them apart but their determination to maintain their long distance relationship grew more and more, communicating on bbm (everyday) and by talk home calling cards. A year later, they formalised their love and commitment to each other by getting married in a religious ceremony in Kenya. At the time, neither Louise nor her family were aware of the changes to the family migration rules they were caught out like so many others. Unsurprising given the speed and quietness with which the rules were brought in...they werent even taken through parliament in the proper manner! However, upon finding out they remained unwavering in their determination to stay together no matter what to maintain their union as husband and wife. The only family Louise has is her mum, step-dad and young brothers. Louises mother-in-law passed away when her husband was only a child; her father-in-law is an alcoholic. Love is blind and isnt a conscious decision based on earnings or influence; nor family background or nationality. Louise and her family firmly believe that Theresa May's family migration policy is unfair and punitive. There are better ways of managing migration than punishing British citizens and the people they love.
Page | 169
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 170
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 171
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 172
Financial requirements
v28.09
Mark and Mercy met online through friends in 2011. They stayed in touch and April 2013 saw them getting married in a beautiful ceremony in Senegal. Mark does not earn 18,600. Not many pensioners do. Mark does however own two properties outright in Liverpool, which the Home Office does not consider in assessing Marks financial position for the sponsorship of his wife. Properties which mean Mark himself has no recourse to public funds.
Page | 173
Financial requirements
v28.09
So they married in February 2012, excited at a future together. Max returned to Ukraine to prepare for the visa. Megan remained in south Wales and embarked on a new career as a carer, taking her NVQs and climbing onto a promising career ladder. A role which the government is crying out for more people to take on, and one Megan enjoyed immensely, in spite of, or perhaps because of, the long hours and hard study it requires. In this, Megan felt like she has found her calling and thrived. She rented a small flat and decorated it, expecting it to be their starter marital home. Not once did they consider the option of any government handouts. Being together is their dream, their responsibility. They are just a young couple in love. So when they were hit with the July 2012 rules, it felt like their lives had been torn apart. As a carer, Megan earned enough to support them both if needed, though Max would work as well, well able to cover their expenses living in a small Welsh village. However, determined to be with Max, Megan gave up her dream job in favour of a job in the insurance industry, paying 18,000 - a role she detested yet one she was sad to lose due to her employer having legal issues. Since then, Megan has been in two car crashes, suffering from anxiety and depression. A direct result of the stress, pain and heart ache she has had to endure because of the immigration rules. Ironically, rather than reduce the burden on the taxpayer, Megans medicines have required government funding an expense which would not have been incurred in the first place if the rules had been fair. Megan loves her husband. He is her world, her heart, her everything. All she wants is for them to be together. They have so much support from their family and a strong youthful passion to succeed. They dont want handouts.. They just want to be together. Love is not and should not be a privilege for the rich.
Page | 174
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 175
Financial requirements
v28.09
Michael (Malaysia)
UK trained my wife to PhD level and now dont want her expertise in the UK workforce!
Michael is a British citizen who met his Malaysian wife in Glasgow where she was studying for her PhD. They got married in February of 2011 after a year of trying to get the permission to marry from the government. They didnt apply for a spouse visa straight away as his wifes student visa was due to expire at the end of March 2011 anyway, and she was successful in being offered a job in Switzerland. So the couple moved from Glasgow to Switzerland in March 2011where they have lived ever since. Michael has been working there too, in a combination of agency and self-employment, for over three months. His wife has been working in the same company for the full duration of their stay on a permanent contract. The couple is now concerned. If for whatever reason, Michaels wife were to lose her job, she would also lose her right to live in Switzerland, leaving Malaysia as the only option open to them if they were to continue to be together. However, as their marriage is not legitimate under Muslim law, it would not be recognised in Malaysia and they are likely to face problems living together there. This is a couple who dont need to be in the UK right now. But they can see their future threatened by UKs immigration rules, were their situation to change in the future. They find it bizarre the situation UK has gotten itself into. It is happy training Michaels wife to PhD level, and now doesnt want her expertise in the workforce.
