MM and Others vs. the Secretary of State
Feb 28th 2016, 2:56 pm
#1
WhiteRabbit
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,480
MM and Others vs. the Secretary of State
Update (and brief refresher) for those of you following this issue.
The third round of the legal challenge to the July 2012 rules was heard in the UK Supreme Court last week.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0011.html
Here's the case facts with the last two sentences briefly describing the victory for the appellants in the Upper Tribunal, and the subsequent overturning of that decision in the High Court.
Under previous Immigration Rules, such a couple applying for permission for the non-EEA partner to reside in the UK had to demonstrate that they could maintain themselves adequately without recourse to public funds. From 9 July 2012 new MIR were introduced whereby the UK partner must have a gross annual income of at least £18,600. The appellants challenge the lawfulness of the MIR. AM and SJ are British citizens who cannot meet the MIR in order to bring their non-EEA spouses to the UK. MM is a refugee resident in the UK who is similarly unable to satisfy the MIR. AF is MM’s nephew. At first instance Blake J held that the MIR constituted an unjustified interference with affected couples' art. 8 rights. His decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal.
A decision is not expected until late Summer.
The third round of the legal challenge to the July 2012 rules was heard in the UK Supreme Court last week.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0011.html
Here's the case facts with the last two sentences briefly describing the victory for the appellants in the Upper Tribunal, and the subsequent overturning of that decision in the High Court.
Under previous Immigration Rules, such a couple applying for permission for the non-EEA partner to reside in the UK had to demonstrate that they could maintain themselves adequately without recourse to public funds. From 9 July 2012 new MIR were introduced whereby the UK partner must have a gross annual income of at least £18,600. The appellants challenge the lawfulness of the MIR. AM and SJ are British citizens who cannot meet the MIR in order to bring their non-EEA spouses to the UK. MM is a refugee resident in the UK who is similarly unable to satisfy the MIR. AF is MM’s nephew. At first instance Blake J held that the MIR constituted an unjustified interference with affected couples' art. 8 rights. His decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal.
A decision is not expected until late Summer.
