Latest news with #familymigration
Times
03-06-2025
- General
- Times
Third of granted asylum claims are deemed ‘exceptional' by judges
Judges are granting 'exceptional' asylum claims in a third of cases, it has been revealed, after murderers and paedophiles were allowed to stay in Britain due to their right to a family life. Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, said the 'system around family migration has become so complex' that courts were now applying human rights guarantees to a 'much broader proportion' of claims. She said: 'The proportion of decisions being taken as exceptional — often under interpretations around the [European Convention on Human Rights], around Article 8 — end up being about 30 per cent of the cases. That is not exceptional, that is a much broader proportion.' Among those using Article 8 of the convention to stay in Britain in recent months were a paedophile convicted of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter and an Albanian wanted for murder in his home country. Cooper said the government would instead bring in 'a clear framework set out by parliament that then can be much easier for the courts to interpret'. Plans to tighten the rules around exceptional circumstances were revealed last month in the government's immigration white paper but it is the first time the home secretary has revealed how many cases hinged on the rule. The Times previously reported on an Albanian burglar who snuck back into the UK after being deported winning his case to remain by invoking Article 8. In March, judges decided that another Albanian criminal jailed for more than three years for running a cannabis factory would not be deported as it would deprive his daughter of a 'male role model'. In another case, a woman's deportation to Grenada was delayed after she argued that her husband did not like Caribbean food and would struggle with the heat. Ministers announced changes last month that would prevent judges blocking the Home Office from deporting foreign criminals and failed asylum seekers. The government will provide judges with a tighter legal definition of what constitutes 'exceptional circumstances' when deciding whether to overturn Home Office decisions to deport foreign criminals or reject an asylum seeker's application. Multiple countries have launched a fresh push for reform of the ECHR amid concerns the European Court is extending its interpretation of the convention too far, such as in its last-minute injunction to block the UK government from deporting migrants to Rwanda in June 2022. Nine European leaders wrote an open letter calling for 'a new and open-minded conversation' about the interpretation of the ECHR. They called for the 46 signatories of the ECHR to back plans to 'restore the right balance' between human rights and the nations' ability to control immigration. Britain was not among the countries calling for reform, despite Lord Hermer, the attorney general, signalling that the government was open to change. Instead it was signed by the leaders of Italy, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Cooper told the home affairs select committee that remaining in international agreements such as the ECHR had led to Britain being able to reach deals with Germany and France to help tackle illegal immigration. However, she added: 'We also need to look at the way in which laws are being interpreted. So, as we put in the immigration white paper, there are areas, for example, where the system around family migration has become so complex.' Critics of the ECHR have warned that it is being increasingly exploited by migrants who wish to stay in Britain. In other cases, a Gazan family was granted the right to live in the UK after applying through the Ukraine Family Scheme. Their application was initially rejected but their appeal was granted after the judge concluded that the decision interfered with their right to a family life. In another instance, an Albanian criminal's deportation from Britain was halted over his son's distaste for foreign chicken nuggets. An immigration tribunal ruled that it would be 'unduly harsh' for the ten-year-old boy to be forced to move to Albania with his father due to his picky eating, according to court documents quoted by the Daily Telegraph. The judge allowed the father's appeal against deportation as a breach of his right to a family life under the ECHR, citing the impact his removal might have on the son. Sir Keir Starmer, the prime minister, has previously said he wanted to ensure the 'right balance' was struck in migration cases in relation to the national interest. 'There's a balance set out in legislation already that needs to be adjusted, in my view, and that's what we will do,' he said. However, he also said he did not think it was necessary to leave the ECHR to continue a crackdown on immigration, as being signed up to international agreements provided a basis for deals with other countries on migration.