Page | 176
Financial requirements
v28.09
Michael (Singapore)
I have been impacted by the abolishing of the PSW and the financial thresholds.
Michael is a British citizen who met his girlfriend while they were students at Warwick University. As Michaels girlfriend is from Singapore, he has been impacted by two changes to the immigration rules: the abolition of the Tier-1 post study work visa (PSW) and the 18,600 financial requirement. The couples original plan was for her to stay in the UK on her PSW for two years something which the UK government lured foreign students into the UK with, only to then abolish it, not only for future international students, but those already in the UK with the expectation of being able to obtain two years UK work experience following a successful UK qualification. So his girlfriend returned to Singapore and Michael followed her for the summer of 2012, returning home for his final year at university. They have been apart for over a year now, having only seen each other for two weeks at Christmas. Though the couple will try and meet as often as possible, its not easy as students to fund it. Michaels Masters course is expensive and his girlfriend will also be focusing on a law course in Singapore. The couple has discussed marriage but Michael is 21 and his girlfriend 22, so they dont really want to get married yet. However, even as a married couple they would not be allowed to be together due to the 18,600 requirement. Michael could apply for a high-paying graduate job which would pay over this threshold, however his dream is to pursue a career in journalism, which would require another year of study. A much longed for dream he doesnt want to give up to earn money they dont need. These rules have led to a lot of unnecessary stress in his final year at university; he was even prescribed anti-anxiety medication. Despite this, Michael achieved good grades, but every day is an uphill struggle and he can feel his productivity is not at its peak. Things are not much better for his girlfriend who has had to have counselling in Singapore with her law internship also showing signs of this.
Page | 177
Financial requirements
v28.09
Naila
This government will be remembered as directly and indirectly attacking the most vulnerable in society.
Naila is a British citizen living in Bradford. She got married last year on April 29th and had to wait until she turned 21 to apply for a spouse visa. As she didnt have a job here she moved to Pakistan to live with her husband there, rather than spend the time immediately after her wedding living apart. Naila is British. She was unable to adjust to life in Pakistan the culture, expectations and rights of women are very different to what she is used to. So she returned to the UK. She is now working full time in a newsagent's, and has been doing so for the past three months, but then the rules came in requiring her to earn a salary of 18,600 for at least six months. So now she has wait even longer until she can apply for a visa. Under the new rules her right to live happily with her husband has been taken away from her. It seems to Naila that now, in order for a British person to marry someone from outside the UK, you have to be as rich as the government. Nailas husband is hard working; he owns a sports shop in Pakistan and they intend that when he is in the UK, he will also work very hard here to support Naila. There is no way he will just sit back and do nothing he would not qualify for benefits so thats not an issue either. Naila has been married for nearly 16 months and still has not been able to apply for her husbands visa. The new rules for Naila and others in her position are unrealistic and unachievable. They are just causing pain, misery and heartbreak across our country.
Page | 178
Financial requirements
v28.09
Nick
What a sorry state of affairs when loyal citizens are forced to emigrate just to be with their partners and family.
Nick is a British citizen who can trace his familys roots in the UK back to the 16th century. However, he is considering emigrating just because his partner happens to be from Thailand. He is currently supporting two households one in the UK and the other his partners in Thailand. Their lives are being torn apart by UKs immigration rules in circumstances which are not sustainable. So Nick is now selling everything he has, in order to raise funds for the move to France, where he will be able to be with his partner. This is going to mean Nick abandons the business he has worked so hard to build up over the last five years. He will no longer be paying taxes into the British system. It means he will be forced to leave the country of his birth, his family, his home. Nick sees this as a sorry state of affairs, when loyal citizens are forced to emigrate just to be with their partners and families.
Page | 179
Financial requirements
v28.09
Paul
My life now is just about work, work, work ... and when I have time off, I am too fatigued to do anything but sleep.
