Family Reunification, the Minimum Income Requirements and the Welfare Myth

The minimum income requirements (MIR) have led to the separation of tens of thousands of families. Although often criticised, there has been an absence of scrutiny of the MIR's central justification that it restricts access to welfare benefits. This paper shows that this justification, accepted by the Supreme Court in MM, was based on ignoring the limited social security entitlement of families where one partner is subject to immigration control. The highly deferential approach adopted by the Supreme Court which failed to even ‘anxiously scrutinise' the MIR is criticised, along with the absurd consequences of its ‘compromise' in allowing third party support in some circumstances. The relationship between the MIR and the Immigration Act 2014 following the case of Rhuppiah is also discussed, with it shown that many families affected by the MIR are ‘financially independent' and not caught by s117B(3). It is argued that MM was wrongly decided and that there are strong reasons for the decision to be revisited, particularly since the introduction of Universal Credit. For now, there is no justification for immigration tribunals to uphold the MIR in cases where the partner of a British citizen or other sponsor, earning the minimum wage or above, has applied for leave to enter or further leave to remain