The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court struck down the new immigration reforms introduced by the Home Office on the grounds that the reforms were not properly debated in the country’s parliament. The Home Office has assured of its immediate actions to fulfill the judgment requirements
The ruling came in the verdict of the case of a Pakistani migrant, Hussain Zulfiquar Alvi, yesterday, case reference Alvi  UKSC 33.
The UK Home Office had recently announced certain reforms in the immigration rules of the country, particularly those related to minimum income threshold necessary for any UK citizen or permanent settler to bring their families or partners to Britain. These reforms had taken affect just over a week ago and cases started flooding in.
The Home Secretary, Theresa May, has faced defeat from the court on previous occasions as well. Her adjustments to the minimum income threshold had also been reviewed by the court. Also her approach on gathering parliaments support for changing the impact and incident of the Human Rights regulations on the immigration law was questioned.
But this new development has made the government vulnerable to several legal challenges, not only from family migrants, but from the whole migrant community.
The changes that were questioned by the Court were made to the minimum income threshold for British citizens or settled persons to bring their families or domestic partners to the UK. The threshold was increased to 18,600 pounds per annum if a person wants to bring their spouse/domestic partner/fiancé’/proposed civil partner to the UK. It would rise to 22,400 pounds if the spouse was to be accompanied by a child and further 2,400 pounds for each additional child. The reforms had clarified that the income should be exclusively of the British citizen/settler.
Moreover, the probationary period was increased from 2 years to 5 years. Now this adjustment had caused much concern for the victims of domestic abuse, as they now would have to bear it for a further 3 years if they want to stay in the country.
While these reforms were being announced, an MP took the liberty to ask the Home Secretary if the Home Office had considered the full proportion of the impact and the consequences of these reforms, the Secretary gave no definitive response to him.
All the same, the impact assessment that accompanied the reforms indirectly gave the question a negative response.
The presumption that the impact of these reforms would have been only concentrated on the migrants is inaccurate, as many British citizens will also be vulnerable to its affects.