Paul, a British citizen, married his partner in May 2012, in the Philippines. She is Filipino and the decision to marry was based on the assumption that having met the visa requirements they would be able to make a life together in the UK. Suddenly though the rules changed, leaving Paul and his wife devastated. The massive increase in the amount Paul had to earn before he could sponsor his wife has made it impossible for them to be together. He works full time in retail and doesnt claim a single penny in benefits. Recently, he changed the branch of the store he worked in to reduce travelling costs, and is taking on as much overtime as possible, including working night shifts. Despite this, however, he cannot meet the income criteria. His life now is just about work, work, work ... and when he has time off, he is too fatigued to do anything but sleep and cope with the relapse of the depression he has suffered from, on and off, for many years. Paul is not asking for handouts, he just wants to be able to live with his wife in the UK. Pauls wife is not entitled to any benefits, so the message being put across in the media by Theresa May that the presence of non-EU spouses would be a drain on the benefits system is intended blatantly to mislead the British public, as their rights are chipped away. Paul does not have a fancy accountant. He has paid his taxes diligently for years. It is Paul and others like him who have contributed to the system, and yet he is being told he cannot be with his wife as they are a threat to the system. MPs get a huge salary, they can claim all manner of household expenses ranging from food and their TV licence, to interest on their mortgage and rent payments (blatant abuse of expense policies) and yet they have the nerve to put restrictions on the lives of ordinary British citizens, and accuse us of being a threat to the British economy?
Page | 180
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 181
Financial requirements
v28.09
Update: Amanda returned to USA in January 2013, and they are working on getting a visa for Phil to move to the USA to live. Its likely it will be another year or so before this couple can live together however. Amanda underwent surgery in March 2013, and Phil was luckily able to be with her then to help her through that. It does however raise the issue that if the situation had been reversed, Amanda would have been unlikely to be there for Phil.
Page | 182
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 183
Financial requirements
v28.09
Rachel has never claimed benefits and has no interest in doing so, either. Both their families are be able to help them out should they find themselves in a difficult situation so no reason why thirdparty support should not count. After three years of going back and forth - though their relationship is more than worth all the travel they have endured they are tired. They want to be able to plan their future but at the moment, in addition to the political instability in Egypt, everything seems so uncertain. At present theyre applying for Ahmeds family visit visa so at least he can come and visit Rachel while she is at university. Rachel considered putting off her studies to go down the Surinder Singh route, but that would pose an unnecessary financial burden without much of a time saving on her completed her degree and going straight into employment. She has however postponed her decision to do a Masters! Political instability in Egypt aside, Rachel needs to be in the UK. Her dad passed away, and she is the only child and grandchild. While the government claim she can exercise her right to a family life with her husband elsewhere, what about her mum and grandmas right to a family life especially when her grandma is not able to travel? It seems to this couple that in their aim to bring down net migration, not only is the government keeping foreigners out of the country, but trying to encourage British citizens to leave too. Rachel and Ahmed married in March 2013. After spending an amazing nine months in Egypt, it's been hard readjusting to life back in the UK without her husband. She barely feels like a newly-wed! She considered staying back in Egypt for the summer, but thought it would be best to come back and work and try to earn as much money as possible to put aside for the future. Ahmed is doing the same in Egypt. It really is demoralising to know that despite the no recourse to public funds, the couple may not be able to start to build their lives together until at least a year from now. It has put pressure on Rachel to find a job immediately after she graduates, which in the current climate of internships and focus on the importance of gaining experience (i.e. an acceptable form of unpaid employment) it is difficult for her to remain optimistic - but it's all they can do in the face of these new rules.
Page | 184
Financial requirements
v28.09
Ravi
As a self-employed person, the rules are even more onerousand time apart from my wife even longer.
