BritCits Divided Family of the Week - Rachel & Ahmed

“We haven’t applied for a spouse visa yet.  The new rules have left us fearful and in a kind of limbo.”

Rachel is a 23 year old British citizen, a university student reading Arabic and Art History.  She is married to Ahmed, from Egypt. 

As part of her degree Rachel had the option of spending a year abroad in Egypt, Palestine or Jordan.  She opted for Egypt as three years previously she had visited Cairo to assess the suitability of her degree, where she met Ahmed during a flat search.

After Rachel left Egypt they kept in touch via Skype and three months later, she was visiting him in Egypt once again. Three months after that, he came to stay with Rachel and her family in Cornwall for Christmas.  Since then, they haven't gone for longer than 3 months without seeing each other, be it in Cairo, during term-time in London or with Rachel’s family in Cornwall.  

When they got engaged, they planned to marry during Rachel’s year abroad because a lot of her friends from university would be able to attend and balance out Ahmed’s big family at the wedding!

Rachel had heard about some new changes to the rules at the time, but didn't really think anything of it – she assumed it would be higher application fees or the like.  She never expected they would raise the income threshold to £18,600 p.a. and restrict financial support.  Indeed, a friend who had married an Egyptian was allowed to have her parents as providers of third party support for his visa (this was before July 2012).   As they knew Rachel would have her final year at university to complete, Rachel was also relying on her parents to do the same (and they were happy to), with Ahmed staying with Rachel during her last year in London.

Rachel is on course for a first-class degree and fairly confident of her earning potential after she graduates – however she firmly believes it should not just be her capacity to work and earn a decent salary which should count.  She finds it frustrating that neither the spouse's earning potential nor his financial situation are taken into account.  

If the government is so keen to ensure no burden on taxpayer, then given Ahmed will already have a clear ‘no recourse to public funds’ in his passport – surely it’s his financials which should be taken into account?  The same company that Ahmed works for in Egypt are currently advertising for the same job in England, with an annual salary of £36,000 - this is obviously much, much higher than the company pays their employees in Egypt.

Ahmed is qualified, has a good command of English and therefore good job prospects, which would be of great help to Rachel as a final year university student, in terms of rent and other expenses which Ahmed would help out with.

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 third-party 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 they’re applying for Ahmed’s 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 grandma’s 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.

Daniel & Rachel - Featured Family

"Home Office treats self-employment income like it's not legitimate, requiring submission of non-existent documentation!"

Daniel is a British citizen.  He met Rachel, from the USA in 2009 online. "He had me at 'bats in Honduras," Rachel will say, if asked how their romance started.  

Daniel owns and operates his own cleaning business, works at a health-food store as well and does odd-jobs self-employed on the side. Through this effort, he satisfies the income requirement of £18,600 for both the fiancée visa and the subsequent FLR(M) visa to follow, as the partner of a British person. 

They applied for the fiancée visa in 2012, but were horrified to receive a letter telling them that it was denied for reasons that even now remain unclear. They enlisted a solicitor and, upon appeal, the visa was granted with the same documentation that was provided as part of the original application. Thinking their troubles were over, they put the event behind them and were married in April 2013.

In June 2013, the couple applied for FLR(M) visa.  They used the same solicitor as they had for the fiancée visa, effectively repeating the process.  They even used the same accountant to provide evidence of income.  Eager to get on with their lives, they opted to pay the extra fees for Premium service.

It didn't go according to plan. Despite having the right to exercise judgement, the officer interviewing them refused to accept the credentials of the accountant who had prepared their Statement of Income and Taxes because it wasn't "certified".  They were told that they had ten days to have a "proper" accountant review the financials, obtain payslips (including one which had not yet been received or issued!).  They were assured that they still maintained their "priority" status given they had paid for the Premium service.

Frantic, Rachel and Daniel called every accounting firm in the town they live in, searching for someone who would be willing to complete the daunting task of reviewing two years of financials in 10 days.  Thankfully, there was someone benevolent enough to take on the challenge. This certified accountant, upon interviewing was puzzled as to why the officer had rejected their documentation, saying “The way your accountant did this is exactly the same way that any accountant would prepare your documents.  Accountants do not know Immigration law”.  This certified accountant pointed out that even the guidance information for the visa didn't state that they had to be prepared any differently.

Frustrated but grateful the accountant did his best to address the concerns of the officer, they mailed back the requested documentation seven days later. Then the waiting started; they heard nothing, saw nothing, until a month later when a letter arrived through the post, informing them their “outstanding” documentation was received, and that the fiancée visa was effective until a decision was made.

The couple believe the complexity arises because Daniel has three sources of income and UK Home Office does not even flirt with the same rules HMRC does in calculating income.  All of this is made worse by the Home Office treating self-employment income almost like it's not legitimate earnings by requiring documentation that doesn't even exist to prove that it is "real"!

Three months after application, the couple who paid for Premium service have still not heard anything from the Home Office about their application.   

Update:

At the end of October 2013, Daniel and Rachel received a letter from the Home Office.   Despite the fact that they have provided clear evidence to show Daniel earns over £18,600, the Home Office has said their application is on hold indefinitely, because they do not meet the financial requirements of an annual salary of £18,600.  The Home Office was however generous enough to offer Rachel the option of withdrawing her application and losing her application fees.

This couple is now stuck in limbo only because the Home Office does not appear to have staff who can read an Accountant’s Statement of Income. 

They will be working with their solicitor to see how best to proceed with this. Home Office rather than actually reading the documents submitted, thought it easier to put them in the ‘delay’ pile.

Daniel is reasonably confident the courts will stand by their original verdict in regards to the Income Requirement ruling and at least, while their application is on hold the couple gets to remain together as it was an in-country application.  However it’s very frustrating for Rachel to not be able to do anything or go anywhere; to be unable to make any sort of contribution to society or even partake in any activity.

Update 2

Daniel and Rachel were put on hold for not meeting the income requirements according to the Home Office, despite HMRC, Certified Public Accountants and bank statements showing otherwise, pending the result of the MM case. 

Rachel and Daniel grew increasingly worried as the days, weeks, and months passed without any word.  After that awful Court of Appeal judgment on the MM case, the couple was prepared for the worst and had begun the process to re-settle in the USA.

Much to their surprise however, in October 2014, they learned that Rachel's visa had been approved (begging the question why the MM case was used as an excuse to put their application on hold pending the judgment given the lack of relevance).  It couldn't have come at a better time, as the couple are also expecting the birth of their first child.