The Independent
08-05-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
New immigration rules accused of splitting up families
Britons on low incomes are being forced to live apart from their families because of new immigration rules that rate their marriages as "second class", campaigners say. New Home Office regulations that have been in force since July mean millions of people earning less than £18,600 are unable to get visas for partners from non-EU countries. Since the changes, thousands of British citizens who previously would have been granted a spousal visa are forced to choose between ending their relationship, splitting up their family or attempting to live abroad. The income threshold is above average earnings in parts of the country, including the north-east. Immigrants' rights groups claims the new rules have created a two-tier system that rates the marriages of wealthy people higher than those of the less well-off. Don Flynn, director of the Migrants' Rights Network said: "Being able to start a family in your own country should not be subject to the amount of money somebody earns." "These measures create a two-tier system: those who are rich enough to live with whom they choose and those deemed to be too poor to live with somebody from abroad." Next week a group of cross-party MPs and peers will launch an inquiry, chaired by shadow Equality Minister Kate Green into the impact of the new family migration rules. Speaking to The Independent ahead of the launch, Ms Green said: "Women, young people, people with disabilities will find its harder to meet this threshold and find it harder to bring in family members. We want to look at what the impact is on families and on community integration." A UK Border Agency spokesperson said: "To play a full part in British life, family migrants must be able to integrate – that means they must speak our language and pay their way. This is fair to applicants, but also fair to the public. "British citizens can enter into a relationship with whomever they choose but if they want to establish their family life here, they must do so in a way which works in the best interests of our society." Case Studies: 'A price on love' 'We just want to be ministers together' Ashley, 30, and Teya, 22 I met my wife, who is from Georgia, while training to become a minister in the Salvation Army. We got married in June, weeks before the visa changes. Teya is here on a religious worker's visa, helping me run a community church in Addlestone. When that expires she'll have to leave the country unless we meet the new requirements. I get about £7,000, along with accommodation, as part of my commitment to the church, but the new guidelines don't take that into account. It may not seem like much, but it's enough to live on. We just want to be ministers together serving our community. Every person should have the right to live with the person they love. "A lot of people don't need £18,600 to live" Keith Thomas, 68, and Barbara Riley, 65 I met my fiancée on a pen-pal site 18 months ago. I wasn't looking for romance, but she came from America we realised we were in love and wanted to spend our lives together. The problem with the £18,600 threshold is that a lot of people don't need that much to live. We have about £1,200 a month between us and it's enough. I dread to think about if the law doesn't change. "This approach puts a price on love" Les Hudson, 43 and Becky Hudson, 33 I met Becky in 2008, while she was studying. We got married this year. Under the old rules we would have been successful. But I think we'll have to move to America when Becky's visa runs out in November. I have a daughter – if I'm forced to leave the UK the chances of keeping that relationship is slim. I feel I would have to either abandon my daughter, or abandon my wife. This approach puts a price on love.
The Independent
08-05-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Family immigration rules that put a £18,600-a-year price tag on love are 'heartbreaking'
When Ashley, a minister in the Salvation Army, and his Georgian wife, Teya, returned from their honeymoon in July last year, they were looking forward to a new life together serving their local community in Addlestone, Surrey. Little did they know that changes to family migration rules – put into place just three days before their return – had put an £18,600 price tag on love. Despite having a house and car provided by the church, Ashley's annual salary of £7,000 was deemed too low for him to get a spouse visa for his foreign wife. The controversial changes now require British citizens wishing to sponsor a non-EU spouse to show minimum earnings of £18,600 a year, despite the fact that more than half the working population in the UK earn less than that. Forced by the UK Border Agency to choose between a life abroad and a life apart, the couple left for Dublin. Theirs is just one of hundreds of moving stories heard by a cross-party inquiry into the devastating impact of the new family migration rules brought into force in July last year. In its report, published today, the cross-party group urges the Government to reconsider the changes, which could continue to affect up to 17,800 British people each year, splitting up countless families as a result. Speaking to The Independent, Ashley described their dilemma as "heartbreaking". "The only reason we're moving is because of immigration policy," he said. "If it wasn't for that, we'd be staying in Addlestone and our community would have the same leaders. People were pretty upset when we told them we were going and were surprised and shocked by the reasons we gave." As well as creating a two-tier, rich-and-poor immigration system, the changes are separating young children from their parents. Among the cases heard by the MPs was that of a breast-feeding mother who was separated from her baby. Baroness Hamwee, chair of the inquiry and a Liberal Democrat spokeswoman on home affairs in the House of Lords, said: "We were struck by the evidence showing just how many British people have been kept apart from partners, children and elderly relatives. These rules are causing anguish for families and, counter to their original objectives, may actually be costing the public purse. "We urge the Government to look again at the rules and consider whether they represent the right balance between concerns about immigration management and public expenditure, and the rights of British citizens to live with their families in the UK." The Labour MP Virendra Sharma, who was born in India, said: "The Government has set the bar for family migration too high, in pursuit of lower net migration levels. These new rules are keeping hard-working, ordinary families apart. I, and others like me, would not have been able to come to the UK to join my family if these rules had been in place then. Today we are calling on the Government to think again." The report's findings were also welcomed by the Migrants' Rights Network. Ruth Grove-White, its policy director, said: "This now shows just how damaging the rules are to families. Being able to start a family in your own country should not be subject to the amount of money you make." For Ashley, who was offered a lifeline only when the Salvation Army agreed to move the couple to Dublin, any future changes will have come too late. "We've planned to move now and we have to focus on that," he said. "But I worry for other people who don't have these options. I hope it will change for everyone else affected."