Ravi is a British citizen. He married his wife in early 2013, in Mauritius. Like many Brits, Ravi as it turns out, somewhat naively assumed that being a British citizen himself, having his wife with him would be a mere formality. For Ravi, the financial requirement of 18,600 is the stumbling block. He is self-employed and his financial records for the 2012-13 tax year in their current form are unlikely to satisfy UKBA. Allowing for solicitor and application fees in the thousands of pounds, he is of the opinion applying is not a risk worth taking, given the higher than average likelihood of refusal for those who are selfemployed. Ravi is aware he could wait until after submitting the 2013-14 tax year accounts, making sure these would meet with UKBA approval, but that means waiting till April 2014 before he can even apply, plus the UKBA processing time which by all accounts just seems to get longer, and longer. He is considering taking on a salaried/wage paying job paying in excess of the minimum requirement, collating 6 months of payslips and applying then. However, allowing for the time to find a job and then again the application time as well, its also a long time to be apart from his wife. So he has several routes open to him. Another route he is considering is Surinder Singh. He has a birthday later in the year and hopes he can have his wife with him then so this resort of self-exile is the most appealing to minimise time apart, inconvenience and cost. A route to self-exile is the only route the government has not been able to close.
Page | 185
Financial requirements
v28.09
Rhys &Natacha
All we want is the opportunity to live together; we are a family, even if it is just the two of us.
Rhys is a British citizen, and Natacha, Canadian; together they are common law partners. They met whilst Natacha was studying in England as part of her undergraduate university degree; now they are both in Canada, Rhys is working there. Four years later, they are trying to figure out a way they can stay together in the UK to be close to Rhyss family, who are desperate to have them move back here. Rhys has a Bachelors degree in Fine Arts and is working full time in Canada, whilst Natacha is completing a Masters degree in Sociology from Queens University. Of the two of them, Natacha has the greater earning potential; however, under the new rules, Rhys must be earning 18,600 for at least six months before his wife can join him, regardless of the fact that Natacha might earn much more. Indeed, Natacha was accepted by the University of Birmingham with a full fees bursary worth $20,000. If a leading British university sees Natacha as someone worth paying to have her in the UK, why does the British government see her as a burden? It strikes them as bizarre that Natachas earnings in the UK, and hence her taxes, are completely discounted, as is any help from their family. If the aim of the policy is to reduce the burden on the state, why not let Natachas earnings be counted too? Why not let them show they wont be a burden on the state? Why not have requirements such as mandating private healthcare cover from migrants? This would boost the healthcare system and UK companies, whilst reducing the reliance on the NHS. Their view is that if the issue is about migrants being a burden on the system, then restrictions should be placed on work permits, rather than on British citizens wishing to live with their family. Rhys and Natacha are pleading with this government to understand and appreciate the difficulties these new rules are producing. All they want is the opportunity to live permanently together; they are a family, even if it is just the two of them.
Page | 186
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 187
Financial requirements
v28.09
Rob
They rejected the spouse application because of a technicality, knowing I would not meet the income criteria under the new rules, in yet another attempt to extort more money.
Rob is a professional British musician, with a first class degree in music. He has taught music and performed at concerts. Rob has an eight-year-old son and lives in a detached house in Huddersfield. He worked hard for everything he has without help from the state. However, Rob is not rich. Rob fell in love with an Indonesian woman, and married her. They believe they are each others soul mate. They made vows to each other, with God as their witness, to be together, for richer and poorer. Rob is a standard Brit, never having needed to worry about the UK immigration system. In battling for a spouse visa application, however, he realised how bureaucratic the process is, and indeed how unfair and weighted towards the rich it is, given the application fees. Rob and his wife applied for a spouse visa on June 26th, weeks before what he terms the ethnic cleansing type rules came in. They submitted accounts for three years (he is self-employed not rich but better off than many), bank statements, originals and copies, everything as requested ... no stone was left unturned. For over two months, the message from the Embassy was Application under process at the British Embassy, and then, in early September, they received an email asking her to take a SELT English test. The message in the email indicated that if she did not submit this within seven days her visa would be rejected. Despite the short notice, the managed it and this was submitted on time as well. About a month later, they received a message saying the application was ready for collection; however, it was refused because of the English test. This struck Rob as bizarre as his wifes English is fantastic. Delving further into it, the authorities said she had passed the reading, writing and listening requirements but had not submitted the speaking part. Although they put in an appeal, called a lawyer and asked what to do, they were advised that the appeal would probably be rejected; and applying for a new visa would fall under the new rules requiring submission of another 900 fee. Rob was bemused - the authorities could have said, ..your application is ok, but you need to do the speaking test, we'll give you another week? Instead they rejected the application due to a technicality, knowing Rob would be unlikely to meet the income criteria, in an attempt to extort more money. Robs uncle fought in Burma in WW2, fighting the Japanese for the UK. He himself has worked hard and paid his taxes. His great uncle was just a name tag when he came back from France in WW1. His great grandfather died from the repercussions of WWI, also fighting for the UK. Is this the UK that his family went to war for? Rob now very much has to come to terms with the fact that he will need to sell his house in the UK and relocate himself and his son to Indonesia. Another plus towards the immigration target but another loss for Britain, our economy and our people.
