The UK government’s increase in minimum salary thresholds designed to cut down immigration could be challenged in the High Court on the grounds that it is separating children from their parents and discriminates against women and minorities.
The minimum income requirement was hiked in April so that anyone applying for a visa to bring a family member from overseas must earn £29,000 a year, which will increase to £38,700 next year.
Pressure group Reunite Families UK filed for a judicial review this week arguing that the measure was contrary to the UN convention on the rights of the child. The claim will question whether there was a sound legal basis for the increase and whether the decision was taken in line with official Whitehall advice.
Family visa salary
Conservatives propose annual cap on work visas
Labour’s shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said at the time the new threshold was announced, in December 2023, that ministers had failed to consult properly on the new threshold.
However, Labour now says it broadly supports the government policy on cutting legal immigration, putting the emphasis on growing skills within the UK.
RFUK claimed the new income threshold breaches the Equality Act because it would have a disproportionate impact on women, ethnic minority groups, and young people.
The interim requirement of £29,000 has already been blamed for splitting couples of different nationalities and forcing families to separate. But once raised to £38,700 it will surpass the average median UK salary of about £35,000 so most of the UK’s population would not be able to live in the UK with foreign spouses and children.
With children being separated from a parent living abroad, Reunite Families UK lawyers will claim that the policy breaches home secretary James Cleverley’s legal obligations because his role is party to article 3 of the UN convention on the rights of the child, which stipulates that parents and children should have “direct contact on a regular basis”.
Leigh Day partner Tessa Gregory, who represents RFUK, said: “Our client is appalled that a decision of such import appears to have been taken by the home secretary in such a cavalier manner: without proper analysis; and in breach of critical public law duties such as assessing the impact of the decision on protected groups.”
Meanwhile, the civil service union FDA’s legal challenge relating to the relationship of the Civil Service Code with the UK government’s Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 is today being heard at the Royal Courts of Justice. No decision has yet been announced.
Latest HR job opportunities on Personnel Today
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Browse more human resources jobs