Page | 188
Financial requirements
v28.09
Rob (USA)
Although not affected yet, I fear I wont be allowed to be with my girlfriend. I cant leave my three daughters in the UK
Rob is a British citizen living in Torquay, Devon. Although he is yet to be affected by the new immigration rules, he anticipates it being an issue for him and his girlfriend, from Oklahoma, USA. It is an issue that is already affecting Robs ex-wife. Theyve only been going out a few months, but are considering their future in the event the relationship, as they anticipate it to be, becomes more serious. However it hasnt been plain sailing to date either. Already they have had their brush with UKBA, who refused Robs girlfriend entry for the three months visit they had planned; instead they only got three days together - sadly something for which they consider themselves lucky, despite the disappointment. Rob is a single dad with three daughters, two of who live with him full-time and another he sees a couple of nights a week and every other weekend. He works for a charity, a noble employer and earns below the 18,600 threshold required for the sponsorship of a visa in the event he were to marry his girlfriend. He is lucky in the respect that he has a family locally who help out with childcare. It allows him to save up for him and his girlfriend to meet each other again. Rob has considered asking for a pay rise, but is hesitant only because he has been working for his employer less than a year. The pay rise he would need to earn the magic 18,600 is 75 pence an hour. Less than 1. Rob is aware that his ex-wife is in an even worse situation. She is self-employed, earns very little and is currently claiming benefits. Her partner also lives in the USA (in Maryland) but being in the financial sector, has the potential for earning a comfortable income to support them both. The daughter who lives with them both is aged 7 and has learning disabilities and speech problems. She is a happy little girl but sometimes finds it hard to communicate and is at the sort of level of a much younger child. She adores both Robs girlfriend and her mums partner Rob tells her that both her mummy's partner and his girlfriend are living in America for now but hopefully will be able to move over soon. At the moment Rob and his girlfriend have good and bad days; they keep in touch via Skype and email and when they can, speak for hours. Robs girlfriend doesnt have the same ties to America which Rob has here; they are not in a long distance relationship by choice.
Page | 189
Financial requirements
v28.09
Rudi
Splitting up my family is not an option.
Rudi is a British citizen. As her husband is Jamaican, Rudi is finding the path to return home is paved with thorns. Rudi is currently living in Jamaica with her husband as immigration rules dont allow her to live with him in UK.
However, since receiving the news that they are expecting a baby, Rudi despite all the happiness, joy and love she is feeling, is also very stressed.
She really wants their baby to be born and raised in the way she has been, in the UK. To offer it the best that she can.
Looking into the current rules though, she is finding it impossible that shell ever be able to return home. Living in Jamaica she doesnt have a job in the UK. Finding a job here from another country makes it hard enough to get an interview at the best of times, but when youre pregnant its nigh impossible. Rudi is facing a horrible choice. She doesnt want her baby to stay in Jamaica while she job-hunts and then works in the UK. Nor does she want to end up being a single parent for months on end while she works in the UK with her baby to look after, and her husband in Jamaica. Rudis parents have offered to support them financially. They have also offered them accommodation in their huge house. Yet this family is being faced with a choice of exile or separation. Rudi however is adamant. Splitting up the family is not an option, nor should it be one that family is forced to make.
Page | 190
Financial requirements
v28.09
Ruth
We live a simple life, yet I am being kicked out of my own country
Ruth is a British citizen who earlier in 2012, married a citizen of Australia. Ruth and her husband are both volunteers with a Christian charity in the UK and neither of them individually earns 18,600. They live a basic lifestyle and dont feel the need to earn a high salary for material possessions, which they neither need, nor want. They have no reason to claim benefits, given what they have themselves, and the additional support they receive from the church and their family. Theyre married, and they dont want to be apart. They work as volunteers is there any better way to be contributing to your community? So Ruth feels like she is being kicked out of her own country. A couple who isnt crazy about the latest gadgets, or having the best house, or designer goods. A couple who because of these rules have endured endless upset, stress, sleepless nights and fear, for what the future will bring. A couple who because of these rules is being forced out of a country they contribute to, selflessly. Update: BritCits is sad to report that Ruth and her husband have decided to give up their fight to remain in her home country. They are planning to move to Australia and are in the process of completing the Australian visa application for Ruth. Australia will welcome with open arms a couple dedicated to helping others in their community, rather than chasing after money.
Page | 191
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 192
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 193
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 194
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 195
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 196
Financial requirements
v28.09
Sierra
The message we are getting from the UK government is that we are not rich enough to love.
Sierra is a British citizen married to a citizen of the USA, and they are aged 21 and 25. They got married after two years together, in the UK, and then the world of immigration horror opened up to them. They believed that, being married, they would not be kept apart whilst arranging her husbands work visa. They were wrong. Sierras husband became an overstayer on 2 July this year. They learnt that they would have to spend 1,500 on application forms, and on a lawyer's fees, to help them through this maze, applying for his Discretionary Leave to Remain. As a legal secretary, Sierra earns 12,500 a year, with her savings having been spent flying back and forth between the USA and the UK, and for the visa process. Sierra has never claimed benefits. As her husband is an overstayer, any potential application is likely to be declined. What however is this couple supposed to do? They saved up 1,500 for the application only now to be told, No, its not good enough, youre not rich enough to be in love. They are however lucky to have family members who have always been willing to help, monetarily, but now the rules even disallow co-sponsorship. They have nowhere to turn! Sierra is terrified that she is going to get a knock on the door in the middle of the night and be forced to spend months or even years apart until she is able to earn 18,600, or whatever the new higher income threshold might be. She feels desperate and that she is being punished for being in love, for daring to get married whilst being young and poor, despite not being on benefits. These new laws put a price on love and they are disgusting; they are inhuman and carry no respect for the sanctity of marriage. Theresa May should be thoroughly ashamed of herself for abusing her power and misrepresenting British citizens.
Page | 197
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 198
Financial requirements
v28.09
Steven
Steven is a British citizen. His partner is from Australia, where they are currently living together. Steven wishes to move back to the UK as his father was very ill last year, and his grandparents are very elderly. He wishes to spend more time with them, as now they need him more, in their old age. Steven is currently in the UK trying to find work to get a visa for his partner. However, he is struggling to find anything paying above 18,600. He is aware that in order to live in the UK to be here for his family, he will have to live apart from his partner for a year or so. Else, live in permanent exile. This is not the way a country should treat its own citizens.
Page | 199
Financial requirements
v28.09
Suzanne
UK puts a price tag on love
Suzanne is British, with a fiance from the USA, living in the north-east of England. Theyve been together for nearly three years and planned to marry this year. Suzanne earns 16,600. She earns less than 18,600, a salary she is unlikely to earn for a long time, because the average wages in northern England are lower than in the rest of the country. Their only recourse is to try and save up over 20,000 in cash a figure the government has plucked out of thin air, to make up for the 2,000 income deficit from the 18,600 per annum salary requirement. An amount that will take years to save, if ever. Suzanne cannot move to the US because the American government does not recognise same-sex unions. So, their lives are on hold, and their right to a private life is held in check by two countries with equally discriminatory laws. UK puts a price tag on love, and America has a gender requirement. Since they have no idea when they will be able to be together, the separation is slowing chipping away at their sanity as they struggle to stay on track; relationships are hard enough to maintain at the best of times. However, enforced distance results in additional frustrations, distress and depression.
Page | 200
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 201
Financial requirements
v28.09
However because of these immigration rules the couple is having to start over in their late 40s a time when most people are able to be settled and comfortable with their family. The move to Ireland has not been plain sailing. They had trouble sorting out accommodation, dealing with the different laws there around rentals and letting fees. Pressure to find a job meant effectively taking the first thing on offer, even where for Tracey this has meant a job engaging in laborious work. For Tracey, leaving the UK and her elderly parents was especially heart wrenching. But its a means to an end for a couple who just want to be able to live together. Though this entire process has been difficult and traumatic the couple persevered; they are grateful that EU rules allow them to be together even where their own country has tried its best to keep them apart. It is ironic that now not only has the UK lost Traceys taxes, and those that Gary would have paid had he been allowed to work, but also that when they return to the UK they will both qualify for benefits. Although not so inclined, given their savings have been spent on the move to Ireland, they may well need to until new jobs are found. It's very hard for Tracey and Gary not to end up feeling completely cynical and embittered. One can't help who one falls in love with, and its perfectly reasonable to want to spend your life with them. Its hard to believe that the UK makes that sometimes seem an impossible wish.
Page | 202
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 203
Financial requirements
v28.09
Page | 204
Financial requirements
v28.09
Useful links
Our website: www.BritCits.com BritCits expresses its gratitude to fellow campaigners under the Divided Families umbrella: APPG on migration: http://www.appgmigration.org.uk/family-inquiry Family Immigration Alliance FIA - http://familyimmigrationalliance.wordpress.com/ Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants JCWI - http://www.jcwi.org.uk/ Migrants Right Network - MRN - http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/ Migrants Rights Scotland - http://migrantsrightsscotland.org.uk/ Meetups: Regular meetings are organised by us, our members and other migrant groups which readers may benefit from attending. These are also scheduled online and members are urged to register at the following website for details of future events: www.meetup.com/BritCits
Index
Afghanistan ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Albania ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 95 Argentina................................................................................................................................................................................................ 153, 163 Australia........................................................................................................................................................................... 24, 131, 156, 191, 199 Bolivia ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 132 Brazil.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 114, 135, 155 Canada ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 67, 139, 141, 186 Chile ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 36, 58, 195 China........................................................................................................................................................................................ 14, 32, 83, 86, 99 Colombia .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 46, 117, 120 Egypt ................................................................................................................................................. 54, 101, 108, 118, 147, 164, 175, 183, 192 Fiji................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 137 Gabon.............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 97 Guyana ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 15 Hong Kong ...............................................................................................................................................................................................55, 140 India ............................................................................................................................................................................... 9, 16, 18, 20, 26, 29, 74 Indonesia .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 37, 148, 188 Iran ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 121 Jamaica ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 190 Japan.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 30, 73, 109, 198 Kenya ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 43, 79, 169 Malaysia........................................................................................................................................................................................... 69, 152, 177 Mauritius ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 185 Mexico ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 134 Morocco ....................................................................................................................................................................... 42, 48, 60, 102, 168, 181 New Zealand ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 125 Nigeria .....................................................................................................................................................................................................41, 173 Pakistan............................................................................................................................................................................ 21, 129, 133, 172, 178 Philippines ................................................................................................................................................................. 61, 85, 138, 143, 180, 203 Russia ................................................................................................................................................................................... 12, 19, 40, 115, 119 Singapore ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 176 South Africa.................................................................................................................................................. 17, 75, 81, 127, 130, 157, 159, 160 Sri Lanka ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Syria .........................................................................................................................................................................................................77, 106 Thailand ................................................................................................................................................................... 51, 53, 70, 71, 89, 136, 179 Tunisia ................................................................................................................................................................... 105, 123, 124, 151, 162, 193 Turkey .................................................................................................................................................................................... 65, 68, 93, 94, 144 Ukraine .............................................................................................................................................................................. 11, 27, 112, 146, 174 USA ....................... 34, 38, 44, 50, 56, 63, 82, 84, 87, 91, 103, 111, 150, 158, 161, 166, 170, 171, 182, 187, 189, 194, 196, 197, 200, 201, 204 Yemen .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 57
Page | 205
v28.09